Room-temperature superconductivity?

[GIThruster]

Thanks DeltaV. Ron Stahl did contact me with such an offer. I took the e-mail to my sister who is psychic and who can sum up the intention within a written letter very well. She advised me NOT to accept any offered help from him since he is obviously a mentally disturbed crook. I thus did NOT appoint him to "labor" for me and I do not think that he did anyjthing. Why should he if I did not agree with his offer?

You're lying again, Johan. You came up with that psycho story AFTER I finally gave up trying to help you. Would you like me to post the private mail to this board? Fact is, there is no helping a man who acts as crazy as you do.

Look above. Teemu was quite gentle in suggesting you had done the math wrong, and yet you have to call him "insane" in your second paragraph, "stupid" in your fifth paragraph, an "idiot" in your sixth paragraph, say he knows nothing about physics in the next paragraph, and tell him what he will never understand in your last paragraph.

This is how Johan treated his would-be investors as well. This is why Johan is going to his grave without recognition for any real insights he might have, because he's a misanthrope, whom richly deserves to be ostracized for his morally bankrupt behavior.

[rcain]

nice to see we all still geting on in such a civilised manner in this thread (lest lawyers start to appear here - heaven forbid!)

i have to say, i find myself very much in agrement with Tom's description of 'how' the the dilation phenomenon is acounted for.

however, i also find with Johan that the answer is not 'clearly within' SR alone or as Delta V otherwise writes:

"Do Lorentz transforms between inertial frames induce actual, or only apparent, time dilation and length contraction?"

in particular my curent interpretation is:

that the Lorentz tansformation sets the 'magnitude' of any final time dilaltion, during the process of calculation, BUT, does NOT determine to which body/bodies such magnitude is finally 'apportioned': that, 'final' apportionment is decided 'arbitrarily' ONLY when the boundary conditions of the experiment are 'imposedf' on the result.

- and in particular, those boundary conditions include any 'turnarounds' or accelerations or decelerations of one body WITH RESPECT TO the other. (ie. the change of FOR's when one body arbitrarily DECIDES to catch up with/slow down to meet the other).

that is, this problem cannot be 'completely formulated' UNLESS those 'discountinuities' are convolved ( - difficult because there is no easy/compatible algebraic form to mix here - possibly a 'commutator' of some sort - as i believe Einstein/Poincare others have used, or as i have previously sufggested/cited, some form of 'ordered goup/causal set').

thus, as Johan points out (iiuc), the dilation does NOT exist due to the Lorentz transformation alone - that is mearly a calculator - it is just doing its job.

the point, where i suspect Johan's current 'diupute' arises, is i believe, in the 'assumption' that, at the start of the experiment, we can 'synchronise clocks' to a 'single' value when they are moving relative to each other. i believe that we can not. such a value will always be a tuple (0(A(B)),0(B(A))) - represented by two triangles, NOT a line. It is at root the Anrdomeda Paradox (a simpler version of the twins) - ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietdijk%E ... m_argument ).

To be fair Johan did try to address this very point a couple of posts back ( viewtopic.php?t=2137&postdays=0&postord ... start=1275 ), yet, imho, Johan, i can't help thinking you've made the same sort of mistake that you acuse Einstein of making (though i should add, there is indeed historical evidence of Einstein fudging/changing his mind around these exact same points).

i believe this is where the root of the argument lies.

thus, the only 'interpretation' i can place on it is:

'consideration of relative velocity and position alone are INSUFFICIENT to formulate either the probem, or the solution'

thus, when considering bodies in relative motion/at a relitave distance, I 'imagine' that they MUST have ultimately have aquired that 'state' from some historical 'absolute coincidence' in position AND velocity space (ie. the two clocks were in fact the 'same' clock at some point), and/or conversely, that they MUST ultimately re-aquire that same coincident state, in order to be 'finally compared' in a 'physical' AND a 'mathematical' sense. (Lorentz, Minkowski and the bulk of SR take care of what happens (and appears to happen) in-between, but does not adequately formulate this 'action layer' of the description - imho).

- ie. we must (even notionaly) attach some sort of 'impulse vector' or 'comutator actions' to each of the bodies, in order to calculate the 'sense' (or perhaps 'chirality') of the final apportioned dilation magnitide(s).

if such are not taken into consideration, then there is NO WAY of apportioning a result to either body.

finally, for a bit of light relief:: this says it all for me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KgQYZCgfnc

Educating Essex: What Is Pi? Where Did It Come From?

