[Hal (OP)]

A Disproof of the Principle and Theory of Relativity

Galileo's ship thought experiment:

 Consider a light source emitting a light pulse from some point in the Earth's frame, at t=0.  At the instant of light emission, an observer/detector is at distance D from the source and is moving away from the source with velocity v, in the Earth's frame.

 We know that the light will catch up with the observer/detector at t = D/ ( c - v ) . This is a well-known and accepted fact even in the Special Relativity Theory SRT and has been confirmed by experiments. Now I will use this in my argument against the principle of relativity.

 Consider Galileo's ship thought experiment. A physicist in a closed room of the ship is doing a physics experiment. There are two light sources S1 and S2, with the distance between them equal to 2D. The line connecting the sources is parallel to the longitudinal axis of the ship, and hence to the velocity of the ship. S2 is in front of S1.  A detector is placed at the midpoint between the sources, at distance D from each of the sources. The light sources each emit a short light pulse simultaneously every second.  The detector detects the time difference between the pulses.

The observer in the closed room first has to synchronize the clocks at S1 and S2. For this, a short light pulse is emitted from S1 towards S2. Suppose that S1 emits the light pulse at t=0. The physicist in the closed room synchronizes the clocks based on the principle of isotropy of the speed of light, because according to SRT the speed of light is isotropic in Galileo?s ship! However, unknown to him/her, we know that the clocks synchronized by this procedure will be out of synch by an amount:

                                                 (  2D/ ( c - v )  )   -   2D/c    =  2D  v / v(c-v) 

The clock at S2 will be behind the clock at S1 by this amount.

 It should be noted that, according to special relativity, the clocks synchronized by this procedure will be in synch. However, from experience we know that the clocks will be out of synch. Therefore, we know that the relativistic procedure is wrong, based on experience. Therefore we analyze the experiment classically as follows.
 
        
 
             S1                                                                Detector                                                                S2

                                                                                  →  v

The sources each emit a short light 'simultaneously' (quoted because the clocks are not actually in synch), every second. The physicist expects the pulses to arrive simultaneously, which they do not, as we will see.

Let S1 emit the light pulse at t = t0. Then S2 will emit 'simultaneously' at time,

                                            t0  +  2D  v / v(c-v)

The light from S1 arrives at the detector at time,

                                       t1 =     t0  +  D/(c -v)

The light from S2 arrives at the detector at time,

                                   t2 =    [    t0  +  2D  v / v(c-v)  ]  +  D/(c+v)

The difference in the time of arrival of the two pulses at the detector will be:

                                    t2 -  t1  =  (2D/c) β² /(1-β² ) 

where β  = v/c

The physicist synchronized the clocks by assuming isotropy of the speed of light, placed the detector at the midpoint between the sources, and the sources emitted light pulses 'simultaneously'. He/she would expect the light pulses to arrive simultaneously at the detector, which they don't. The light pulses always arrive with a time difference of Δ that depends on velocity. The observer would have no way to explain this other than abandoning the principle of isotropy of the speed of light. To anyone rejecting this argument, my response is this: let an actual experiment be done to test it. We know that the origin of the problem lies in the observer assuming isotropy of the speed of light while synchronizing the clocks. This disproves both the principle and theory of relativity.

[alancalverd]

A thought experiment is not a disproof.

Disproof would be signalled by the failure of the GPS system (your satnav would register a speed when you were standing still) or the lights going our because the nuclear power stations had all switched off.   

At that point, your duty as a scientist is to explain why. Remember observe - hypothesise - test. So far, the hypothesis holds.

[Hal (OP)]

A thought experiment is not a disproof.

Disproof would be signalled by the failure of the GPS system (your satnav would register a speed when you were standing still) or the lights going our because the nuclear power stations had all switched off.   

At that point, your duty as a scientist is to explain why. Remember observe - hypothesise - test. So far, the hypothesis holds.

