Post by: xersanozgen on 09/08/2008 18:30:33
I study upon light kinematics and I have some new results/methods for space-time. One of them menaces the SR seriously.
I have followed forums about special relativity. I am glad for finding some objectors. My determination will approve their arguments.
In the forums which I joined, I tested the ability of understanding of my statement. The new concept was declared in few forums and by my book (at April 2008).
The new concept/master key will declare at August 25, 2008 (at the end of Beijing Olympics) on this thread.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/08/2008 18:37:20
Post by: xersanozgen on 09/08/2008 18:55:21
Do you know how carefully SR has been tested?
The collapse of SR [2]
I want to give some secondary or preparatory information.
1- The theory of SR has consistency and it is defensible due to its postulates.
2- Every determination is produced and correct by its own references. Also, all references (and their sub/chaining references) have accordance with science or paradigm. But the roots of them are axioms or postulates. And postulates usually were not constituted by scientific procedure; they are recorded by satiated perceptions in local conditions.
3- Master-key is a postulate what has been rebuilt by scientific methods. It is very simple. And you may see complete picture of light kinematics.
4- After my information; you may think that `this is similar of Galileo event". In my opinion: It is second Galileo event.
5- The theory of SR will take part in science history as an idol for weakness of human's performance.
6- In schools SR will use as an example for human's linear thinking instead of the nature's secret.
7- All publications about SR will be trash.
8- The space-time can be analyzed without deformation of units of dimensions due to rules of new concept.
9- I am very sorry by being the reason of a sensation.
Please activate your attention and follow.
The new concept is harmonious with all of experiments and principals of relativity.
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 09/08/2008 19:15:39
Post by: Flyberius on 09/08/2008 20:27:05
I am looking forward to the 25th though ^^.
Post by: lightarrow on 10/08/2008 10:14:44
certainly, take a region of spacetime which contains mass or energy or pressure, and SR doesn't hold anylonger...
(for this reason Albert Einstein created General Relativity 10 years later).
Cheers.
Post by: xersanozgen on 10/08/2008 14:16:38
Oh yawn, we've got another 1 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbestsmileys.com%2Fyawning%2F3.gif&hash=26a70c437a82be38d9638c8243812515)
Thanks for your sensitivity.
Of course, The theory SR was adopted during 100 years and sanctified again in 2005. Even it is force major or under the auspices of actual scientific paradigm. I have not the right to belittle it; because it is consistent by its own references. For example, the sentence of "the orbit of moon is circle" is valid If the earth is reference system. But what if the sun is reference ?
Remember the Galileo event! Everybody had said that "The sun turns around the earth" exept Galileo.
I know, this is never easy to agree. But theory analyses the light by looking from earth; I analyse the space-time from out of Universe.
Post by: xersanozgen on 10/08/2008 14:34:24
<<The collapse of Special Relativity>>
certainly, take a region of spacetime which contains mass or energy or pressure, and SR doesn't hold anylonger...
(for this reason Albert Einstein created General Relativity 10 years later).
Cheers.
I only applied the modified postulate by me for Hubble constant. And I transformed to a single value (Ho = 43,7 +/- 0,2 km/s/mpc) all of the values of Ho at present between 40-80.
Post by: blakestyger on 10/08/2008 15:12:02
Remember the Galileo event! Everybody had said that "The sun turns around the earth" except Galileo.
It was Copernicus.
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 10/08/2008 15:15:22
Oh yawn, we've got another 1 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbestsmileys.com%2Fyawning%2F3.gif&hash=26a70c437a82be38d9638c8243812515)
Thanks for your sensitivity.
You're welcome.
Post by: paul.fr on 10/08/2008 16:42:23
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/08/2008 17:10:37
Quite.
Post by: LeeE on 10/08/2008 18:25:38
Post by: lyner on 10/08/2008 20:40:52
Does xersanozgen have any similar sums for us to look at? Nine bullet points don't really constitute a proof or even a statement of a theory.
Do we also have to 'trash' Newton's Laws too?
Post by: lightarrow on 11/08/2008 13:35:31
I've made the same and didn't find any relativity violations...<<The collapse of Special Relativity>>
certainly, take a region of spacetime which contains mass or energy or pressure, and SR doesn't hold anylonger...
(for this reason Albert Einstein created General Relativity 10 years later).
Cheers.
I only applied the modified postulate by me for Hubble constant. And I transformed to a single value (Ho = 43,7 +/- 0,2 km/s/mpc) all of the values of Ho at present between 40-80.
Post by: BenV on 11/08/2008 14:18:26
Post by: lyner on 11/08/2008 14:53:27
Post by: lightarrow on 11/08/2008 19:14:15
Why wait til the end of the olympics?[;D]
Post by: lyner on 11/08/2008 22:36:50
Post by: xersanozgen on 12/08/2008 09:21:46
Copernicus, Galileo...it was close, anyway..im just a poor boy, nobody loves me. he's just a poor boy, from a poor family.
GALILEO COPERNICUS
Copernicus - GALILEO = Poincaré - EINSTEIN
I had presented Galileo instead of Copernicus at my topic 'The Collapse of SR'. Thanks for corrective warnings.
Yes, Copernicus determined that the earth turns around the sun and its own axis.
But the importance of Galileo is different. Everybody had recorded "the sun turns around tehe earth" by taking reference the world as an axiom/postulate. Galileo defended by force the reason of "The earth turns around the earth's own axis" for night/daytime. And he was perceived as a menace for society and paradigm. He was judged and punished. The name of Galileo has been popularized due to this event. In my opinion it is more important transforming the reference and relative systems instead of Copernicus's pure technical contents.
Please active your curiosity, H. Poincaré had suggested the theory SR first. But Einstein had claimed. Because he was mystic; he was been exiting so much. He had appreciated the importance of SR. And the name of Einstein is popularized.
Thanks for the chance of this information
Thank you blackestyger.
Post by: xersanozgen on 12/08/2008 09:40:57
"I analyse the space-time from out of Universe. "
Quite.
I have a report about the age and diameter of universe by me. The master axis of this study:
Cosmic units (or the actors of analyse) are clusters of galaxies. I use the values of parameters of these actors for scientific integrity.
We can not assure the values of parameters by observatories because of limit of light's velocity. And the effective form of universe is deformed. Therefore I use the form which isolated from ability of observer. It is possible.
Post by: xersanozgen on 12/08/2008 09:52:54
Come on x, lets see your sums.
I am preparing the perfect information. It is very simple like making reference the sun instead of earth. My announcement takes power by its simplicity. Everybody can understand easily.
Thanks for your patience.
Post by: xersanozgen on 12/08/2008 10:04:26
I've made the same and didn't find any relativity violations...
The redshifts are reduced by a formula (This formula is produced from SR). According to SR, If the lenght is endless Vspec/c becames "1". Let's think:
to be continued.
Post by: xersanozgen on 12/08/2008 11:44:36
The graphic (*) : by the reductions of SR
(o) : The reduction by new postula (Also, theoretical requırement)
(z) : Observational values of redshifts.
Ho km/sec/mps
...l
80.l.*..........................z
...l.....*......................z
...l..........*.................z
...l...............*...........z
...l....................*.....z
...looooooooooooooooz
40.l.......................z....*
...l....................z
...l...............z
...l..........z
...l...z
...l_______________________________Distances (at present) G Iy
...0.........................16
(excuse me my graphic and my english)
The points become a linear graphic with negative inclination by reduction of SR. This result tells us that experimental and observational values are correct enoughly; but ıt may be impropriety or a problem in theory of reduction.
The values of the expanding velocity and Vspect was maximum at the start of universe (big bang). Expanding velocity is discreasing by the time*. But the increasing of Vspect (as the distances grow) is at present. That is an important nuance. The diameter of universe is limited, so the value of Vspect is limited and it doesn't increase by the time. It is fixed interval analysis.
*Of course somebody inverts thıs reality.
Post by: Alan McDougall on 12/08/2008 13:06:52
As for me it is still sound physics
Regards
Alan
Post by: Alan McDougall on 12/08/2008 13:43:11
Some theorists think that dark energy and cosmic acceleration "are a failure of general relativity on very large scales", larger than superclusters.
It is a tremendous extrapolation to think that our law of gravity, which works so well in the solar system, should work without correction on the scale of the universe. Most attempts at modifying general relativity, however, have turned out to be either equivalent to theories of quintessence, or inconsistent with observations. It is of interest to note that if the equation for gravity were to approach r instead of r2 at large, intergalactic distances, then the acceleration of the expansion of the universe becomes a mathematical artifact,[clarify] negating the need for the existence of Dark EnergyNature of dark energy
Regards
Alan
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 13/08/2008 10:11:27
and QED doesn't try to say exactly what the six different quark flavours actually represent.
QED? Shouldn't that be QCD?
Post by: xersanozgen on 13/08/2008 10:51:02
If we organize a relativity problem between two vehicles which one of them is on Mars and other is on Venus; we must not use the value of their velocities at Vehicle's own speed indicator. Once we must procure similar characteristic for the values of speeds. The values of both vehicles' speed must be calculated according to same or single reference for example the sun.
I hope there any problem is not.
Post by: xersanozgen on 13/08/2008 10:53:19
It is sufficiency/necessary to use the value of speed indicator on the earth (by local conditions). This value of the speed is relative according to first reference or coordinate system. This value of speed presents the performance of the vehicle (we may think the maximum of performance).
If we want, we can find the velocity of the same vehicle according to the sun by vector methods. This value of speed is "relative" according to second or consecutive reference system. The third reference system is our galaxy. The fourth is local cluster of galaxies…. And then chaining ….. the external system is out of general form of Universe. Universal relative velocity of the vehicle is relative according to consecutive system of Universe. We can find this relative value by traditional methods, with vector analysis.
Bibliography:
Ersan O. Autopsy Report of SR,Infoyay.2008
Post by: LeeE on 13/08/2008 19:03:14
and QED doesn't try to say exactly what the six different quark flavours actually represent.
QED? Shouldn't that be QCD?
Oops! - I was thinking of Quantum Electrodynamics - it should indeed be Quantum Chromodynamics.