[johanfprins]

Thanks DeltaV. Ron Stahl did contact me with such an offer. I took the e-mail to my sister who is psychic and who can sum up the intention within a written letter very well. She advised me NOT to accept any offered help from him since he is obviously a mentally disturbed crook. I thus did NOT appoint him to "labor" for me and I do not think that he did anyjthing. Why should he if I did not agree with his offer?

That's a crock of bullshit, Johan. You came up with that psycho story AFTER I finally gave up trying to help you. Fact is, there is no helping a man who acts as crazy as you do.

You are the bulshitter. Why do you think I finally had to blacklist your e-mail address. Your insults based on a lack opf information just became too much to bear. I DID NOT EVER REQUEST OR APPOINTED YOU TO LOOK FOR INVESTORS OR TO PROMOTE MY SUPERCONDUCTING MASTERIALS. My sister was, as usual, spot on as your attitude on this thread is showing.

Look above. Teemu was quite gentle in suggesting you had done the math wrong,

If my mathematics is wrong he MUST point out where the mistake is. If not he is just as dishonest as YOU are.

and yet you have to call him "insane" in your second paragraph, "stupid" in your fifth paragraph, an "idiot" in your sixth paragraph, say he knows nothing about physics in the next paragraph, and tell him what he will never understand in your last paragraph.

Thses are observations which are supported by the nonsense that he posted. If the mathematics is wrong then he should be able to say where I made a mathematical error, or state that my derivation is wrong because the Lorentz transformation is not required to model Special Relativity.

This is how Johan treated his would-be investors as well.

How do YOU know how I treat or treated my investors? You have never been present when I dealt with them. You are a liar and a fraud!

This is why Johan is going to his grave without recognition for any real insights he might have,

So if this is the case why does it bother YOU so much? I am nothing of you and did not ever wanted you to become involved.

because he's a misanthrope, whom richly deserves to be ostracized for his morally bankrupt behavior.

OK, you have made this point many timee before. But I am still not going to appoint you to represent me. so PLEASE F-off.

[Betruger]

whom richly deserves to be ostracized for his morally bankrupt behavior.

[GIThruster]

You're lying again, Johan.

I have dozens and dozens of notes from you spread out over 3 months. They ended because your resistance to doing a 4-point test, combined with your abusive tone in your books, your notes online and eventually even your notes to me, made it clear you were and are too much a risk for any VC to take. You are not reliable, Johan. You don't perform. You always have an excuse. You have a host of repeating delusions about why you are the exception to mankind who does not need to play by other people's rules, and those other people, the ones with the purses, are not near fool enough to send you money without you providing the kind of evidence we all need to see.

That is folks, in a nutshell, what happened when I spent 3 months trying to help Johan. More than a year later, he is still at all the same old tricks, and still refusing to provide evidence for his extraordinary claims.

[GIThruster]

Why don't you just tell Johan exactly where his math is wrong?

Because then I would be guilty of pretending to understand advanced mathmatics I have never been trained in, same as Johan.

I have been trained in theoretical physics and the mathematics that is required to do this physics. I have also taught theoretical physics and mathematics for many years at three different universities. So stop posting LIES about me on this thread. You are deliberately derfaming me and I think the time has come to hand you over to my lawyer Mr. Ron Stahl.

For the record, if its true you've been trained in relativity, then I've misstated that fact several times and do retract it. All I can say is, according to what you wrote me a year ago, your PhD is from University of Virginia in materials science, and you are not a physicist. You're therefor not a field theorist, and not a relativist by training. If however you had training in the Lorentz Transforms in order to do materials science, then I have misspoken.

Whether you had this math or not, seems pretty obvious to me when you write:

Well lets not pretend its just Einstein. It's Lorentz you're correcting as well. Einstein, Lorentz, Lamour, Fitzgerald, Poincare, Langevin, Minkowski, Zeeman, all believed in time dilation due to relative V between frames.

You are correct they all "believed" in this paranoprmal metaphysics, but they were and are wrong; as I have just proved above. They blindly "believed" as religious dogmnatists are doing, instead of doing the correct derivation from the Lorentz transformation. . .

that you've resolved the issue for DeltaV. You're not saying we've all mistaken kinematics for dynamics the way Medal Sachs does. You're saying these guys are all just plain wrong and writing "rubbish".

[johanfprins]

You're lying again, Johan.

You are the LIAR!