If special relativity is wrong, then gravitational time dilation (General Relativity) cannot be correct. The origin of GPS clock rate increase with altitude could have other explanation.

[paul cotter]

All attempts to falsify SR and GR over the last hundred odd years have failed to do so. My opinion is that they both stand on solid ground. The only "fly in the ointment" is that relativity is not compatible with quantum mechanics but that does not mean it is wrong.

[Hal (OP)]

All attempts to falsify SR and GR over the last hundred odd years have failed to do so. MY opinion is that they both stand on solid ground.

I wish it were true.

[Bored chemist]

However, from experience we know that the clocks will be out of synch.

What experience do you have of relativistic observations?

Because it looks like an argument from incredulity.

[Kryptid]

A thought experiment is not a disproof.

Disproof would be signalled by the failure of the GPS system (your satnav would register a speed when you were standing still) or the lights going our because the nuclear power stations had all switched off.   

At that point, your duty as a scientist is to explain why. Remember observe - hypothesise - test. So far, the hypothesis holds.

If special relativity is wrong, then gravitational time dilation (General Relativity) cannot be correct. The origin of GPS clock rate increase with altitude could have other explanation.

That would be an awfully convenient coincidence, given that the rate of such time dilation matches what is predicted by relativity.

[Origin]

The observer in the closed room first has to synchronize the clocks at S1 and S2. For this, a short light pulse is emitted from S1 towards S2. Suppose that S1 emits the light pulse at t=0. The physicist in the closed room synchronizes the clocks based on the principle of isotropy of the speed of light, because according to SRT the speed of light is isotropic in Galileo?s ship! However, unknown to him/her, we know that the clocks synchronized by this procedure will be out of synch by an amount:

                                                 (  2D/ ( c - v )  )   -   2D/c    =  2D  v / v(c-v) 

The clock at S2 will be behind the clock at S1 by this amount.

That is incorrect the, speed of the ship is irrelevant when synchronizing the clocks, for the observer on the ship.

To synchronize the clocks a pulse of light from S1 and a pulse of light from S2 should hit at the point D simultaneously.  Of course someone outside of the ship, in a different inertial frame, will say the clocks are not synchronized.

[alancalverd]

If special relativity is wrong,

.....then nuclear reactors and PET-CT scanners won't work. But they seem oblivious to their own impossibility.

[Halc]

A thought experiment is not a disproof.

It is if it find inconsistencies in the premises.

Disproof would be signalled by the failure of the GPS system (your satnav would register a speed when you were standing still) or the lights going our because the nuclear power stations had all switched off.

Those would be empirical falsification of GR, different than falsification by thought experiment.  GPS is out of scope of SR, so even that would not falsify SR, only GR.

I wish it were true.

This is obviously false, as all your posts seem to wish that relativity is false, when in fact all they do is demonstrate you lack of knowledge of even the rudimentary basics.  Shall we count the errors?  I'm going to edit your OP, inserting colored numbers to count the errrors.

A Disproof of the Principle and Theory of Relativity

Galileo's ship thought experiment:

 Consider a light source emitting a light pulse from some point in the Earth's frame, at t=0.  At the instant of light emission (1), an observer/detector is at distance D from the source(2) and is moving away from the source with velocity v, in the Earth's frame.

 We know that the light will catch up with the observer/detector at t = D/ ( c - v )(3). This is a well-known and accepted fact(29) even in the Special Relativity Theory SRT and has been confirmed by experiments. Now I will use this in my argument against the principle of relativity.

 Consider Galileo's ship thought experiment. A physicist in a closed room of the ship is doing a physics experiment. There are two light sources S1 and S2, with the distance between them equal to 2D(4). The line connecting the sources is parallel to the longitudinal axis of the ship, and hence to the velocity of the ship(5). S2 is in front of S1.  A detector is placed at the midpoint between the sources(6), at distance D(7) from each of the sources. The light sources each emit a short light pulse simultaneously( 8 ) every second(9).  The detector detects the time difference(28) between the pulses.