Post by: xersanozgen on 19/08/2008 09:35:38
An important nuance for experiments and analysis of light kinematics:
The essential uniqueness of the light actor as a partner of SR.
The actors of mechanical experiments are evident, almost they have a name. For example we start and complete the experiment with this subject. It is very important. Because the experiment does not finished by the blue vehicle while we had begun it with red vehicle.
If we start the experiment with the ball numbered 3528 we must complete the experiment with the same numbered ball (3528). This is an undefined principle; but it is absolute requirement.
But such of light experiments are organized with the light in continuity because of some technical difficulties. In this case we can never be sure the completing the experiment by the chosen light actor, if we suppose that the light is like numbered balls or consecutive (recursive/flowing) impulses.
The light actor of SR experiments or analysis must be supposed as a flash impulse. The light actor must be isolated as a single/individual subject from case of continuity. We can succeed this for theoretical analysis.
Post by: lyner on 19/08/2008 22:00:41
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/08/2008 06:54:39
We don't supose that, all photons (of a given enegry) are identical.
Post by: lyner on 20/08/2008 09:14:47
Quote
If we start the experiment with the ball numbered 3528 we must complete the experiment with the same numbered ball (3528). This is an undefined principle; but it is absolute requirement.That is not necessarily the case.
Allow yourself to think in terms of the photon only existing at the interaction (what happens at each end) and the wave function being what describes the situation in between source and detector (on the way). The need for a particular photon to follow a whole journey is now eliminated.
The way to deal with modern ideas is not to insist on bringing all your old ideas with you. Every significant step that has been made in the past has required similar leaps away from 'comfortable' and established views.
The reason that experiments have not dealt with individual photons is not just a 'technical difficulty'; it is fundamental.
Post by: xersanozgen on 21/08/2008 21:34:04
Thank you BC - you have cracked the code for me.That is not necessarily the case.QuoteIf we start the experiment with the ball numbered 3528 we must complete the experiment with the same numbered ball (3528). This is an undefined principle; but it is absolute requirement.
Allow yourself to think in terms of the photon only existing at the interaction (what happens at each end) and the wave function being what describes the situation in between source and detector (on the way). The need for a particular photon to follow a whole journey is now eliminated.
The way to deal with modern ideas is not to insist on bringing all your old ideas with you. Every significant step that has been made in the past has required similar leaps away from 'comfortable' and established views.
The reason that experiments have not dealt with individual photons is not just a 'technical difficulty'; it is fundamental.
CORRECT: We can measure the velocity of light by using perpetual/flowing photons.
WRONG: If we want to measure the relative value "c - v" of light's speed according to Earth.
There is a nuance. Many speculations rove in sight because of this nuance.
The original text of SR bases the relative speeds of materials; light is fictionalized. Einstein's explanation is closer to modern physics. But Lorentz's proceeding is an analysis of light motion by classical mechanic. Also Einstein had used Lorentz's explanation in his book (for students) at 1916.
In my opinion elementary analysis is better instead of abstruse thinking as in original text.
The way to deal with Lorentz's setting requires the individual photon. That is fundamental. We can use the individual photons for theoretical analysis. The experiments with flowing photons may be deceptive or misleading. For example Michelson-Morley experiment. If we can use the halves of single photon we would determine different number of interference. That is technical difficulty.
Post by: lyner on 22/08/2008 15:22:17
Quote
CORRECT: We can measure the velocity of light by using perpetual/flowing photons.How can you say that? You can measure the time between the emission and reception of some light energy. No one has a CLUE about how it travels. It may be 'perpetual, flowing photons' or it may not be. All we know is the effect the experiment gives.
Quote
If we can use the halves of single photon we would determine different number of interference.But it isn't just 'halves' of photons which are involved; every flow of em energy follows the 'rules' of diffraction. The two slits experiment is the very simplest (although, of course, the slits have finite width, in practice and have their own associated diffraction pattern). If you insist that the photon exists as 'fractions' you have to allow it to spread, in the limit,in all directions and be spread everywhere. Where's your 'little bullet' now?
The Photon, as a concept, is a useful thing to explain many interactions but trying to use it when describing the propagation of em energy is seriously fraught. We are on to a loser if we insist in saying what anything 'really is' and this (what I am criticising) is an excellent example of that statement.
Post by: blakestyger on 22/08/2008 19:31:41
He was never able to demonstrate his system directly.
Post by: xersanozgen on 23/08/2008 10:15:17
QuoteCORRECT: We can measure the velocity of light by using perpetual/flowing photons.How can you say that? You can measure the time between the emission and reception of some light energy. No one has a CLUE about how it travels. It may be 'perpetual, flowing photons' or it may not be. All we know is the effect the experiment gives.QuoteIf we can use the halves of single photon we would determine different number of interference.But it isn't just 'halves' of photons which are involved; every flow of em energy follows the 'rules' of diffraction. The two slits experiment is the very simplest (although, of course, the slits have finite width, in practice and have their own associated diffraction pattern). If you insist that the photon exists as 'fractions' you have to allow it to spread, in the limit,in all directions and be spread everywhere. Where's your 'little bullet' now?
The Photon, as a concept, is a useful thing to explain many interactions but trying to use it when describing the propagation of em energy is seriously fraught. We are on to a loser if we insist in saying what anything 'really is' and this (what I am criticising) is an excellent example of that statement.
The light is used by uninterrupted form in experiments of SR (the measurements of velocity or Michelson-Morley). I claim that if we can interrupt the light for example with Kerr obstructer, and we can complete the experiment by single flash impulse we can interpret more significant results.
The primary receptions of SR are simple* and the analysis of SR deals elementary for light's motion. Even the Lorentz's transformations are reduced relation by "λ" of the relation of classic relativity (x - v.t). In my opinion we don't need to think complexity for SR. Also Einstein and Lorentz could not think by our actual knowledge in 1905. They did not put the meaning or analyze light's motion by high advanced physics. The fiction SR is simple that it can be understood by medium education. Of course it has a point of hardness for our logic.
I solved this point by reconstructing of a postulate. I'll declare it after Olympics. The space-time, the light kinematics and SR will be transparent** due to this announce.
*But Einstein wrote the original text of SR like by abstract or advanced mathematical thinking.
** Of course it is optional. I can just only state. If it would be understood easily it will be effective and take place in paradigm. Somebody will use and examine it. They will analyze and compare the new results by natural realities. I hope it will not take long time.
Post by: xersanozgen on 23/08/2008 10:30:51
xersanozgen, Copernicus didn't determine that the Earth went around the Sun, he suggested it. What he was originally trying to do was produce more effective tide tables for navigators and this heliocentric system did just that - coupled with the observation that fewer epicycles were needed to account for some planetary orbits this way. Because it was a 'tidier' system in the mathematical sense it was seen to be right, by him and one or two others; elegance is still important in pure mathematics.
He was never able to demonstrate his system directly.
Thanks for your gentle explanation.
I had said in some forums as "Galileo's determination"; but somebody corrected me "it was Copernicus". Of course Galileo had intented to say "The earth turns around the own axle of earth, against to belief of "the sun turns around the earth". The idea for orbital turning of earth is suggested by Copernicus as you say.
Post by: Flyberius on 23/08/2008 11:28:40
Post by: xersanozgen on 24/08/2008 15:24:45
The list the series of consecutive reference systems in accordance with their comprehending capacity:
A material or any one (The source of light or Einstein's train for SR)
The Earth (or Einstein's rails)
The Sun
Milky Way
Local cluster
Super cluster
The general form of Universe
Light coordinate system (Macro reference system)
NEW CONCEPT: The velocity of light is relative according to "light coordinate system/macro reference system/most external system". The velocity of light is character as Vor (Vor: The relative velocity according to out of universe).
The light does not accept anything by reference system except itself (The first coordinate system is reference for materials. The first coordinate system of light is the most external system. The values of light's speed "Vor and original*" are equal (But these values for materials are different).
The measures of light's velocity by present techniques give always the value "c" by this (Vor) labeling.
The theory of SR supposes and loads the meaning that the value "c" is relative according to its source (or train). It is very important: "Which speed do we intend to measure?"
Anyway, the new concept is actually. Henceforth, we would understand and use the meaning that the value "c" is relative according to macro reference system.
If a theoretical analysis is organized by "the light coordinate system", the units of time and length remain like classical physics (the values of velocity of all partners would be use by the character as Vor, especially for the source and observer).
For quotation: Ersan O. Autopsy Report of SR Infoyay 2003, 2008.
I am here for the questions.
*Original speed: the speed which it can create by its own power.
Post by: xersanozgen on 02/09/2008 17:16:52
1- It is possible and effective the isolation some secondary factors for scientific analysis. So, it is obtained the elementary analysis on master axle of the event or subject. For example, the traveling line is straight and the speed of subject is fixed in SR; also the observer, the source and the light travels on parallel lines. They present easiness for basic analysis.
2- But, we have no the rules of these isolations or reductions. The scientists may use and decide the appropriate dosage. The optimum dosage is defined by the concept of necessity and adequacy. If the isolation is exceeded, the claims can be defended easily. But if needless isolations are removed their precision may be impaired.
3- In my opinion the possibility of scientific isolation is used over optimum or extremely in SR analysis. For example the theory is set by an inertial system and the light in the original text. And so it has consistence easily. It may be not perceived as a problem the light at the opposite direction according to the direction of its source on relative subject.
4- Lorentz's analysis has clarity for the light at the opposite according to its sources'. But also he analyzed the light at the same direction of its source. Here it is a needless isolation. If we analyze the opposite light by the rules of SR, this time we find "the time contraction" instead of dilation.
5- The theory of SR organized between only two actors with train-rails example or Earth-spaceship. But universe is never composed of only two subjects. The third and other actors menace the results of SR like in a marriage.
For example: If the relative speed of the train is Ve according to the earth; Vv according to Virgo; Vf according to the cluster Fornax; Vc according to the super cluster Coma; Va according to Abell 2246; V326 according to 3C 326.1 etc…The contraction of the train's length will be the values of e %, v %, f %, c %, a %, …..x % etc. simultaneously because of SR. And the time dilations for the train will be the values of e' %, v' %, f' %, c' %, a' %,……x' % etc. simultaneously by SR. But it is impossible the different values of deformations simultaneously.
