Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: xersanozgen on 06/03/2019 18:41:11
-
Which pecularity of Special Relativity (SR) is similar to flogiston theory?
As known, in first approach the flogiston theory had been adopted for burning event. After years, when the dusts of metal was burned; the weight of material had increased. And some scientists commented that flogiston has negative weight. This hypothesis kept until Lavoisier's oxidation definition.
The essence of Flogiston failure is the analyzing of burning event with inadequate factors.
While light kinematics is analyzing, if some of essential factors is neglected, is the one of probable inferences be the theory SR?
Please discuss that article at this link : http://vixra.org/abs/1903.0044 (http://vixra.org/abs/1903.0044) or http://vixra.org/pdf/1903.0044v1.pdf (http://vixra.org/pdf/1903.0044v1.pdf)
-
Well, there's one similarity. Phlogiston was overturned by a better understanding of chemistry and SR was overturned by GR.
-
In future, some one may say that "the theory SR kept its reputation until discovering the types of relativity.
Here the types of relativity are: Please remember your lycee knowledge and internalize them.
(a) Genuine relativity: A vehicle gets its speed by pushing the road. The speed of this vehicle is defined as “genuine relative” to the road. The contribution of the road is essential. The power is applied to the road continuously for genuine relativity.
(b) Hypothetical relativity: The changing speed of the distance between two vehicles which are moving on the same road. This speed is defined as “hypothetical relative.” The vehicles do not apply power to each other.
(c) Momentary/temporary relativity: When a player throws a ball, the ball’s speed according to the player is “momentary relative”. The power has been applied momentarily. After throwing, the motion of the ball is transferred to the type of hypothetical relativity; the player can go anywhere freely. However, it can be said that the ball’s speed is “genuine relative” according to the ground. The ground is the co-reference frame for the player and ball. For genuine relativity, the starting point of the ball is marked on the ground, not by the existence of player (or his/her following positions).
Which one is significant for an identified photon? SR prefers to use merely the concept of “genuine relativity” for the motion of light according to its source and every frame [4]. However, requirements of genuine relativity are not realized for light; the source and photons never apply a power for the motion. Further, the source can go in any direction freely after the photon was emitted, like the player (the increasing/decreasing speed of intermediate distance is the vectorial total of their speeds, but if an observer is an actor in the experiment he never can perceive a larger value than c). Eventually the velocity of a photon according to its source is “momentary relative” and then “hypothetical relative” in the following time.
-
Well, there's one similarity. Phlogiston was overturned by a better understanding of chemistry and SR was overturned by GR.
Thanks, for your interest.
I think you want to say the definition of "general" is advanced knowledge compared to the meaning of "special".
Yes, OK. Also Einstein had distinguished restriction of the requirement "uniform motion".
However, please examine the most/known claim of GR with attached figure.
This figure, especially (c) indicates that gravitational lens is possible without acceleration (a = 0).
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2FFig.+Gravitational+lens.pdf&hash=691dc9e7e3d651bb4e3ae9a239bc136d)
-
This figure, especially (c) indicates that gravitational lens is possible without acceleration (a = 0).
Did anyone say it wasn't?
-
You can't be serious?
You could as easily say that this universe is purely local, and in that case there is no 'eye of a God'. whenever someone invoke that 'eye' he or she makes a lot of presumptions, unproven. This thread belongs definitely to 'New Theories' or possibly 'Meta Physics'.
-
The fault as I see it lies not in the ideas but in the presumptions. You want a 'universe' as observed by 'something'. That's not the way it seems to work. what join this universe is constants. Constants doesn't say a thing about how it would 'look' from a outside. You can invoke it, but when you do you will find that it won't give you a logic. The logic is only perceived from where we exist. And it's strange, it doesn't fit our perceptions of 'reality'. But the mathematics still work, and the physics do too.
-
You can't be serious?