I have dozens and dozens of notes from you spread out over 3 months. They ended because your resistance to doing a 4-point test, combined with your abusive tone in your books, your notes online and eventually even your notes to me, made it clear you were and are too much a risk for any VC to take.

You were constantly trying to get IP knowledge from me; which I refused to give. Thus you were not ever trying to help me, AND I have NEVER requested you to do so. If I wanted your help I would have required from you a Non Disclosure Agreement. I NEVER asked you for this since my sister correctly classified you as a mentally disturbed crook.

You are not reliable, Johan.

Not reliable when I do not want to disclose IP information to a crook? I think the fact that I did not do so proves that I am reliable.

You don't perform. You always have an excuse.

You are mentally ILL ILL ILL to make such an accusation while not knowing what I am doing since I have consistently refused to divulge this information to a mentally disturbed crook.

You have a host of repeating delusions about why you are the exception to mankind who does not need to play by other people's rules, and those other people, the ones with the purses, are not near fool enough to send you money without you providing the kind of evidence we all need to see.

No matter what you call me I will not divulge IP to a mentally disturbed person like you. And if the people with money trust somebody like you they are fools with whom I do not want to cooperate with.

That is folks, in a nutshell, what happened when I spent 3 months trying to help Johan.

A LIE. If I wanted you to help me I would have asked you to sign a Non Diclosure Agreement. I did not do this since my sister was correct that you are a mentally disturbed crook.

More than a year later, he is still at all the same old tricks, and still refusing to provide evidence for his extraordinary claims.

Yes, I am still not willing to provide IP to people like you. You are an unreliable liar who has an agenda with which I do not want to be associated.

[GIThruster]

All crazy, Johan. We spoke at length about a bunch of people signing NDA's so we could do a replication with a very large substrate here in the US. I told you I'd be fine to sign an NDA, but that the MBA I was working with would like all CEO's probably refuse to do this. We talked about the work around such that he would not have knowledge of the IP, until you were filed for patent in the US, etc.

You're making up a bunch of crazy nonsense, Johan. I've signed NDA's before and would have again if that had gotten a replication done. You backed out because you changed your mind and insisted a 4-point test was not necessary.

For everyone else's sake let me note, I did three weeks worth of research before I contacted Johan about supporting his work. When I first contacted him, I suggested 3 tests: the 4-point resistivity test that is the industry standard for determining superconductivity, the Meisner Effect test which Johan said might not work on his superconductor because it is not a "normal" superconductor, and a heat test--which requires very large portions of material conducting very large currents in order to verify with a calorimeter that there is no heat being produced. Of these three, the most important to do first, and the easiest is the four-point test.

You can therefore understand everyone's concern when Johan began to create excuses why we could not do a four-point test with just a few tens of thousands of dollars invested in creating a larger substrate. Anyone who really wanted their material tested, would have jumped at the opportunities I was looking to provide Johan.

I think he knows he doesn't have a superconductor at all.

[Teemu]

What is this talk about your sister being a psychic? I hope you meant psychologist or psychiatrist.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p= ... tcount=363
or if the link doesn't work here's another
http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.p ... 1-p-7.html
Shortened and bolded.

/*cut*/
Unfortunately I was born with an affliction: My long term memory is severely impaired. I can, for example, do a mathematical derivation not realizing that I have already done the same derivation 2 weeks prior. I am like a computer with an excellent CPU but only a few kilobytes of memory.
/*cut*/
The fact that the orbital must obtain this energy in order to jump the Josephson junction stuck in my limited long-term memory without the fact that it is not generated by acceleration but rather to avoid acceleration. Only last night after searching myself to death did I find my original calculations.
/*cut*/
I apologize again for my bad long-term memory. It has embarrassed me all my life. Oh why an I not be like Stephen Hawking who can do complicated mathematics totally within his cranium? I envy him!
/*cut*/

From one section of Dale Carnegie's classic, some sentences removed to make it shorter.
http://www.mizii.com/englishwiz/library ... riends.htm

Some authorities declare that people may actually go insane in order to find, in the dreamland of insanity, the feeling of importance that has been denied them in the harsh world of reality.

But he did say that many people who go insane find in insanity a feeling of importance that they were unable to achieve in the world of reality. Then he told me this story:

"I have a patient right now whose marriage proved to be a tragedy. She wanted love, sexual gratification, children, and social prestige; but life blasted all her hopes. Her husband didn't love her. He refused even to eat with her, and forced her to serve his meals in his room upstairs. She had no children, no social standing. She went insane; and, in her imagination, she divorced her husband and resumed her maiden name. She now believes she has married into the English aristocracy, and she insists on being called Lady Smith.