Post by: xersanozgen on 19/09/2008 11:10:32
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg363.imageshack.us%2Fimg363%2F2871%2Ffig6fc0.jpg&hash=9e1413bbcb9d009f3821e1cbfaf0e212) (http://imageshack.us)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg363.imageshack.us%2Fimg363%2Ffig6fc0.jpg%2F1%2Fw608.png&hash=a0c5456eb3f3c6d89849c3b0ed353cd1) (http://g.imageshack.us/img363/fig6fc0.jpg/1/)
Post by: xersanozgen on 21/09/2008 11:12:34
There are some definitions in science history; they were imperfect. The reason of deficiency may be because of could not perceiving the complete of picture especially for universal subjects. An example and its identical for SR:
The form of Earth is flat, because we have visual evidence: The sun and the moon are always upside in everywhere.
The measured value of light's velocity is relative according to local frame; because we have experimental evidence, we measure and find always the value "c" in everywhere.
The form of Earth is spherical.It was hidden because of local looking. But we can perceive this reality due to advanced science.
The measured value of light's velocity is relative only according to most external frame. We distinguish this reality/alternative due to thinking like abstract mathematics. We can measure and find the value "c" because of the technique of the measuring mechanism (with mirrors and uninterrupted light)
Post by: LeeE on 21/09/2008 23:58:03
Post by: lyner on 22/09/2008 10:05:15
Failing that, get your own website and fill it with all the nonsense you want.
Post by: xersanozgen on 22/09/2008 15:59:53
Also your posts are too many and too rambling to expect anyone to read them. Why not just post one post and wait for a reply?
Failing that, get your own website and fill it with all the nonsense you want.
www.infoyay.com/english.php
Post by: lyner on 22/09/2008 23:37:55
Post by: xersanozgen on 28/09/2008 12:23:46
Figure-1: To = T'o = 0
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg211.imageshack.us%2Fimg211%2F7085%2Ffig15nx8.jpg&hash=eb80319d11fc79895595a0cb2f462963)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg211.imageshack.us%2Fimg211%2Ffig15nx8.jpg%2F1%2Fw488.png&hash=6f39a23923ef353dc103cc4f9a1dfb24)
[SIZE="2"]..................A………….........………S……........………B[/SIZE]
Figure-2 Tı = 10 earth-second
1- We want to analyze spaceship's motion by the theory of SR or Lorentz's analysis. The value of its speed is "v" according to The Earth.
2- The Earth is a reference frame.
3- The spaceship has a source of light (a flash). And an observer is on the Earth.
4- At the moment of To The observer and the flash are at the point "A". And it flashes.
5- Light impulse of the flash has the same value of speed "c" according to the spaceship and the Earth (according to the theory).
6- Flash's light can travel to every direction. We consider the same directional light for first analysis (Fig.-2).
7- At the moment Tı (= 10 earth-second) the light is at the point "B" and the spaceship is at the point "S".
8- The results according to the theory: (t=10 - 0=10 earth-second)
AS = v.t = 1 800 000 earth-km
L = AB =c.t= 3 000 000 earth-km (traveling length for light according to earth and the unit of earth)
SB = 1 200 000 earth-km
L'(same) = SB = 1 200 000 / [1 - (v/c)^2]^1/2 = 1 500 000 ship-km (traveling length for the same light according to spaceship and the unit of ship).
t'(same) = (t - v.L/c^2) / [1 - (v/c)^2]^1/2 = 5 ship-second (traveling time of the same light according to spaceship).
c = L'(same) / t'(same) = 1 500 000 / 5 = 300 000 space-km/space-second.
OK. THE THEORY IS CERTIFICATED.
Post by: xersanozgen on 28/09/2008 12:26:46
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg55.imageshack.us%2Fimg55%2F7561%2Ffig12aj1.jpg&hash=87b366df541e1f952acc8c4c74bd4f1f)
...............B'…………………………………...............A…………………........S………........……B
AS = v.t = 1 800 000 earth-km
L = AB' = c.t = (-) 3 000 000 earth-km
SB' = 4 800 000 earth-km
L'(opp.)= 4 800 000 / [1 - (v/c)^2]^1/2 = 6 000 000 ship-km (traveling length for the same light according to spaceship and the unit of ship).
t" (opp.) = (t - v.L/c^2) / [1 - (v/c)^2]^1/2 = 20 ship-second.
c = L'(opp.) / t"(opp.) = 6 000 000 / 20 = 300 000 ship-km/ship-second
OK. THE THEORY IS CERTIFICATED.
12- Yes, we obtained the fixed value for the velocity of light in both case.
13- T(same) =T'(same) = T(opp.) = T'(opp.) The moment of analyzing time is a singular time because of the existence of the light.
14- We have a problem. Because:
t'(opp.) >t(reference) > t'(same)
20>10>5
It means: Faster tempo > Ref. Tempo > Slower tempo
15- The same directional analysis requires slower tempo of time to remain the fixity of light's velocity.
16- But the opposite directional analysis requires faster tempo of time to remain the fixity of light's velocity.
17- It is not possible two different tempos for one clock in the same frame simultaneously because of causality.
18- One unit of ship-second is concerning with the relative speed of spaceship only. The ship-km is not problem; it has independence from light's direction. But the tempo of time is related with light's direction.
THE THEORY of SR has A CONTRARY.
Conclusions:
1- We don't need the opposite directional light to perceive this contrary; because Einstein had said in his book: The perpendicular light is not a reason for deformation of time (because its relative value of speed's projection is zero according to ship's direction. Slower tempo and reference tempo of time is together in the same frame; also this case is imposibble.
2- Doubtless the theory has sympathy because of time-travel. And there are the fanatics for the theory. They may want to kick the ball to touch. But this examination has clarity. If some one can not leave the theory because of its fantastic results like time travel, he consider misinforming.
3- Of course the light can travel the directions of 360 degree even spherical for
Post by: xersanozgen on 06/12/2008 11:49:18
I submitted a summary at the topic "Is the big bang correct?"
2496
Post by: xersanozgen on 14/04/2017 11:21:45
My last synthesis for this subject:
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/6600 (http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/6600)
Post by: xersanozgen on 14/04/2017 11:26:25
https://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/77-11-oezgen-ersan-and-isinsu-ersan-light-kinematics-to-analyze-space-time.html (https://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/77-11-oezgen-ersan-and-isinsu-ersan-light-kinematics-to-analyze-space-time.html)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhyEs..26...49E (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhyEs..26...49E)
Post by: xersanozgen on 17/04/2017 16:04:31
1. Genuine relativity: In this regard, we must remember the essence of the concept of
simple relativity. A car obtains its speed by applying power to the road surface via
friction, such that the numerical value of its speed is relative to the road. Thus, the
road is the reference frame (or comparing/inertial object) for the speed of the car.
The car obtains its speed via its frictional pushing against the road or in actuality,
the mass under the road. The road or mass of the Earth beneath it, has an active
(but indirect) role in the motion and speed of the car. In other words, the speed of
the moving body is relative to the mass of the reference frame. At the time of
motion, the car’s speed remains relative to the road. The distance between the car
and its starting point can be determined by this relative value of its speed.
2. Nominal/supposed relativity: Think about two cars moving on the same road.
When we give the reference role to one of them (we suppose that it is immobile),
the speed of other car (vectorial total of their speeds) can be defined as “nominal
relative”. This car does not obtain this value of its speed due to other car. In this
regard, the nominal relative value of a particular speed is the titular / notional /
artificial / comparative value. The increasing/decreasing speed of the distance
between these two cars can be defined by coding for the “nominal relative” speed
of each car.
3. Momentary/temporary relativity: If a player throws a ball, what is the reference
frame of the ball’s speed? The player is the reason for the ball’s motion, as the
player supplies the power. Therefore, we can say that “the ball moves away from
the player at the speed at which was thrown” or “the ball’s speed has a value that is
relative to the player”. However, this holds only if the player does not leave the
point from which (s)he threw the ball. Naturally the player has freedom to move
after throwing the ball. At any given moment of flowing time, the distance
between the player and the ball will differ from the “v.t” value, because the player
can travel in any direction [even if (s)he maintains uniform motion]. However, the
relativity-based computation is valid with regard to the throwing point (which can
be marked on the ground); thus, the main reference frame regarding the relativity
of the ball’s speed is the mass of the ground. The player determines the quality of
reference frame only at the throwing moment; at subsequent moments the distance
between the player and the ball cannot be determined merely by the throwing
speed. Likewise, the relativity of the ball’s speed is valid only with regard to the
point (marked on the ground) at which the ball was thrown. Thus, the ground is the
co-reference frame for the motions of the player and the ball.
Which type of relativity pertains to the relationship between light and its
source/moving body?
Post by: yor_on on 17/04/2017 17:57:07
Post by: xersanozgen on 18/04/2017 08:12:25
I would recommend you looking up the words obfuscate and obscurantism. Then redress your questions in a more understandable manner. You really need to make your ideas clearer.
Thanks for your interest.
The theories of special and general relativity have methodological defects. I want to tell these defects.
Please ask focused questions
Post by: xersanozgen on 18/04/2017 08:17:46
source/moving body?
SR theory considers “the relativity concept” according to its first
meaning (genuine relativity). Based on SR theory “the distance between a photon and its
source always increases with the value of speed c “. We must, therefore, discuss “what
contribution the source makes to the velocity of light?” or whether “the source makes any
such contribution at all”. The source never applies a power akin to pushing or throwing. In
addition, the light does not apply such power to the source or moving body or its
place/ground (*). The light’s velocity results from electro-magnetic cycles in space. The value of
light’s velocity can be defined based on the concept of “genuine relativity”, which considers
only the space involved. I prefer to call this major reference frame “Light coordinate system
(LCS)”. If we suppose that the source throws the photons, then the relationship between the
light and its source (or moving body) is defined by momentary relativity by-which the light
instantly transfers to the LCS. In this case, the LCS is the co-reference frame for the motions
of the light and the other actors (source, observer, everything). The values of all parameters
involved must be determined based on a co-reference frame, which is the LCS for light
kinematics.