You could as easily say that this universe is purely local, and in that case there is no 'eye of a God'. whenever someone invoke that 'eye' he or she makes a lot of presumptions, unproven. This thread belongs definitely to 'New Theories' or possibly 'Meta Physics'.
Thanks.
When we observer the sky, we cannot simultaneous positions of objects because of limited/finited value of light's velocity. So, please don't be affixed for the coding "God's eye". "Absolute form of universe" and "visible form of universe must be different. This determination is not a new knowledge or meta physics.
However please distinguish that there is a simultaneous composition of universe; but we cannot see this formation because of NVE (natural visual error). In astronomy, experimentalist or scientist is an actor of analysis; and seeing ability of an observer is inevitably effective along the analysis.
You may allow yourself for the possibility of cosmological analysis.
-
This figure, especially (c) indicates that gravitational lens is possible without acceleration (a = 0).
Did anyone say it wasn't?
Please examine the attached figure.
We may/must distinguish the reality by thinking accompanied four dimensions. We set a light source and a filter (that it allows for horizontal way) at the point A1 on the wall of elevator cabinet.
The photon -which was emitted at T1 moment- will arrive to the point B2 at the moment T2. The way of this photon is always horizontal due to filter; but we compund the points A1 and B2 in our brain.
-
Please examine the attached figure.
Did anyone say it wasn't?
-
Please examine the attached figure.
Did anyone say it wasn't?
I am glad that we have parallel sight. So, actually the photon always goes horizontal (according to condition of figure); but we compund (in our brains/ allegoric) the points Aı and B2 for defining its way. This event (gravitational lens) does not need accelerating of cabinet.
-
does not need accelerating of cabinet.
Why do you keep saying that?
Nobody said it did need the cabinet to accelerate.
-
Why do you keep saying that?
Nobody said it did need the cabinet to accelerate.
Einstein had said in GR theory. And he predicated that gravitation and acceleration are equivalent.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/relativity.pdf (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/relativity.pdf)
Page 65; last paragraph
"However, we obtain a new result of fundamental importance when we carry out the analogous consideration for a ray of light. With respect to the Galileian reference-body K, such a ray of light is transmitted rectilinearly with the velocity c It can easily be shown that the path of the same ray of light is no longer a straight line when we consider it with
reference to the accelerated chest (reference-body K1). From this we conclude, that, in general, rays of light are propagated curvilinearly in gravitational fields. In two respects this result is of great importance.
-
OK, we know that an accelerating lift and a lift in a gravitational field are equivalent.
That is not the same as saying that a lift has to be accelerating.
In fact, it says the exact opposite.
-
Dear naked scientist,
We must analyze the universal events by the God's eye (not forum Gods' eye).
We human had haven a dogma as "The sun rotates around the earth" in accompany a visual proof. Copernicus and Galilei were naked scientist and they declared the orbital and axial rotation of the Sun. Sun is at reference role, and the Earth is at relatif role. An observer (who is placed at relative object) may defectively perceive the motion of reference object.
If we assign the local object / elevator cabinet as reference frame, we may suppose that the light travel diagonal or curvilinear. But in fact, the light travel only linear due to filter.
In deed, gravitational lens is a relality. But, acceleration is not a reason of gravitational lens. It is indicated that, the accelerating does not explain the gravitaional lens and support the theories GR and SR.
If LCS (Light Coordinate System) is assigned as co-reference frame for light kinematics, cosmological analysis becomes possible and the actual age of universe can be calculated elaborately/persuasively. (according to my study 19.3 B years).
After 500 years we must not still fall into this trap like Einstein.
Actually. he (who throws the dice) was the energy.
-
We must analyze the universal events by the God's eye
He doesn't exist.
~You really need to put some effort into making more sense.
-
We must analyze the universal events by the God's eye
1- He doesn't exist.
2- You really need to put some effort into making more sense.
Thanks for your contributions; you gave me an opportunity to explain my opinions for some false facts.
