DanMP

Not in the second video, posted here. My recommendation was made for that arrangement, as you can see here.

I don't think so. You can easily check this with your current configuration (without the tube blocked/sealed) if you put something that creates smoke (a cigar maybe) instead of that paper. The smoke would enter the tube in the center, along the rotation axis, where the air has a low presure, and exit near the walls, were the air/smoke is pushed by the centrifugal force (the rotation creates a vortex). Still, I recommend the wooden board I mentioned above, in order to block both air and electrostatic forces (if any). Gravity is not blocked by wood.

Just put a wooden board between the black tube and the paper. Air flow and electrostatic pull should be stopped or diminished while the gravitational pull should remain the same. Do that and then come back. Otherwise it is just wasting of our time.

Please elaborate about what I underlined. Maybe you have a link ...

I like your way of thinking (although an object that emits light does not require an external excitation to be seen ...), but I'm not sure that your assertion is really different from the Copenhagen interpretation. The "photon (or whatever)" may originate from the equipment/setup we use in order to observe ...

No, according to Wikipedia: The instances when the plane is passing the tower are, in this scenario, the "two" events and the differences in the elapsed time can be seen/calculated from the pictures taken (by the way, nobody answered the OP question: the pictures would agree or not?). Even if time dilation is what you are saying, I'm more interested in analyzing the real differences in clocks rates, not what the observers are seeing "moment to moment", because their perception is altered by the finite speed of light, so it isn't relevant. This is the preferred frame I wrote about ... We do have preferred frames in the real world ... (The frame is not really inertial. The Earth rotates around the Sun, and the Sun around the galactic centre and so on ...) From this preferred frame we can see (like here, "the case of a flexible loop of optical fiber moving like a conveyor belt with some arbitrary shape") the problem as one-dimensional ... and calculate the time differences using Lorentz transformations. That's why I wrote: Yes. That's why I posted this scenario in The twin paradox and other variants. topic. Another interesting idea is that the rate of an accelerated clock doesn't depend on its acceleration Good answer! Thank you.

Exactly. This is a simplification of HK experiment. Since the influence of gravitational time dilation is eliminated, we have only speed related time dilation. And HK exp. suggests that the pictures taken by the twins would agree about time dilation. In fact, any observer, including one from Hubble, would see/capture the same difference. So, this is an interesting case where speed related time dilation is not reciprocal. Of course, if they observe each other short after the plane leave the tower, they would see that the other clock is ticking slower. With this trick is possible to instantly compare the clocks and to see that in fact speed related time dilation is not really reciprocal, only appears to be, because the speed of light is limited. Another interesting aspect is that we can not apply Lorentz transformations with one twin as stationary and the other moving in relation with the first. We can only do that if we consider a preferred frame, the one with the origin in Earth's centre. Of course, the twins are not in inertial frames, but this was/is not an issue for Fizeau experiment, where Lorentz transformations are successfully applied ... So, it seems that in the real world, where we have massive objects and rotation, we do have preferred frames, contrary to the idea that we don't ... Back to the tower / orbiting plane scenario, let the tower be on the equator and the plane flying along the equator. If the plane is flying eastwards (same direction as the rotation of the tower in Earth's centre frame), the clock on the plane would tick slower and remain behind the other. If the plane goes westwards, the tower clock would get behind, until the plane will have double the speed of the tower around the Earth, in relation with the tower, when the clocks would be in sync. For greater westward speeds, the plane clock would fall behind again.

Another take on twin paradox: One twin is living in a tower on Earth and the other is flying around the Earth with constant, high, speed, at the same level with the "tower twin". Both are using very accurate clocks with 2 displays, one normal and one very big. Now, the plane with the flying twin gets very close to the tower every time it completes a full circle around the Earth and both twins are taking pictures with both plane & tower cocks in the same frame/picture (remember the normal + big displays). The question is: would the pictures taken show time dilation only for the other twin/clock or the pictures would agree in showing time dilation only for the twin/clock on the plane (or tower)? Why? PS Pictures are dropped at the tower base to be easily compared.

Ok, thank you.

Post 201 ?!? Ok, I get it, you don't know the answer and want to drive me away from the simple question I posted (see #196). No problem, maybe someone else will answer. I'll wait for the answer and not engage in a meaningless dispute.

What do you mean?!? It didn't. As I wrote above (3 times, or more), I need to know what result should be the target for my (or any) alternative (non-Lorentzian) theory for Fizeau experiment.

It seems that you forgot our conversation on the matter Here: This is accurate when v/c « 1, and agrees with the formula based upon Fizeau's measurements, which satisfied the condition v/c « 1 It agrees but is not identical. Relax, the new theory is not intended to replace SR, which is good/sound, but to offer (& test) a new, specific, model/solution. SRT is too general, it not explains what is going on there. So, back to my question, what is the target for a new/alternative theory, what Fizeau found or exactly the SR result (the one with 1+v/cn below)?

Nothing much I just need to see that you can agree with something I wrote. How about this:

A - In Newton's theory, gravity is a force, while general theory of relativity describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass/energy, so they are not really "in agreement; compatible" ... B - In Fizeau experiment the result derived from the existing theory (SR) is not identical with what Fizeau found, so a new theory must be consistent with what Fizeau found, the reality, not identical with SR result (the one with 1+v/cn below). Do you agree?! So, to say "A new theory must be consistent with existing theory" is not OK.