(*) The velocity of light is the highest value in the universe; nevertheless, it does not accelerate to obtain
this high value. This quality of light incorporates the concept of independence and superiority. In actuality,
light has uniform motion in accordance with the Galilean principle of relativity. When considered in this way,
the light or its comparison frame (LCS) is the most competent reference system for light kinematics.
Post by: GoC on 18/04/2017 14:06:00
Post by: yor_on on 18/04/2017 16:49:47
Post by: guest4091 on 18/04/2017 18:17:06
Quote
If we suppose that the source throws the photons, then the relationship between theYou mentioned marking the ground where the ball motion originated. Where do you mark for the emission point of light? If it is a material emitter, how fast is it moving in space?
light and its source (or moving body) is defined by momentary relativity by-which the light instantly transfers to the LCS. In this case, the LCS is the co-reference frame for the motions of the light and the other actors (source, observer, everything). The values of all parameters
involved must be determined based on a co-reference frame, which is the LCS for light kinematics.
Post by: xersanozgen on 18/04/2017 18:18:38
There are some failures in your analysis of relativity. SR is not the failure you suspect. The failure is your interpretation of SR. There is no perpendicular path for light in vector speed. The spectrum where photons exist are not particles A moving to B. It is merely a wave on the spectrum same as any other alpha or Bata wave on the spectrum. Electrons do not travel to the dual slit only the representative wave of the electron travels at c. Dilation of the clock in the forward vector with a ship takes the geometry of the hypotenuse of a right triangle. Half the speed of light is a 30,60,90 triangle. Cos 30 = 0.866025 which represents the clocks reduction in tick rate relative to one. The reduction in tick rate is due to the increased travel distance of the hypotenuse. This is the same value as the Lorentz contraction using Euclidean geometry. The speed of light is c but the distance is the hypotenuse 1.33075. I can even explain the equivalence in GR if you like. But there is nothing wrong with SR or GR. Stay on the path. You might learn Relativity properly.
SR claims that the distance (between the photon and its source) always increases by the velocity c. Moreever, the source has independence to go to anywhere/any direction. For example the source can travel to the direction ( - x); while the photon goes to ( + x). On this position the parameter v will be negative mark in Lorentz equation and t’ (for –x) > t’ (for +x); so it means, time tempo works faster instead of time dilation. A clock never work slower and faster simultaneously.
Post by: yor_on on 19/04/2017 09:53:55
Post by: yor_on on 19/04/2017 10:01:31
=
That means that in a two way experiment, where you get to a speed, you're doing a local measurement, defined by your own clock and ruler, relative what you measured to be the distance between those mirrors you set up. The mirrors being 'at rest' relative yourself. But it has nothing to say about which way you are 'moving' as a whole 'system' and it doesn't really matter for measuring 'c'.
Post by: xersanozgen on 19/04/2017 12:05:59
I . An object (if it has uniform motion) can be used as an inertial frame. This principle supports SR.
II. Light kinematics must be considered on minimum four dimensions; OK. But there is an important principle too (That it caused to be judged Galilei): Predominant frame must be always preferred for analyses. As known, it (“The sun turns around the Earth”) was a strong determination. Galilei had solved this mistake. In substance, the human had assigned the relative object as dominant reference frame.
This second principle does not support the theory SR. Even, it disclosures a methodological defect of SR. Because SR considers local objects (the source, moving body, observer) for the role of competent reference frame.
The space (or Light Coordinate System LCS) is the competent reference frame for the analyses about Light kinematics. This option is not objectionable; because the velocity of light according to space or LCS is the same value c (of course, the value of parameters for other actors must be considered according to space instead of local values).
Post by: xersanozgen on 19/04/2017 12:34:43
That means that in a two way experiment, where you get to a speed, you're doing a local measurement, defined by your own clock and ruler, relative what you measured to be the distance between those mirrors you set up. The mirrors being 'at rest' relative yourself. But it has nothing to say about which way you are 'moving' as a whole 'system' and it doesn't really matter for measuring 'c'.
Yes, we measure always local speeds for materials. But we can measure just the universal velocity (according to space) of light, not local or relative velacity. Our measuring system (continuous photons because of uninterrupted light, double paths, mirrors, etc) can determine just this universal value (this interpretation is possible; please allow yourself). The results of all experiments is the same and we know the velocity of light never takes an adding by its source's speed.
That phrase is wrong : " The velocity of light is always the same value ( c ) according to everything"
That phrase contains the nuance: The velocity of light is always measured the same value ( c) by the present measuring experiment.
Substantially, we must consider the increasing or decreasing speed of the distance between the defined photon and its emitting point on LCS.
Post by: GoC on 19/04/2017 13:43:18
That phrase is wrong : " The velocity of light is always the same value ( c ) according to everything"
No, this is not wrong, this is correct.
Quote
That phrase contains the nuance: The velocity of light is always measured the same value ( c) by the present measuring experiment.This is also correct.
Quote
Substantially, we must consider the increasing or decreasing speed of the distance between the defined photon and its emitting point on LCS.
This is incorrect. The only way to measure is local and freezing of position. You are trying to suggest a preferred frame. There is no preferred frame. You cannot measure something of which you are a part. You are a part of the motion of the universe.
If you were going half the speed of light is your relative speed to light different from a person at relative rest to the speed of light? Yes. Will your measuring stick and clock measure the same SOL as the person at rest? Yes. Your clock measures c - kinetic energy. There is no preferred frame of zero kinetic energy.
Well there is a contribution that's been proved experimentally, called a recoil. As that 'photon' leaves, the material it left recoils, due to conservation laws. Whether one want to see that as a 'photon propagating' or just as a example of conservation laws is another thing.
yor on
The standard model suggests a virtual photon because a photon with mass would violate relativity. The standard model does not include energy of space which is necessary for something to move faster than its generator in mass. Other wise you would need to believe in magic. An energy spectrum of space is the very essence of a virtual photon.
Energy could be a spinning grid pattern of a dimension of size relative to the electron that actually move the electrons. The electron jump would cause friction on the energy grid propagating the energy as a form of coiled wave in all directions. The opposite direction would be a mirror image we consider entangled. Spooky at a distance would be nothing more than a trick based on an incorrect understanding of wave creation. c is of space and creates the motion of time. Planck time and Planck distance are the same exact thing. Motion.
Would there be a recoil to a wave production? You bet there would be a recoil.
Post by: Janus on 19/04/2017 18:20:36
Slower And Faster Tempo Of Time At The Same ClockWrong. You are operating under the misconception that because The ship is length contracted in the Earth frame, that the ship would measure this distance as being stretched out. This is not what SR says. Under SR, length contraction is reciprocal. If the Earth frame measures a distance AB as being 3,000,000 km, and the relative velocity of the ship and Earth is 3,000,000 km, then the Ship will measure this same distance as being 2,400,000 km. From this it is quite clear that you don't actually understand what the theory you are trying to dispute really says.
Figure-1: To = T'o = 0
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg211.imageshack.us%2Fimg211%2F7085%2Ffig15nx8.jpg&hash=eb80319d11fc79895595a0cb2f462963)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg211.imageshack.us%2Fimg211%2Ffig15nx8.jpg%2F1%2Fw488.png&hash=6f39a23923ef353dc103cc4f9a1dfb24)
[SIZE="2"]..................A………….........………S……........………B[/SIZE]
Figure-2 Tı = 10 earth-second
1- We want to analyze spaceship's motion by the theory of SR or Lorentz's analysis. The value of its speed is "v" according to The Earth.
2- The Earth is a reference frame.
3- The spaceship has a source of light (a flash). And an observer is on the Earth.
4- At the moment of To The observer and the flash are at the point "A". And it flashes.
5- Light impulse of the flash has the same value of speed "c" according to the spaceship and the Earth (according to the theory).
6- Flash's light can travel to every direction. We consider the same directional light for first analysis (Fig.-2).
7- At the moment Tı (= 10 earth-second) the light is at the point "B" and the spaceship is at the point "S".
8- The results according to the theory: (t=10 - 0=10 earth-second)
AS = v.t = 1 800 000 earth-km
L = AB =c.t= 3 000 000 earth-km (traveling length for light according to earth and the unit of earth)
SB = 1 200 000 earth-km
L'(same) = SB = 1 200 000 / [1 - (v/c)^2]^1/2 = 1 500 000 ship-km (traveling length for the same light according to spaceship and the unit of ship).
Quote
t'(same) = (t - v.L/c^2) / [1 - (v/c)^2]^1/2 = 5 ship-second (traveling time of the same light according to spaceship).
c = L'(same) / t'(same) = 1 500 000 / 5 = 300 000 space-km/space-second.
OK. THE THEORY IS CERTIFICATED.
A proper analysis of the above situation:
From the Earth frame:
At T=0, both ship and light leave Earth. After 10 sec Earth time, the light reaches point B, 3,000,000 km away and the ship reaches point A and the Ship reaches point S, which is 1,800,000 km away. At which point the clock on the ship will read 8 sec. The ship will be 1,200,000 km away from Point B.
From the Ship frame: The light and the Earth both leave the the vicinity of the Ship, in opposite directions. At the same moment point B, which is 2,400,000 km away is moving towards the ship at 0.6. The light, heading in the direction of B meets up with point B after 5 sec, at which time point B will be 900,000 km away. (here we see an example of the relativity of simultaneity, According to the Earth frame, the light reaching point B and the ship clock reading 8 sec are simultaneous events, but in the Ship frame, they are not. The ship clock does not read 8 sec until three sec after the light and point B are coincident. )
According to the Ship, a clock on Earth now reads 4 sec past what it did when the ship and Earth separated. ( time dilation is also reciprocal and a further example of the Relativity of simultaneity).
The same analysis applied dealing with light going the opposite direction:
Earth frame: After 10 sec the light is at Point B', 3,000,000 km away and the ship is 2,400,000 km in the other direction. They are 5,400,000 km apart and the ship clock reads 8 sec.
