Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: xersanozgen on 19/05/2017 16:00:43
-
The radial speeds of sky objects are important parameter. The redshifts represent radial speeds and the measured values of redshifts must be reduced. The theory SR uses the value c for the top limit of radial speeds on reducing operation. Whereas radial speed has two components; one of them is the speed of observing object; and the other component is belonging to observer (or our local cluster); thus the distance between observer and object can increase up to 2.c at simultaneous layout (or by God’s eyes). But SR persists for single c. I had perceived the first flaw of SR.
The value 2c (for the top limit of increasing/decreasing speed for the distance between two independent moving bodies) presents better/logical result for analyzing space time.
The graphic of the redshifts are curved upward on a diagram redshifts/distance. After SR reduction the graphic of radial speeds takes a form as a positive inclined and it becomes asymptote to the value c. But on the derived diagram (Hubble constant values according to their distance) the graphic (SR originated) is a negative inclined line; whereas it would be a horizontal line for simultaneous layout. My solution or reduction method provides this requirement.
-
by God’s eyes
Einstein's relativity showed that there is no special frame of reference that all others are measured against. That there is no special "God's Eye" frame of reference, and all others are somehow inferior to this.
the distance between observer and object can increase up to 2.c at simultaneous layout (or by God’s eyes). But SR persists for single c.
Have a look at the addition of velocity equation in special relativity.
- Take an example: if we look in one direction and see a quasar moving away from us at 90% of c, and look in the opposite direction and see another quasar moving away from us at 90% of c.
- The addition of velocities equation shows that the two objects would be moving away from each other, not at 180% of c, but in fact at 99.4% of c.
- This is not just theory - places like CERN have particles that are approaching (or receding from) each other at almost the speed of light in opposite directions. So we know it works.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula
-
by God’s eyes
1- Einstein's relativity showed that there is no special frame of reference that all others are measured against. That there is no special "God's Eye" frame of reference, and all others are somehow inferior to this.
the distance between observer and object can increase up to 2.c at simultaneous layout (or by God’s eyes). But SR persists for single c.
2- Have a look at the addition of velocity equation in special relativity.
- Take an example: if we look in one direction and see a quasar moving away from us at 90% of c, and look in the opposite direction and see another quasar moving away from us at 90% of c.
- The addition of velocities equation shows that the two objects would be moving away from each other, not at 180% of c, but in fact at 99.4% of c.
3 - This is not just theory - places like CERN have particles that are approaching (or receding from) each other at almost the speed of light in opposite directions. So we know it works.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula
Thanks Evan_au.
Current scientific paradigm endorses the theory SR.
Sometimes to remember the science rhetoric may be useful. On this “New theories” section, we seek more advanced ideas/new horizons/different options. The science history is a powerful witness about many revisions upon determinations. We have effective facilities like methodology, cognitivity and especially our self-judgment ability. Current methodology has higher precision according to the past.
The theory SR has not been improved for 112 years; whereas, mental/cognitive references and scientific paradigm always advance toward better accuracy/flawless objectivity.
The theory SR is a first approach for Light kinematics. But it may be a block for new ideas because of its common reputation.
Let’s now think technique:
1- Yes, everything has motion in space even universe/universes. To find an inertial object is impossible; that is the reality of nature. And we must assign anything as a reference frame to define the events. However we can have a sheet of paper and we can use it as a co-reference/inertial frame. So, we are not a captive for relativity method. We can give the role of super reference frame to a sheet of paper or the space/ a virtual coordinate system (LCS). The surface of a sheet of paper is effective functional co-reference frame for analyzing.
2- Here is a human’s arrogance. , if we cannot see/perceive the event, we suppose that it never happen (Berkeley’s primitive claims). Yes, the theory SR has a formula related to limit of light’s velocity: The speed of any object never increase bigger than light due to relativity. So, while we travel by high speed, if we throw any object by high speed, the resultant speed of this object never gets the bigger value than light’s velocity. This conclusion is requirement of “genuine relativity concept”. But, if two independent objects are mentioned, the distance between them can increase/decrease by bigger value of light’s velocity (but the top limit is 2c). Of course an observer cannot see the event by 2c or simultaneously; because perceiving ability of an observer or a receptor is limited by the velocity c. Simultaneous layout or God's sight is an absolute fact altough human's restrictive perceiving. To analyze the events on simultaneous layout is a scientific requirement.
3- In CERN particles can be accelerate up to high fractions of light’s velocity and the resultant collision speed can be bigger than light’s velocity. In my opinion the collision happens by bigger value of light’s value; but the academicians (that I discussed with them) says that to determine the particles’ positions and their speeds together are impossible because of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.
We must/can have authorty to think freedomly. I shall submit/shate some clues for this. You may consider / or may not consider them
-
I want to submit some figures for evidence about defect of SR reduction method.
SR method gives an negative inclined graphic on Ho / distance diagram (Figure 3).
Whereas this graphic would be horizontal line.