1- You may prefer to say "nature", energy, etc. [Already, he (who throws the dice) was the energy]. However there is an algorithm of Universe/Nature that we effort to define. In the science of astronomy/cosmology, the observer is inevitably an actor of experiment and analysis. So his visual restriction is an effective factor because of limited value of light's velocity. We need to overcome this defect; therefore I used the coding "God's eye" for the format of popular science. There is an absolute form of universe that is different according to visible universe.
2- Always. My study (especially LCS concept and definition of the types of relativity) indicates the possibility of a cosmological analysis. Besides it presents transparency for the mentality of special relativity. In science history there are many examples that first approachings may be generated with inadequate factors/dimensions. We can reconsider the theory special relativity and light kinematics with advanced cognition and advanced methodology after 114 years. Please allow yourself to read and internalize that article "Essential factors for light kinematics and special relativity"
Link : http://vixra.org/abs/1903.0044 (http://vixra.org/abs/1903.0044)
Karl Popper offers to reconsider the problem with "x+1" factors, when the analysis generated an odd/unusual inference by "x" factors.
-
I don't want to be recognized at just opposite position for SR.
Of course to offer a new method is more significant. Here is a new method for light kinematics:
The value of light's velocity 'c' is a relative value according to the most external frame (space or LCS); SR allows this postulate. If we use the universal value 'Vu' for the speed of other relativity partner (source or observer) instead of their local value 'v'; we can analyze the motion of light more consistently and we can manage astronomy, cosmology better. The equivalence of 'c' and 'Vu' is obtained exactly in accordance with requirement of scientific integrity.
-
The problem with Nature's viewpoint is, perhaps, best explained by saying it's God's viewpoint.
God is, by convention, "everywhere" so, wherever I am, God's there too.
and He is wherever you are too.
So His viewpoint is the same as yours and also the same as mine.
But your viewpoint is different from mine.
That contradiction explains why there's no preferred viewpoint.
Science has to work from any point. And the only way to do that it to accept GR or, at least, something very similar.
-
And the only way to do that it to accept GR.
I remembered Montaigne's phrase "soft pillow".
Naked scientists' aim is objectivity; even, absolute/flawless objectivity. To improve the science , to consider the process of "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" instead of "to create an idol".
Einstein was a naked scientist; If he would be alive; he would be glad for new horizontals. He had the wisdom for admission his mistake (universal constant). Similarly, he had not distinguish the types of relativity (one of key reason for his mistake).
Is it be a reason that Latin languages has a single word as "relativity" for these types ?
-
And the only way to do that it to accept GR.
Is it be a reason that Latin languages has a single word as "relativity" for these types ?
Relativity has some subsection.
Essentially relativity
Titular/pseudo relativity
Momentary/temporary relativity
Which one is concerning with light's motion?
-
Relativity has some subsection.
Really?
Prove it.
-
Relativity has some subsection.
Really?
Prove it.
Essentially relativity: An automobile on a road. It applies power to road and its speed is generated through the road. This value of speed is “essentially relative” according to road. The automobile moves away from starting point by this speed. Top limit of essentially relative speed is c (light’s velocity)
Titular/nominal/pseudo relativity: Two moving automobiles (A, B) on the same road. The speed of B according to A is “pseudo relative”; or the speed of A according to B. They do not apply any power to each other. Actually we can say that it is the increasing/decreasing speed of the distance between A and B. Top limit of pseudo relativity is 2 c.
-
Top limit of pseudo relativity is 2 c.
No it isn't.
-
Top limit of pseudo relativity is 2 c.
No it isn't.
Why?
-
Because it's C.
It's experimentally verified that the speed of light (in vacuo) measured by any observer is c regardless of the speed of the source or the observer.
That's the point.
-
Because it's C.
It's experimentally verified that the speed of light (in vacuo) measured by any observer is c regardless of the speed of the source or the observer.
That's the point.
We may think that: The photons (that are emitted at same moment T1; source: a star or a candela) generate a spherical surface at the moment T2 (light sphere). The radius of this light sphere increases by c and its diameter inevitably increases by 2c.