Ship frame. Earth and the light separate away from the Ship in the same direction at the same moment that point B' is 2,400,000 km away and moving away at 0.6c. It will take 20 sec for the light to "catch up to point B", at which time Point B' and the ship will be 6,000,000 km apart. The Earth clock will have advanced 16 sec. (reciprocal time dilation and relativity of simultaneity).
In order to argue against Relativity you must first fully understand the principles of the theory. What you have have done is argue against a straw-man version of your own making. You will get nowhere by basing your argument on an erroneous interpretation of the theory.
Post by: xersanozgen on 20/04/2017 15:35:11
The speed of light is c but the distance is the hypotenuse 1.33075.
In my opinion, there is another explaining option for this inference: If we direct the photons to perpendicular path due to a filter the path of light will be perceived like a hypotenuse again; as you said. But the distance of light does not increase, because we used a filter for perpendicular path. The light travels by micro perpendicular ways for every atto seconds and the total distance is the other small edge of the triangle (like total of the step’s height (vertical distance) of a stair). The length of the light’s way is the same; not increases.
An other explain: If we direct the light by the angle of your hypotenuse; at this time, we can perceive the light’s path perpendicular form or like smaller edge. In my opinion this example (without filter) may be more effective.
About general theory:
If you look at fig. 4 ( http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/6600 (http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/6600) ) you can distinguished that the gravitational lens is possible without acceleration (a = 0).
Post by: GoC on 20/04/2017 16:47:18
There is an undeniable logic to relativity. Light being independent of the source and constant. Consider two ships in space parallel going half the speed of light. We can say relative to a person at rest if you like using half the speed of light. Now there is no possible way perpendicular light can be seen even with your filter between the ships. Lets take a atto second flash of light between the ships at event A from ship A. The detector detects the flash at point B from ship B. The physical positions of the ships remain in physical space parallel. Ship B receives the flash at an angle of 60 degrees behind its present position. Light can go no faster so each ship views the other as 30 degrees off from 90 behind by image while being parallel by physical position. This angle also creates a contraction of view. At 30 degrees off from 90 the contraction of view is 0.866025/1. And the light would have traveled 1.133075/1. This reduces the tick rate of a clock and contracts the view by the reciprocal of the view in angle to distance.
The only way a 90 degree filter will work is if you were able to go into the future position from the past. In other words 90 degree view with the geometry of motion is impossible. If light were infinite we would have no distinguishable images.
Janus- Very good understanding
Post by: xersanozgen on 20/04/2017 18:38:12
Well there is a contribution that's been proved experimentally, called a recoil. As that 'photon' leaves, the material it left recoils, due to conservation laws. Whether one want to see that as a 'photon propagating' or just as a example of conservation laws is another thing.
Very interesting! We know that the photon has not a mass how can be measured. So, the mass of a photon or photons can be determined by this method. As known, the recoil event is realised in accordance with the ratio of the masses of actors.
Probably this lights contained cosmic rays.
Post by: xersanozgen on 20/04/2017 19:01:34
xersanogen #56QuoteIf we suppose that the source throws the photons, then the relationship between theYou mentioned marking the ground where the ball motion originated. Where do you mark for the emission point of light? If it is a material emitter, how fast is it moving in space?
light and its source (or moving body) is defined by momentary relativity by-which the light instantly transfers to the LCS. In this case, the LCS is the co-reference frame for the motions of the light and the other actors (source, observer, everything). The values of all parameters
involved must be determined based on a co-reference frame, which is the LCS for light kinematics.
Thanks for your serious question.
Yes, the ground is a genuine co-reference frame for the motions of ball and player. But, the logic of SR considers the player as reference/inertial frame, if he has an uniform motion. (Ball represents the defined photon; the playe represents the source in football analogy).
We need a co-reference frame for the actors of light kinematics (source and defined photon). To mark the emission point is not possible. But the nature does not care this reality . This problem is ours. Generally present position of a sky object is considered for this. Whereas this attitude is a ease because of despair. We have a chance: we can use a paper/sheet instead of co-reference frame for analyses about light kinematics ( practical example:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhyEs..26...49E (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhyEs..26...49E) ) .
Post by: xersanozgen on 20/04/2017 22:03:40
It's 'time' that defines a speed, time over distance. Instants or happenings are what counts here. Whether a 'source' goes in one, or another direction, under the instant a 'photon' is released is of no importance for 'c', as it is a observer dependent factor. Think of doing a two (way) mirror experiment on Earth, you reverse its direction and still get 'c' . Relative motion is of no importance to this. But if you have a feeling of that 'speeds' isn't what defines it then I think I might agree.
In analysis of SR, the source follows its photon (Is it compelled? No, never). Whereas the source has independence to travel anywhere (like football player) after emitting moment. SR must provided its inferences for other directions. But, this proof was neglected (This is a methodological defect).
Otherwise, in SR, there is an excessive reduction ( single direction + x) for easy analysis. Whereas a star emits and sends the photons at 41253 spherical degrees and fractions. SR claims that perpendicular light (according to star’s path) does not cause time dilation because of projection. OK; but how has a clock two (*) tempos simultaneously ?
(*) Very much tempos (when we consider other directions)
Post by: xersanozgen on 21/04/2017 11:01:53
The first point one need to see is that there is no defined way of measuring a speed, except as compared to something else. In a black box scenario (SR) all 'uniform speeds' are equivalent inside that box, no way to differ between them experimentally. So any suggestion of defining a 'speed' is doomed to fail. It's comparisons, and your uniform motion will change, as soon as you pick something else to measure it by.
=
That means that in a two way experiment, where you get to a speed, you're doing a local measurement, defined by your own clock and ruler, relative what you measured to be the distance between those mirrors you set up. The mirrors being 'at rest' relative yourself. But it has nothing to say about which way you are 'moving' as a whole 'system' and it doesn't really matter for measuring 'c'.
Yes, local speed of other actors (v) is also mutable in accordance with other external reference frames. If the train has a uniform motion, this is not guaranteed for the experiment and the light inside that train; because uniform motion is not defined when we consider other sequential frames; seriatim Earth, Solar system, Milkyway galaxy, local cluster, super cluster, visible universe…..space or most external frame (LCS). Therefore we must use the most external reference frame for light kinematics analyses. To use local frames is a human’s defect. Methodology requires to assign most external frame for light kinematics.
The value of light’s velocity is ‘ c ‘ according to space or most external frame unobjectionably. So if we use the values of other actors’ parameters according to same reference frame (LCS) the Galilean analysis will be possible. We do not need the theory SR. We may not measure the universal value (V) of source's or observer's speed; but, nature does not care this reality. Of course we can make parametric analysis.
Post by: guest39538 on 21/04/2017 12:23:23
The collapse of Special Relativity [1]Do you want to know why you are incorrect?
I study upon light kinematics and I have some new results/methods for space-time. One of them menaces the SR seriously.
I have followed forums about special relativity. I am glad for finding some objectors. My determination will approve their arguments.
In the forums which I joined, I tested the ability of understanding of my statement. The new concept was declared in few forums and by my book (at April 2008).
The new concept/master key will declare at August 25, 2008 (at the end of Beijing Olympics) on this thread.
SR is correct relative to the definition of time.
Post by: xersanozgen on 21/04/2017 12:28:40
That phrase is wrong : " The velocity of light is always the same value ( c ) according to everything"
No, this is not wrong, this is correct.QuoteThat phrase contains the nuance: The velocity of light is always measured the same value ( c) by the present measuring experiment.This is also correct.QuoteSubstantially, we must consider the increasing or decreasing speed of the distance between the defined photon and its emitting point on LCS.
This is incorrect. The only way to measure is local and freezing of position. You are trying to suggest a preferred frame. There is no preferred frame. You cannot measure something of which you are a part. You are a part of the motion of the universe.
SR says that a photon always moves away from its sources. Is this correct for the next moments of flowing time?
Please think in four and more dimensions.
Post by: xersanozgen on 21/04/2017 12:32:14
The collapse of Special Relativity [1]Do you want to know why you are incorrect?
I study upon light kinematics and I have some new results/methods for space-time. One of them menaces the SR seriously.
I have followed forums about special relativity. I am glad for finding some objectors. My determination will approve their arguments.
In the forums which I joined, I tested the ability of understanding of my statement. The new concept was declared in few forums and by my book (at April 2008).
The new concept/master key will declare at August 25, 2008 (at the end of Beijing Olympics) on this thread.
SR is correct relative to the definition of time.
Second Galilei event : To discover/distinguish the defects of SR.
Post by: xersanozgen on 21/04/2017 17:49:37
In order to argue against Relativity you must first fully understand the principles of the theory. What you have have done is argue against a straw-man version of your own making. You will get nowhere by basing your argument on an erroneous interpretation of the theory.
I work to answer the messages. but I did not understand your argument. Please present a figure.
Post by: xersanozgen on 21/04/2017 17:56:03
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/5858 (http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/5858)
An Analogy to Clarify the Relativity of the Light
When a pebble is dropped to the flat/quiet surface of a lake, a ring/circle wave happens and its radius expands
by a value of speed (figure 1)[3]. The expanding speed of ring wave does not change while the experimenter is
standing, walking or running; it keeps the value of its speed on every standard dropping the pebble. On this analogy
ring wave represents the light, the surface of lake represents LCS, and the experimenter (who drops the small stones)
represents the light source. As will be understood, the source (experimenter) can go every direction independently
while the light (ring wave) is escaping from the emitting point (which is marked on the surface of lake). If the
experimenter (when he has a motion) drops serially the pebbles in standardized conditions, it means it is like
“continuous light” on natural status. The starting point or the centre of ring wave is marked on surface of the lake, not
with entity of the source/experimenter. STR accepts that the light source itself is always starting point for the photon’s
motion. Space or vacuum (LCS) does not point an entity or concrete frame; actually (by abstract thought in math.), the
light is a super reference frame itself. It is possible on a sheet of paper and is sufficient for analyzing instead of
LCS. The surface of the lake is co-reference frame for ring wave and the experimenter/source; similarly space or LCS
is co-reference frame for the light and other objects. The expanding speed of the ring wave is not relative value
according to source (experimenter). To consider the relativity concept about speeds (between object and its reference
frame) is not necessity and valid for the relation of light and its source. Direct relativity is essential and significant in
mechanics, but not in light kinematic.