The observer in the closed room first has to synchronize the clocks at S1 and S2(10). For this, a short light pulse is emitted from S1 towards S2.(30) Suppose that S1 emits the light pulse at t=0(11). The physicist in the closed room synchronizes the clocks(12) based on the principle of isotropy of the speed of light, because according to SRT the speed of light is isotropic in Galileo?s ship! However, unknown to him/her, we know that the clocks synchronized by this procedure will be out of synch(13) by an amount:

                                                 (  2D/ ( c - v )  )   -   2D/c    =  2D  v / v(c-v) 

The clock at S2 will be behind the clock at S1(14) by this amount.

 It should be noted that, according to special relativity, the clocks synchronized by this procedure will be in synch(15). However, from experience we know that the clocks will be out of synch(16). Therefore, we know that the relativistic procedure is wrong, based on experience. Therefore we analyze the experiment classically(31) as follows.
 
        
 
             S1                                                                Detector                                                                S2

                                                                                  →  v

The sources each emit a short light 'simultaneously'(17) (quoted because the clocks are not actually in synch(18)), every second(19). The physicist expects the pulses to arrive simultaneously, which they do not(32), as we will see.

Let S1 emit the light pulse at t = t0(20). Then S2 will emit 'simultaneously'(21)(33) at time,

                                            t0  +  2D  v / v(c-v)

The light from S1 arrives at the detector at time(22),

                                       t1 =     t0  +  D/(c -v)

The light from S2 arrives at the detector at time(23),

                                   t2 =    [    t0  +  2D  v / v(c-v)  ]  +  D/(c+v)(34)

The difference in the time(24) of arrival of the two pulses at the detector will be:

                                    t2 -  t1  =  (2D/c) β² /(1-β² )  (35)

where β  = v/c

The physicist synchronized the clocks(25) by assuming isotropy of the speed of light, placed the detector at the midpoint between the sources, and the sources emitted light pulses 'simultaneously'(26). He/she would expect the light pulses to arrive simultaneously at the detector, which they don't(36). The light pulses always arrive with a time difference of Δ that depends on velocity(27)(37). The observer would have no way to explain this other than abandoning the principle of isotropy of the speed of light. To anyone rejecting this argument, my response is this: let an actual experiment be done to test it. We know that the origin of the problem lies in the observer assuming isotropy of the speed of light while synchronizing the clocks. This disproves both the principle and theory of relativity.

I counted at least 37 errors in the post.  1-28 are all statements rendered meaningless by lack of frame references.
29 is a strawman, asserting that one-way speed of light has been experimentally confirmed.
30: Sending a signal from one source to the other is not a valid sync procedure.
31: Any contradiction obtained from assuming classical (non-relativistic) physics is a strawman
32, 33, 36 Positing experimental results which contradict SR, another strawman.
34, 35 Calculations are wrong given your assertions.

It seems that, against the premises of relativity, you are assuming a preferred frame, which, for some reason, is the frame (W) of the water, and all your calculations are performed in this frame, and incorrectly at that.  If the calculations are correctly worked out in this frame (or in any other frame like that of the ship (S), you'll see that the detector in the boat will receive both signals simultaneously.

There are valid interpretations of physics that do not assume isotropy of speed of light (they reject both premises of SR, as do you), and these theories still predict that the detector gets both signals at once. So you're doing it wrong.

[pzkpfw]

Cross reference: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/132749-a-disproof-of-the-principle-and-theory-of-relativity/

[Kryptid]

Cross reference: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/132749-a-disproof-of-the-principle-and-theory-of-relativity/

Thanks. In accordance with this rule:

It is not acceptable simply to post material onto this forum that you have posted elsewhere, except where the post is specifically pertinent to an ongoing thread.  If you start a thread with a post that is for all practical purposes the same as you have posted elsewhere, we will generally assume that you are evangelising, and will act accordingly.

This thread will now be closed.