This determination is in humanity cognitive capacity. That is the point.
-
Because it's C.
It's experimentally verified that the speed of light (in vacuo) measured by any observer is c regardless of the speed of the source or the observer.
That's the point.
We may think that: The photons (that are emitted at same moment T1) generate a spherical surface at the moment T2 (light sphere). The radius of this light sphere increases by c and its diameter inevitably increases by 2c.
This determination is in humanity cognitive capacity. That is the point.
Go and look up the meaning of the word "experimentally".
-
Because it's C.
It's experimentally verified that the speed of light (in vacuo) measured by any observer is c regardless of the speed of the source or the observer.
That's the point.
We may think that: The photons (that are emitted at same moment T1) generate a spherical surface at the moment T2 (light sphere). The radius of this light sphere increases by c and its diameter inevitably increases by 2c.
This determination is in humanity cognitive capacity. That is the point.
Go and look up the meaning of the word "experimentally".
Nature does not care what/how an observer can see.
You can set an experiment like that: Two objects at A and B points that they get their own speeds as the value 70 % c while they pass the points A and B. Three observers (on the objects and the collision point O) perceive the collision at the same moment.
Simultaneous perceiving the collision requires that the decreasing speed of the distance AB became 1.40 c.
Or, you put two flashs at the points A and B. You are placed at medium point O. When the flashes emitted simultaneously, you see the photons of them simultaneously. They have arrives to your eyes simultaneously. Simultaneous perceiving requires the speed as the value 2c. Because each one of them has traveled by c.
-
Relativity has some subsection.
Really?
Prove it.
Essentially relativity: An automobile on a road. It applies power to road and its speed is generated through the road. This value of speed is “essentially relative” according to road. The automobile moves away from starting point by this speed. Top limit of essentially relative speed is c (light’s velocity)
Titular/nominal/pseudo relativity: Two moving automobiles (A, B) on the same road. The speed of B according to A is “pseudo relative”; or the speed of A according to B. They do not apply any power to each other. Actually we can say that it is the increasing/decreasing speed of the distance between A and B. Top limit of pseudo relativity is 2 c.
anyway, the third one of relativity:
Momentary/temporary relativity: When a player throws a ball. The speed of the ball according to player is “momentary relative”. The power has applied momentarily. After throwing, the player may go to anywhere freely; he does not need to follow the ball. Therefore, the distance between player and the ball cannot calculated with only ball’s speed; it requires considering vectorial total of their speeds.
Which one is significant for light's motion?
-
Nature does not care what/how an observer can see.
Nature defines what a person can see.
What you see is nothing going faster than c
-
What you see is nothing going faster than c
Yes, If the observer is an actor of an experiment, he cannot see larger value than c. And we cannot measure faster speed than c.
However, top limit of speed for pseudo relativity is 2c. I explained it like mathematical certainty. You may get or not.
-
I defined the essences and details of relativity types. Please allow yourself to internalize them.
Lorentz, Poincare and Einstein had not distinguished these types and they directly considered the type “essentially relativity”.
Whereas, -when we reconsider the differences- the velocity of light is “momentary relative” (for emitting moment) and for following time “titular/pseudo relative”; because the source or photon do not apply a power for motion. Photons/light travel due to space by electro-magnetic cycle. The contribution of source is momentarily.
This definition presents transparency about light kinematics and special relativity.
-
If we analyze the burning event without "oxidation" factor; we may find a theory like Sthal's "Phologiston theory" that phologiston has negative weight.
If we analyze light kinematics without that factors "the types of relativity", "sequential scale of relative and reference frames", "co-reference system for light and its source or an observer "; we may discover a theory like "Special theory of relativity"that has some fantastic inferences.
-
However, top limit of speed for pseudo relativity is 2c. I explained it like mathematical certainty. You may get or not.
I "got" it, but I'm clever enough to recognise that it isn't the speed of anything.