Post by: xersanozgen on 22/04/2017 08:38:29
In order to argue against Relativity you must first fully understand the principles of the theory. What you have have done is argue against a straw-man version of your own making. You will get nowhere by basing your argument on an erroneous interpretation of the theory.
I work to answer the messages. but I did not understand your argument. Please present a figure.
Janus,
I am still working your analysis.
Please just like analyze this position: The photon goes toward east; the ship goes toward west. Other values are the same.
Post by: GoC on 22/04/2017 17:45:49
In our universe there is only 3 dimensions and motion which we assign to a cycle for timing measurement. If there are other dimensions in your belief system they have not been discovered. Unreal numbers in math are just that, unreal quantities.That phrase is wrong : " The velocity of light is always the same value ( c ) according to everything"
No, this is not wrong, this is correct.QuoteThat phrase contains the nuance: The velocity of light is always measured the same value ( c) by the present measuring experiment.This is also correct.QuoteSubstantially, we must consider the increasing or decreasing speed of the distance between the defined photon and its emitting point on LCS.
This is incorrect. The only way to measure is local and freezing of position. You are trying to suggest a preferred frame. There is no preferred frame. You cannot measure something of which you are a part. You are a part of the motion of the universe.
SR says that a photon always moves away from its sources. Is this correct for the next moments of flowing time?
Please think in four and more dimensions.
Quote
SR says that a photon always moves away from its sources. Is this correct for the next moments of flowing time?
Light is independent of the source so the source can move but the photon event remains from the position in which it was created. Consider one attosecond for a flash event in a ship going half the speed of light and say its in a ship with a distance of 1. The photon starts in the back of the ship and travels to the front of the ship where there is a mirror. The photon travels a distance of 2 to reach the front of the ship. In the return direction the photon travels 2/3rds distance. So the round trip was 2 2/3rds distance for the photon (vs. at rest being 2 but there really is no at rest its just relative). Now the ship moved through space 1/3rd distance without the photon and the forward position of the ship is 1/3rd further in space when the photon reaches the back (contraction of view for the observer at rest anyone?). So the ship moves 1 1/3rd relative distance while the reflective light moves 2 2/3rds relative distance. This was with the ship moving 1/3 its relative distance without the reflective light.
Now lets look at the perpendicular physical position of the event and mirror. Light cannot move perpendicular to motion if light is independent of the source. So the event position has two legs of a right triangle one leg is 1 relative distance while the second leg is 0.5 relative distance. This creates a 30,60,90 triangle where the photon travels the hypotenuse. Simple Pythagoras cos 30 = 0.866025 which is the same as the Lorentz contraction where the increased distance of the hypotenuse path exactly matches the reduction in tick rate. The clock only ticks 0.866025 of a second for every second vs. at relative rest. It simple geometry of motion.
Perpendicular light and motion is impossible. So if your basis is perpendicular movement of light with motion (which is the basis of SR) than you start off with an error in your thinking.
SR is fine and well living in relativity.
Post by: xersanozgen on 23/04/2017 14:58:57
Your SR calculation is correct. I want to repeat for other viewers of this topic:
The ship’s speed is 60 % c and it travels toward + x. Two photons (toward +x and –x) is emitted at the moment To = 0 worldsec.
We seek the coordinates of these photons according to the ship at the moment Tı =10 worldsec.
]The results acoording to the world:
(x’ ; t’) world ===> (3 000 000 worldkm; 10worldsec)
(x’’ ; t’’) world ===> (-3 000 000worldkm; 10 worldsec)
The results according to the ship:
(x’ ; t’) ship ===> (1 500 000 shipkm ; 5 shipsec)
(x’’ ; t’’) ship ===> ( 6 000 000shipkm ; 20 shipsec)
I have never/any objection for these results. And nobody objects these result in accordance with SR mentality.
BUT; probably, you may distinguish a contradiction too:
How does the clock (in the ship) indicate either 5 shipsec or 20 shipsec simultaneously?
How does the shipclock or abstract time of the ship work by two (innumerable for angled positions) different tempos?
Is there time contraction in SR (20 shipsec represents time contraction instead of time dilation)???
The time moment is unique; 10 worldsec, 5 shipsec and 20 shipsec represent the same moment in accordance with the existence of photons.
Post by: Janus on 24/04/2017 20:44:30
Dear Janus and Goc,
Your SR calculation is correct. I want to repeat for other viewers of this topic:
The ship’s speed is 60 % c and it travels toward + x. Two photons (toward +x and –x) is emitted at the moment To = 0 worldsec.
We seek the coordinates of these photons according to the ship at the moment Tı =10 worldsec.
]The results acoording to the world:
(x’ ; t’) world ===> (3 000 000 worldkm; 10worldsec)
(x’’ ; t’’) world ===> (-3 000 000worldkm; 10 worldsec)
The results according to the ship:
(x’ ; t’) ship ===> (1 500 000 shipkm ; 5 shipsec)
(x’’ ; t’’) ship ===> ( 6 000 000shipkm ; 20 shipsec)
I have never/any objection for these results. And nobody objects these result in accordance with SR mentality.
BUT; probably, you may distinguish a contradiction too:
How does the clock (in the ship) indicate either 5 shipsec or 20 shipsec simultaneously?
How does the shipclock or abstract time of the ship work by two (innumerable for angled positions) different tempos?
Is there time contraction in SR (20 shipsec represents time contraction instead of time dilation)???
The time moment is unique; 10 worldsec, 5 shipsec and 20 shipsec represent the same moment in accordance with the existence of photons.
The answer to your question of how S's clock can read 5 and 20 sec simultaneously is that it doesn't.
To illustrate, lets modify this set up slightly. The A and S frame have measuring rods extending outward in each direction to a distance of 3,000,000 km as measured by their own frame. At the ends of these rods are clocks which are synchronized according to each frame (as far as the ship is concerned the clocks at the end of its rods read the same as the ship clock and as far as A is concerned the clocks at B and `B read the same as his clock. The following set of images show events as far as A measures at three different times for A, 0 sec, 5 sec and 10 sec.
Since S and its rods are moving at 0.6c relative to A and its rods, the rods are length contracted and none of the clocks moving with S are in sync with each other, due to the relativity of simultaneity.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F%7Ejparvey%2Fsitebuildercontent%2Fsitebuilderpictures%2Flightracea.gif&hash=f964b6d95f78fd1928fbbef48545045f)
The top image is the start of the scenario.
The middle image is after 5 sec has passed for A B and B'. The light pulses are halfway to to B' and B, and the left going pulse has just reached the end of the left rod of S. Since all these clocks are time dilated, the Clock at this end has advanced 4 sec to now read 10 sec. This is just as it should be, as according to S, the light should also reach this end when the clock there reads 10 sec. Also note that when the clock at A reads 5 sec, it is bit more than 7.5 marks on S's measuring stick from S.(this will be touched on again later).
The bottom image is when the time for A is 10 sec. The light has reached both B' and B, and the clocks at those points read 10 sec. The three clocks moving with S have all advanced 8 sec due to time dilation. Again note where A is relative to S's measuring stick. Also note that B is ten of S's measuring stick marks from S.
Now we'll look at the same events according to S. Here we will show 5 different points of time:
The starting point,
When the light reaches B
When A's clock reads 5 sec
When A's clock reads 10 sec
When the light reaches `B
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F%7Ejparvey%2Fsitebuildercontent%2Fsitebuilderpictures%2Flightraces.gif&hash=100b539671041a9dc171129a37282d84)
Top image. Now it is A and its clocks and rods that have the relative motion(to the left), so they undergo length contraction and the clocks are offset from each other due to the relativity of simultaneity.
Next we have the light reaching B, this occurs when S and its clocks read 5 sec. The Clock at B having started at 6 sec and advancing 4 sec reads 10 sec, just like it did for the last set of images. It is also ten mark away from S by S's measuring stick, which also agrees with above.
The other light pulse has yet to reach B'
Next is when A's clock reads 5 sec. The right light has passed B, but the left light has still not yet reached `B. Note when A's clock reads 5 it is next to the same point of S's measuring stick as it was in the last set of images.
Now we show when A's clock reads 10 sec. Again note that A is next to the same point of S's measuring stick as in the last set of images.
Lastly we show when the light finally reaches `B and the clock at `B reads 10 sec. At this point S's clock reads 20 sec.
So according to S, its clocks read 5 sec when the light reaches B and 20 sec when the light reaches `B. But just because these two events are simultaneous according to A does not mean that A reads 5 sec and 20 sec simultaneously. (in fact, according to A, when the light reaches B and `B, the clock at S reads 8 sec.) It just means that these events are simultaneous in one frame but not in the other. This is the whole gist of the relativity of simultaneity, that simultaneity is not absolute, but is frame dependent. The fact that A measures these events as simultaneous has now priority over the fact that S measures them not to be. S in turn measures the fact that the light reaches the end of its measuring rods simultaneously, while A says its does not. Neither frame is more correct than the other.
Neither does this create a contradiction. Because both A and S will agree what happens when any two points of their frames pass each other. If I were to put clocks at each of the tick marks on both sets of measuring rods, whenever two of those clocks passed each other both A and S would agree as to their respective clock readings.
So no, you have shown a contradiction in SR. (And let's be honest, if Relativity could be proven wrong by such a simple example, it would been dumped decades ago. Scientists don't make a name for themselves by just going along with the flow, they do it by overturning the boat, and someone would have jumped on this chance long ago.)
Post by: xersanozgen on 25/04/2017 09:02:19
So no, you have shown a contradiction in SR. (And let's be honest, if Relativity could be proven wrong by such a simple example, it would been dumped decades ago. Scientists don't make a name for themselves by just going along with the flow, they do it by overturning the boat, and someone would have jumped on this chance long ago.)
Does this argument (simple example) protect or resque the theory SR?
The human perceived that “the Earth is flat” and “the Sun turns around the Earth” for million years.