Consider 2 clocks, one stationary and the other moving away. Just before parting, they display the same hour: 00:00. After departure, the clock moving away will show 00:01, then 00:02 and so on, slower than the stationary one, but still going towards future. So it's not "travelling into the past", it's just going towards future at different pace. In fact it's "travelling into the future", for the parting clock/person, because if they get back, they will find people at home passed away or older (twin paradox). Sorry if this was posted before. I didn't read all the posts.

What gravitons? Are gravitons accepted by mainstream science?! I agree

Yes, you are right. Another way is to predict, using the new model, something that existing theories can't/didn't predict, and then test it.

Easier, but possibly wrong. SR offers for Fizeau experiment a good prediction, but a new theory prediction must be compared with the experimental result, NOT with SR prediction.

Wrong! The new theory must be consistent with reality, period. It may have a completely different approach/model and give the same or better results/predictions for all the tested results of the previous theory. Also, it is desirable for it to make new predictions, that can be tested.

This is very close to what I feel. I'm not interested in copyright protection. I want my ideas to be displayed, scientifically debated and, if considered worthy, disseminated and tested. The "timestamp" may be useful for getting some recognition, possibly just among friends and colleagues.

I think I'm not that guy, and definitely not the one not being able to master the Quote button ... If you ask for rigor, please practice it yourself! Also I suggest to refrain from using words like crap and WTF. We are in a science forum. You tend to repeat over and over again your lines about crackpottery, and to bully (see #67) people you don't know, over things they didn't do. I suggest you to wait until I post my theories (& you properly read them), before making statements about them/me and posting ramblings about how moronic I act. Offering a diagnostic before properly examining something is 100% unscientific. It seems that you are not that sharp as I hoped (see #66) ... or maybe just full of prejudice ... About the forum "timestamp" and the protection of my work, I think I was correct. Maybe it is not the best place and the best protection, but it is enough for me.

Why? Maybe you didn't understand my point. I checked on the blog and if, say, I post something, I can edit everything a year after and the "timestamp" remains from the initial post. Here, anyone can see if the first (or any) post was edited and also the subsequent citations, so this forum is a good proof of the time when the idea was posted. What do you find wrong or offensive?

You will see, after reading my work (something the editor didn't: the rejection came 11 minutes after Submission Confirmation ...) that citations are not really needed, because all I mentioned was well-known and/or available on Wikipedia. Anyway, the lack of citations was not the only problem: I considered (and even created) a blog (still empty) and even viXra, but I prefer this forum, because here I am allowed to publish, I get a "timestamp" (a proof that I was the first to publish the idea), I can find people with sharp minds (like Strange), capable & willing to dissect a new theory, I can defend it with logical arguments (if I have the time & it remains open ...) and it is available to many people. As I said, even if I'm wrong (overall) some ideas may be good/useful for future scientists/theories.

I did have a bad experience. I sent my work in 3 places. The first was "arxiv", replying (correctly) that my "submission was in need of significant review and revision before it would be considered publishable by a conventional journal [...] Please submit instead to a conventional journal to receive the requisite feedback". After a revision I sent it to "Annalen der Physik" and the Editor-in-Chief replied "The topic is undoubtedly relevant. However, this does not mean that any work from an author without research background and with no publication record in this field can be considered by our highly selective and high-profile journal. Moreover, the manuscript contains no references, i.e. does not show any relation to current intense international research activities [...] Please consider, after improvement of your work, a different journal in the area of astrophysics or cosmology. I hope for your understanding". The last was "Physics of the Dark Universe" and the answer was: "I regret to inform you that your manuscript has been considered [correctly, again] beyond the scope of the journal. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work". This was in 2015. After that, I tried to find help in improving the article, at my university, and the majority of my colleagues responded that they didn't have enough time and/or the expertise in the field. Only 2 of them actually read the article and sent me comments, but both of them made a mistake regarding the first part, comparing my result with the one obtained using Lorentz transformations, instead of comparing both results with the experimental result ... In the second part they considered that more math is needed but they didn't offer to help and by myself I can't do it. The main problem is that the level of presentation is much too low compared with the importance of the subject. So, here I am, ready to divide the article in 2, rewrite some parts, add or correct here and there, and post them in the forum, probably in "Speculations", because there is not a "Personal theories" sub-forum and this is absolutely no mainstream, although it is scientific, in agreement with what we know from experiments and offering many testable predictions. Back to the main subject, I think that speculations are important, even when imperfect, because they may contain some good ideas, ideas that may lead to future mainstream theories. When so much part of the universe is considered "dark", we should expect big changes in physics ... About "Scientific Speculations" + "Wild Speculations", and So, there is rigor in "Speculations", but not enough, according to Strange. Considering that, I change my proposition to: "Personal theories" (more rigorous) + "Speculations" (less rigorous) + "Trash" (garbage), in order to separate the really scientific speculations from "all the crap that currently gets posted" ...

I agree. The dictionary must be used for a proper answer to OP question. According to my understanding of the dictionary, your pseudo-speculation is a (very) poor speculation and your real speculation is a good one, or even a new theory. I think that "Speculations" sub-forum should be divided in "Scientific speculations" (or "New theories") and "Wild speculations", and the theories posted in the first one, but without experimental evidence, falsifiable predictions and/or logic, to be moved/demoted to "Wild speculations", or even "Trash", if there are disagreements with experimental evidences. The existing "Speculations" sub-forum is suffocated by non-scientific speculations, so I'm reluctant to post my theories there, because my theories are in agrement with experimental evidences, offer mathematics and can be backed up by a "ton" of evidence (falsifiable predictions). Would you post a new & important theory there? (And no, a scientific journal is not a solution, because the editors are very reluctant to accept really new solutions to very important problems from unknown scientists.)