"And as for children, she imagines now that she has a new child every night. Each time I call on her she says:

'Doctor, I had a baby last night.'"

Life once wrecked all her dream ships on the sharp rocks of reality; but in the sunny, fantastic isles of insanity, all her barkentines race into port with canvas billowing and with winds singing through the masts.

Tragic? Oh, I don't know. Her physician said to me:

"If I could stretch out my hand and restore her sanity, I wouldn't do it. She's much happier as she is."

Try to get your sister to help you. Stop wasting your children's time on this project.

[tomclarke]

I'm awaiting your (thought) experiment to compare these clocks, Johan.

You can just send a light pulse from the one clock to the other where it is reflected back, and then apply the Lorentz transformation to derive the exact times on both clocks WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE REFERENCE FRAMES, at the instant that the pulse was sent from the one clock.

Subtle error alert! What instant? That is an instant at the clock wheich sent the pulse.

This synchronisation method (Einstein's) works fine for objects which are in the same frame. It allows global time to be established throughout all space within a frame. But it is frame-dependent. You cannot unambiguously define "instant" for the travelling clock.

It involves quite a bit of algebra which you will probably not be able to follow. I am stating the latter since you have not yet been able to follow the much simpler algebra that I have already posted above and which proves that the two clocks keep the same time WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE REFERENCE FRAMES since their transformed times do not show ANY time dilation. Thus, I think you must first try to master the simpler case, which I have already posted (if you are capable of doing so) before I present more complicated situations.

I think, Johan, you are confusing "not following algebra" with "disagreeing in its applicability".

So let us start again with two clocks passing each other with a relative speed v. Let us choose the the inertial reference frame Ks as the one that is "stationary" and in which we are the observers, and the inertial reference frame Kp as the one moving past and within which the "moving" clock is stationary. When the origins of Ks and Kp, at which the two clocks are situated respectively, pass each other we synchronise the clocks so that at this instance ts=tp=0.

Now the first question: How far will the "moving" clock be from us when our "stationary clock reads a time ts>0.
Do you agree that within our reference frame (Ks) the "moving" clock will be a distance xs from our stationary clock where xs=v*ts? Yes or No?

Johan, you are not remembering, or not understanding, my previous answer. In MS distance is frame-relative. So your question must be anchored to a specific reference frame before it can be answered.

In reality your question here contains a not-stated assumption, like all good verbal paradoxes.

Distance can be measured in MS unambiguously between any to events. But your question fises only one event,a nd asks what is the distance between that and the worldline of the other clock. Only well defined if you have a global time defined. Now of course you can easily define a global time, but any such definition will be frame-dependent.

Yet what you hope to conclude from your argument is some frame-independent measurement...

Do you agree that both clocks still keep time after they have been synchronised? Yes or No?

i think you mean do both clocks measure proper time within their frames (that is well-defined). yes, of course, if you say so.

Now consider any time tp>0 on the moving clock within its own inertial reference frame Kp, within which it is situated at xp=0.

Do you agree that there must be transformed coordinates tps and xps of the coordinates tp>0 and xp=0 of this clock within Ks? Yes or NO?

Do you agree that these transformed coordinates follow from the Lorentz transformation as:

xps=(gamma)*(0+v*tp) and tps=(gamma)*(tp+0) Yes or No?

Do you agree that for ANY VALUE of the distance xps, there will be a value for the transformecd time tps within K?

So let us choose to calculate the transformed time tps when xps=xs. Then according to the Lorentz transformation above, one has that:

xps=v*tps=xs: which according to the equation above means that tps=ts. There is no time dilation of the transformed time at all.

You can now use the reverse Lorentz transformation to transform the time on the clock ts into the time tsp it has within Kp, and then you will find that tsp=tp. Again there is NO TIME DILATION. From the symmetry it is clear that ts=tp. Thus the two clocks must keep the same time within their respective reference frame.

Comparing transformed times cannot determine time dilation. The only thing which can do this is an experiment in which clocks are synchronised at two different times on the worldline of one of the clocks (notice I am nnot involiing any global concept of time), and results compared.

You cannot do this in a frame-independent manner unless the clock is brought back.

Your calculations here do not prove zero time dilation in this case. If you extend them in an attempt to do this, I will tell you exactly where you go wrong.