The theory has analyzed the light on a single direction and moreover according to a local object. This attitude is not normal in accordance with methodology. Yes, it is amazing; does anyone discover the flaw on opposite direction? I did not encounter like this fault. And therefore, I wrote a book about this subject (Pseudo Science <Under the protection of mysticism> 2003 and 2008):
1- Mysticism likes the brilliant ideas. Mysticism is an archetypal quality of human.
2- Human’s cognitive ability is linear and inadequate for universal subjects (especially light).
3- The theory SR had neglected to analyze the other directions (merely, it suggests the ineffectiveness for the perpendicular photon) and the operation step of superpose.
4- Already, when a person did not internalize the SR analysis of single direction by the method of active education, he cannot consider new/next steps.
5- The theory SR is not a method of therapy or surgical operation that their defects are cropped up immediately. It is exempted from “life anvil”.
6- The real reason of the illusion of space-time is to be limited/finited value of light’s velocity; not fix and same value for everything. When the analysis is realized by the base of limited/finited velocity and on LCS; it will be possible without any troubles (I can analyze by this paradigm and I calculated the age of universe)
7- General affirmation (due to the power of media) gives an excuse to the person who does not understand the theory. And the objections are underestimated by this present paradigm.
8- There are the realization successes of the human on every subjects. In science history we can see the concept of Ad-hoc.
9- In science philosophy (that is my other interest), some requirements are not on agenda yet:
. The management of mental references
. Revising the local postulates according to universal scale by methodology and like a project.
10- There is a different word for every nuance in English. But the word “relativity” is a single for the subject; whereas the types of relativity is mentioned by me (genuine relativity; nominal/supposed relativity; momentary/temporary relativity; etc). Probably this situation may restricts someone’s analysis.
11- Currently we human remain our traditional habit (that to assign the local object as reference role)
12- The young scientists can understand my objections/clues/arguments. Some academician can find reasonable objection for my football example by carrying the event to space (On the earth the ground became reference frame for the ball, not player; but on space the player can be reference frame for the relative motion of the ball by the reason of effection-reaction. But when he discovered a flaw of my argument; he supposed his answer as a flag and his mind was anchored like a ship. Whereas the concept of effection-reaction is not valid for the light/photon .
13- First and new scientific approaches may have mistakes. Because human mind is linear and nature has complexity. Some wrong opinions may remain for hundred years in accordance with low requirement or utilization.
14- The theory SR has other serious defects. For example, in formulas the parameters have units and we require to get provision for these units too (In equations the parameters have not units). But Lorentz transformations give always 300 000 relativeKm/relativeSec and claims that results are equal to 300 000 referenceKm /referenceSec in numerical application. If the units are changeable, the numerical values must not be equal for authentic distance. We must also get active our attention for this point.
15- The theory SR had been helpful to revise light kinematics by being a guide hypothesis.
Post by: Janus on 25/04/2017 17:40:14
Wow, that was an quite a bit of text to say absolutely nothing relevant to the validity of SR.
So no, you have shown a contradiction in SR. (And let's be honest, if Relativity could be proven wrong by such a simple example, it would been dumped decades ago. Scientists don't make a name for themselves by just going along with the flow, they do it by overturning the boat, and someone would have jumped on this chance long ago.)
Does this argument (simple example) protect or resque the theory SR?
The human perceived that “the Earth is flat” and “the Sun turns around the Earth” for million years.
The theory has analyzed the light on a single direction and moreover according to a local object. This attitude is not normal in accordance with methodology. Yes, it is amazing; does anyone discover the flaw on opposite direction? I did not encounter like this fault. And therefore, I wrote a book about this subject (Pseudo Science <Under the protection of mysticism> 2003 and 2008):
1- Mysticism likes the brilliant ideas. Mysticism is an archetypal quality of human.
2- Human’s cognitive ability is linear and inadequate for universal subjects (especially light).
3- The theory SR had neglected to analyze the other directions and the operation step of superpose.
4- Already, when a person did not internalize the SR analysis of single direction by the method of active education, he cannot consider new/next steps.
5- The theory SR is not a method of therapy or surgical operation that their defects are cropped up immediately. It is exempted from “life anvil”.
6- The real reason of the illusion of space-time is to be limited/finited value of light’s velocity; not fix and same value for everything. When the analysis is realized by the base of limited/finited velocity and on LCS; it will be possible without any troubles (I can analyze by this paradigm and I calculated the age of universe)
7- General affirmation (due to the power of media) gives an excuse to the person who does not understand the theory. And the objections are underestimated by this present paradigm.
8- There are the realization successes of the human on every subjects. In science history we can see the concept of Ad-hoc.
9- In science philosophy (that is my other interest), some requirements are not on agenda yet:
. The management of mental references
. Revising the local postulates according to universal scale by methodology and like a project.
10- There is a different word for every nuance in English. But the word “relativity” is a single for the subject; whereas the types of relativity is mentioned by me (genuine relativity; nominal/supposed relativity; momentary/temporary relativity; etc). Probably this situation may restricts someone’s analysis.
11- Currently we human remain our traditional habit (that to assign the local object as reference role)
12- The young scientists can understand my objections/clues/arguments. Some academician can find reasonable objection for my football example by carrying the event to space (On the earth the ground became reference frame for the ball, not player; but on space the player can be reference frame for the relative motion of the ball by the reason of effection-reaction. But when he discovered a flaw of my argument; he supposed his answer as a flag and his mind was anchored like a ship. Whereas the concept of effection-reaction is not valid for the light/photon .
13- First and new scientific approaches may have mistakes. Because human mind is linear and nature has complexity. Some wrong opinions may remain for hundred years in accordance with low requirement or utilization.
14- The theory SR has other serious defects. For example, in formulas the parameters have units and we require to get provision for these units too. But Lorentz transformations give always 300 000 relativeKm/relativeSec and claims that results are equal to 300 000 referenceKm /referenceSec in numerical application. If the units are changeable, the numerical values never be equal for authentic distance. We must also get active our attention for this point.
15- The theory SR had been helpful to revise light kinematics by being a guide hypothesis.
The bottom line is that Relativity is accepted because it works. It provides accurate predictions in real life situations. If the day comes when Relativity fails to predict the correct results, or someone develops a theory that does a better job in predicting outcomes, then it will be replaced. But it will take results from a real physical measurement or experiment to cause this.
Post by: xersanozgen on 25/04/2017 21:52:31
The bottom line is that Relativity is accepted because it works.
Thanks for your interest and answers.
I had read a text about benefits of SR. The text was saying the GPS corrections as most important usefullness. Somebody (who does not know the essence of SR) may attributes many events to SR. The reason of GPS correction is the limited/finited velocity of light.
I know a single position to use SR: In cosmology, to reduce the redshifts; that alternative reduction method is indicated by me ( http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhyEs..26...49E (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhyEs..26...49E) )
The theory SR is an AD-HOC like Fitzgerald contraction.
The bottom line is:
Second Galilei event : To discover/distinguish the defects of SR.
Note for other followers:
To have universality requires to overcome the locality and to look from out of universe,
I just share my synthesis and I have not a liability to convince. Please allow you yourself to distinguish the nuances.
If the adoration/fanaticism obstrucs the science; you must eave the science
Post by: PhysBang on 26/04/2017 12:55:24
Post by: xersanozgen on 26/04/2017 14:38:15
Note to xersanozgen: your basic mathematical mistakes and your choice of topics make it clear that you do not understand this topic.
Second Galilei event : To discover/distinguish the defects of SR.
Please allow you yourself to distinguish the nuances. Otherwise you may have the position that he always say “the Sun turns around the Earth; because I see this”.
The science requires to be naked or transparent.
If the adoration/fanaticism obstrucs the science; you must leave the science.
Post by: GoC on 26/04/2017 15:37:32
The earth is still revolving around the sun, you will not fall off the earth if you sail to far, SR is alive and well.
Post by: xersanozgen on 02/05/2017 12:32:42
SR is alive and well.
What may be the reason how powerfully convinces Lorentz, Poincaré, Einstein and you/others? I want to emphatize and apply positive discrimination for your postulates. We must search this case for science philisophy without polemics.
There is a traditional attitude: To interpret the results of an experiment in accordance with initial intention. We can see this attitude on some/much experiments’ report/paper.
If the experimentalist wants to measure the relative velocity of the light according to the experiment place or its source and if he hopes a value like v +/- c ; however, if he always finds the value c; how will interpret this result?
The light moves away from its source by just its velocity c (without any addition by its source’s speed). And it is accepted implicitly that the velocity of light is a relative value according to its source/moving body ( they are assigned as the reference frame; of course we have arguments for this: the light is sent by its source, and we know by our daily trials that the local places and us are always our reference frames).
It is a possible option that to study to interpret the results of experiments without their initial intentions. Probably, we can use this option for every experiments.
What can be else?
to be contiuned...
Post by: xersanozgen on 03/05/2017 09:56:46
You are confusing the two way speed of light with the one way speed of light in SR. Your in the middle of a ship with a distance of 2. Units do not matter this is relativity. You send a signal simultaneous from the ships observer 1 atto second in both forward and backward while going half the speed of light compared to an observer at rest. The forward signal reaches the front mirror at a distance of 2. The backward signal reaches the mirror in 2/3rds. So there is a 1 1/3rd difference between the two mirrors being synchronized (lets use the term in Gods eye). Now on the return trip the forward signal returns in 2/3rds the length to the middle and the backwards signal takes a distance of 2 to reach the middle. They arrive in the middle as simultaneous to the observer in the middle. This will happen at any speed of the ship. The observer at rest would view them as returning to the center as simultaneous. The same time will have passed for each direction of light.
The earth is still revolving around the sun, you will not fall off the earth if you sail to far, SR is alive and well.
Your example is like “light clock” and “light clock” is a perfect argument to defend the theory SR. Besides, the velocity of light is fix and a clock needs fix vibratory object; therefore the light is reasonable choice and a light clock always gives time dilation.
“Light clock” convinces many followers. But, we can discuss this mental experiment in-depth like commissar Colombo.
Light clock has same tempo for positive/negative going directions because of square of the parameter v. However, the going direction results different tempos in accordance with parallel or perpendicular positions of the mirrors:
t’ (parallel) = t / (1 – v^2/c^2) ^1/2 (please attention: It is mentioned the square root of denominator)
t’ (perpendicular) = t / (1 – v^2 / c^2)
But, would Einstein like this argument?