Time dilation only occurs when the time on a clock within Kp, which IS NOT situated at xp=0, is transformed into Ks AND THIS IS ALWAYS ACCOMPANIED BY A LENGTHENING (never A CONTRACTION) OF THE POSITION COORDINATE OF THE "MOVING" CLOCK WITHIN Ks. If you ignore the position coordinate when doing a time transform, as Einstein has done, you obtain rubbish. Similarly if you neglect the time coordinate when transforming the length of a rod YOU ALSO OBTAIN RUBBISH. The latter rubbish is the conclusion that the length of a rod that is stationary within Kp contracts within Ks. So when applying "time-dilation" as if one should not also consider the position coordinate at the same time, you derive NONSENSICAL physics like the TWIN PARADOX.

There is no paradox, because time dilation can only be physically measured when clocks are brought together again. In this case it will be exactly what is predicted by the classic gamma factor as applied by an observer stationary with one clock, so all is consistent with time dilation. But as a matter of fact comparing times of distant clocks is not unique and therefore meaningless.

Added comment: You do not even have to do the Lorentz transformation to conclude that ts=tp since the same distance D between the clocks is given by v*ts as well as v*tp. This madates that ts MUST be exactly the same as tp. The clocks carried by the two twins show the same time ALL the time.

There you go again. They show a different time when brought back togetehr, as is proved experimentally by many things, e.g. GPS satellites.

It is however meaningless to say they show the same time all the time. There is a choice of frame of reference for which this is true on the outbound journey (that moving at speed so that both closk move out with equal velocity) however there is no single frame for which that can be true outbound and inbound, and indeed as the clock returns there will come a point when no FOR can synchronise the two clocks.

[johanfprins]

For the record, if its true you've been trained in relativity, then I've misstated that fact several times and do retract it. All I can say is, according to what you wrote me a year ago, your PhD is from University of Virginia in materials science, and you are not a physicist. You're therefor not a field theorist, and not a relativist by training. If however you had training in the Lorentz Transforms in order to do materials science, then I have misspoken.

It is your hobby to talk about things you know nothing about, to distort facts and to LIE, LIE and LIE. What do you want to achieve?

I got my MSc in physics and was the best student in the theoretical physics course. All the mathematics that Einstein used in both his theories of relativity I have used with ease, as well as all the mathematics used in quantum mechanics. I intended to proceed with theoretical physics but then got the opportunity to do a DSc in Materials Science. It was a difficult decision at that time but I am glad that I chose to round off my knowledge at an Engineering School. I would otherwise have studied quantum field theory, which will soon be proved to be totally wrong.

Nonetheless, I kept my interest in physics and did some exta non-credit courses in theoretical physics and mathematics. On my return to South Africa I worked for industry (where my materials science came in handy) and taught at physics departments at various universities. In many cases I was asked to teach the students the mathematics that are required to do physics. I am thus well versed in Riemann Spaces, Tensor analysis, Group theory, Special and General relativity etc.

I always suspected that there are problems with theoretical physics and always promised myself to look into these aspects when I retire. I probably would not have done so but was forced to do so after I discovered superconduction at room temperatuire. The discovery of this phase, which is formed by the entanglement of millions of electrons to form a single macro-wave, proved that large parts of modern physics have been misinterpreted to such an extent that people are believing in nonsense like wave-particle duality etc. The phase I discovered proves without doubt that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is nothing else but bollox.

Whether you had this math or not, seems pretty obvious to me when you write:

Well lets not pretend its just Einstein. It's Lorentz you're correcting as well. Einstein, Lorentz, Lamour, Fitzgerald, Poincare, Langevin, Minkowski, Zeeman, all believed in time dilation due to relative V between frames.

You are correct they all "believed" in this paranoprmal metaphysics, but they were and are wrong; as I have just proved above. They blindly "believed" as religious dogmnatists are doing, instead of doing the correct derivation from the Lorentz transformation. . .

that you've resolved the issue for DeltaV. You're not saying we've all mistaken kinematics for dynamics the way Medal Sachs does. You're saying these guys are all just plain wrong and writing "rubbish".

As usual you are taking issues out of context. Probably because you just do not have the brains to think logically. I have pointed out the specific issues on which they made wrong conclusions. This does not mean that they were fools like you are. Einstein was brilliant to realise that light speed is an upper limit to motion through three-dimensional space, and that this eliminates the need for length contraction within an ether. What is amazing is that he then went ahead and again derived length contraction just after he proved that this is replaced by the constancy of light speed relative to any and all moving objects. He made a similar mistake when he derived time dilation.

The fact is that a rod does not shrink in length when it moves, and a moving clock does not tick slower. Furthermore, although his conclusion that two simultaneous events within a reference frame is not simultaneous within a passing reference frame, is correct, his derivation of this effect is wrong since he assumed in his derivation that light with speed c can approach an object moving with a speed v with a speed (c+v) which is LARGER than light speed. In doing so he violated his own postulate that light can never move faster than c relative to any object, no matter with which speed this object is moving.

When you use the Lorentz transformation correctly (see the paper on my website) it is easy to prove that the relative speed of light to ANY moving object can ALWAYS ONLY be c, even when both the object and light moves relative to an observer.

I think I have now spent enough time on your foolishness. I do not know why I again responded to your assinine arguments after I refused to keep on doing so last year; and after I blaclisted you on my e-mail. Please turn yiour attention to issues that fall within your mental capacity: Tiddly Winks maybe?

I will not respond to your lies anymore.

[johanfprins]

I'm awaiting your (thought) experiment to compare these clocks, Johan.

You can just send a light pulse from the one clock to the other where it is reflected back, and then apply the Lorentz transformation to derive the exact times on both clocks WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE REFERENCE FRAMES, at the instant that the pulse was sent from the one clock.

Subtle error alert! What instant? That is an instant at the clock wheich sent the pulse.

No a subtle lack of brains on your part. I refer you back to my proof above that the two clocks must keep the same time.

It is clearly derived without any mathematical mistake that the transformed time tps of the moving clock into Ks and the transformed position xps of the moving clock into Ks give one that xps=v*tps. and that in terms of the clock in Ks, the position of the moving clock is xs=v*ts. Since the moving clock cannot have two separate positions within Ks at any time ts, we determine the corresponding value of tps by setting xps equal to xs. And one then unequovocally has that tps=ts. So these times are identical. Where is the time dilation?

I have better things to do than to argue with idiots like you, GIthruster, Teemu etc. I will thus not waste my time to respond to bollox anymore.

[tomclarke]

The fact is that a rod does not shrink in length when it moves, and a moving clock does not tick slower. Furthermore, although his conclusion that two simultaneous events within a reference frame is not simultaneous within a passing reference frame, is correct, his derivation of this effect is wrong since he assumed in his derivation that light with speed c can approach an object moving with a speed v with a speed (c+v) which is LARGER than light speed. In doing so he violated his own postulate that light can never move faster than c relative to any object, no matter with which speed this object is moving.

The GPS satellites prove this conclusively wrong. The precisely measured SR correction is continuous, and therefore the time difference gets larger over a longer measurement time. The satellities stay near to the earth. In LEO satellite and earth times can be compared to within < 1s, because they are less than one light-second away. (In fact comparison can be much more accurate than this). This direct comparison shows the time dilation to be more than just a measurement artifact.

[johanfprins]

The GPS satellites prove this conclusively wrong. The precisely measured SR correction is continuous, and therefore the time difference gets larger over a longer measurement time. The satellities stay near to the earth. In LEO satellite and earth times can be compared to within < 1s, because they are less than one light-second away. (In fact comparison can be much more accurate than this). This direct comparison shows the time dilation to be more than just a measurement artifact.

As I stated: IF this experimental result is correct, then the Lorentz transformation is wrong: Since as I have proved above there is no such dilation when the Lorentz transformation applies.

In my manuscript I also derived the results for the horizontal arm of a moving Michelson Morley spectrometer from the Lorentz transformation; and the result is clearly that even though the interferometer moves relative to a "stationary" inertial refrence frame with a speed v and the speed of light is c relative to this same "stationary" inertial reference frame, the speed from the junction to the mirror is NOT (c-v) BUT ONLY c and that the speed on the backward journey to the junction is NOT (c+v) but again only c.

Note added: There is, however, something peculiar to this situation: since one has two equations for the transformed time and the transformed position which both depend on the Lorentz factor: but when you combine them the Lorentz factor cancels out to give a relationship which shows that the transformed time is not length contracted. Maybe the Lorentz factor plays a role when measuring time alone; but this does not mean that the clock in Kp is actually running at a slower time-rate than a clock in Ks. It has to run at the same rate as the clock in Ks or else Einstein's "principle of relativity" must be wrong.

[johanfprins]

The laws of physics are the SAME within ANY and ALL inertial reference frames: YES OR NO?