Post by: xersanozgen on 05/05/2017 14:12:57
What can be else?
In mechanical relativity, the speed of any object is relative according to a local place/mass absolutely. We call this by coding “reference frame”. In mechanic the Earth is the essential reference frame automatically (how that the fishes may not discern the water or sea).
Is there an event that its speed is not impressed by its source’s speed? Yes, we can find examples for this: If a pebble falls to surface of a lake; it causes a circle wave. The expanding speed of this ring wave is never impressed by the experimentalist’s speed (for standing or running positions). At following times the distance (between his new position and a point of circle wave) is not calculated by just the expanding speed of the circle wave (whereas, the theory SR allows similar calculation) In this lake analogy, the circle wave represents the light, the surface of the lake represents the space, the experimentalist represents the source. Similarly in football game the distance (between the new positions of the ball and the player on the moment T2) is not calculated by the just the ball’s relative speed according to the ground. On these samples the surface of the lake and the ground of the stadium and space are co-reference frames for the motions of ring wave/ball/light and experimentalist/player/source.
We always find the same value for the light’s velocity. We can label this result as its relative speed according to local frame or its source; if we intend to measure local speed.
However, this result can be also labeled as universal speed of the light; if we intend to measure the universal velocity. In my opinion, the key requires to overcome the locality.
Post by: GoC on 06/05/2017 15:38:38
Post by: xersanozgen on 07/05/2017 11:55:05
“Light clock” convinces many followers. But, we can discuss this mental experiment in-depth like commissar Colombo.
Light clock has same tempo for positive/negative going directions because of square of the parameter v. However, the going direction results different tempos in accordance with parallel or perpendicular positions of the mirrors:
t’ (parallel) = t / (1 – v^2/c^2) ^1/2 (please attention: It is mentioned the square root of denominator)
t’ (perpendicular) = t / (1 – v^2 / c^2)
But, would Einstein like this argument?
The light travels in an analog tv tube by tube together. The light travels inside an analog tv tube together by it. Also the system of mirrors carry a packace of light similarly. Besides, the device/mechanism of measurement for the velocity of light is similar apparatus. The photon takes longer way than 2.L (< L1 + L2 = 2.L / (1 - v^2 / c^2) and the time of travel is t' = t / (1 - v^2 / c^2). So this mirrored measuremet apparatus works as a light clock. Therefore, this measurement system cannot measure the relative/local speed of light according to its source.
As understood, light clock carries the light by going and coming. Whereas the theory SR considers the light at single going path. Light clock has time dilation for perpendicular motion. SR does not contain time dilation for perpendicular position.
Post by: xersanozgen on 07/05/2017 12:10:45
The Lorentz contraction is just a derivative of Pythagoras caused by motion and viewing an object from a past position in the observers present. Simultaneity of relativity.
The primary defect of SR is to assign the light source or local place as essential reference frame for analyzing of light's motion: In accordance with local habits.
Whereas, the space or LCS (most external reference frame) is co-reference for the motions of everyting (light, source, observer): the inference of universal paradigm (as you said: "lets use the term in Gods eye")
All efforts to defend SR are futile successes of rationalization. Because, to assign the space or LCS (Light Coordinate System) and to consider the finiteness (*) of the velocity of light can solve/analyze light kinematics without SR. Please try and confirm.
Of course we must thank Einstein for his theory that presented a possibility to arrive an alternative theory.
(*) The reason of illusion of space -time is just the finiteness of light's velocity. This reason and the concept of LCS can explain and analyze light kinematics sufficiently.
Post by: puppypower on 07/05/2017 12:29:36
As an example, in the twin paradox, one twin is set into motion and when he returns he is younger than his other twin who remained stationary. While they were in motion, we can apply relative velocity, with both references seeing the same thing. Yet in the end, both references do not develop the same final state. This disproves the relative assumption since both do not end the same way.
What we think we see, due to relative reference, does not add up always add to the final reality; reference differences. This discrepancy is due to the lack of an energy balance during application. If you did an energy balance, only the twin with the added kinetic energy should age slower. Mass/energy is not relative, but is often ignore by traditions which insist on relative references via velocity.
The reason the traditions developed as they did was because the most important use of SR is inferring the age and speed of the universe; red shift. At the same time, we will never physically get close enough to directly measure any of these distant objects. The idea of an energy balance does not even register since the state of universal relativistic mass and energy can't be verified.
We are stuck at the twins in motion stage, but assume we will never get to see one twin aging slower, to know what we are doing is not adding up; out of sight and out of mind. This approach became the tradition which continues to rub some people the wrong way, while never being changed, since the needed change would add a monkey wrench to the way we assume the universe.
If you can't do an energy balance, it is easy to violate energy conservation and not even know it. Eventually, contradictory observational data appears which requires adding energy and mass to the universe, which is not seen, but is needed. One such addendum is dark energy and dark matter to reflect the need to improve the energy balance due to improper SR application. We can't see dark energy in the lab, but we need it to improve the energy balance in a relative assumption go space-time that ignores relativistic mass, with mass not relative to reference.
Post by: guest39538 on 07/05/2017 12:55:50
Also I have read one sentence from the opp that is correct but for reasons for which he does not understand in which I do .
Post by: xersanozgen on 08/05/2017 09:12:24
As an example, in the twin paradox, one twin is set into motion and when he returns he is younger than his other twin who remained stationary. While they were in motion, we can apply relative velocity, with both references seeing the same thing. Yet in the end, both references do not develop the same final state. This disproves the relative assumption since both do not end the same way.
Twins must have same age ABSOLUTELY.
In accordance with reciprocity principle (ın space condition) we may choice any one of twins for the role of relative actor or reference frame. If you confirm the theory SR, If person A has a high speed according to person B, when we suppoze that person A is rest (inertial/reference frame), at this time the person B has same speed according to person A. Both them are exposed to time dilation and their ages will become the same.
The reason the traditions developed as they did was because the most important use of SR is inferring the age and speed of the universe; red shift. At the same time, we will never physically get close enough to directly measure any of these distant objects. The idea of an energy balance does not even register since the state of universal relativistic mass and energy can't be verified.
Yes, SR is used to reduce redshifts; the theory SR considers the value c for the top limit of all speeds that this suggestion is inadequate.
Because the top limit is 2.c especially for nominal/supposed relativity. The radius of a light sphere increases by the velocity c and the diameter of light sphere increases by 2c unavoidably.
Post by: xersanozgen on 08/05/2017 09:30:13
Hello, I have read some of the posts in this thread by the poster, can somebody please explain what he is on about as I can not for some reason decipher what he is on about?
Also I have read one sentence from the opp that is correct but for reasons for which he does not understand in which I do .
He is an alien.
Post by: puppypower on 08/05/2017 12:08:25
The light we use to measure motion, and the mass of the object, behave differently, relative to reference. When we observe the universe, we intercept actual photons from old events. However, we don't get actual matter and mass samples from the same events. The velocity vector is important to the light we collect, but it does not tell the whole story of matter, which we can't collect and which is not vector dependent. In the example, the potential energy of the mass is the same in any direction, relative to the observer, but its energy emissions are not.
Einstein made provisions with his relativistic mass term. But how do you measure relativistic mass, directly? We can't for things at a distance. We do it through calculations, based on the photons, we collect, which are vector dependent. We try to define an invariant with a variant. The full observation should be space-time plus mass, not just space-time, since space-time is reference biased, while the mass is not. This makes a difference, and is why we now have dark matter and dark energy. This is an unconscious attempt to explain the mass connection.
You can see the importance of the mass by looking at General Relativity and gravity. In the star example, its mass is concentrated in the center of gravity due to the pressure imposed by gravity. This causes its local space-time to always layer, expanding way from center toward the perimeter. This layering direction of the space-time well, is not relative to observer. It is always the same direction of layering, because it is led by the invariant, mass. It is based on the potential energy of the mass. It does not arbitrarily reverse, if we use a trick reference.
In the twin paradox, one of the twins is set into motion using a rocket that burns fuel for propulsion. There is actual energy used to gain motion. The stationary twin pretends to move in their imagination, since no energy was actually used for them.
The moving twin, due to the expenditure of energy, gains potential energy in its mass and matter as relativistic mass via kinetic energy; younger twin. The relativistic mass change, like with gravity, is leading the change in its local space-time. The twin with the relative reference created with active imagination, does not experience any real change in its relativistic mass, because no real energy was added. So their space-time remained the same; older twin.
Relativistic mass is the key variable in SR, since it reflects the potential of the mass, which is absolute, which like in GR, influences the local space-time profile. But we can't yet measure relativistic mass in a direct way. This results in space-time gaining more priority and the cart leading the horse. This can sort of work going downhill but has problem going up the hill. If the horse leads, he go up and down the hill and make turns.
Post by: alancalverd on 08/05/2017 14:46:43
None that have been demonstrated by experiment.
Post by: xersanozgen on 08/05/2017 19:13:20
Are there flaws in special relativity?
None that have been demonstrated by experiment.
Thanks for your interest.
My alternative theory considers the same experiments that are the base of SR. However the interpretations of them are different. We must can interpret the results of the experiments independently without their initial intentions. Besides, the postulates of SR must be revised in accordance with universal scale and as a scientific project. Because our postulates are formed in local conditions.
The primary defect of SR is to assign the light source or local place as essential reference frame for analyzing of light's motion: This is a first approach in accordance with local/mechanical/traditional habits.
Whereas, the space or LCS (most external reference frame) is co-reference frame for the motions of everyting (light, source, observer, clusters, universe): This is an inference of universal paradigm (as you (Goc) said: "lets use the term in Gods eye")
All efforts to defend SR are futile successes of rationalization. Because, to assign the space or LCS (Light Coordinate System) and to consider the finiteness (*) of the velocity of light can solve/analyze light kinematics without SR. Please try and confirm.
Of course we must thank Einstein for his theory that presented a possibility to arrive an alternative theory.
(*) The reason of illusion of space -time is just the finiteness of light's velocity. This reason and the concept of LCS can explain and analyze light kinematics.
Post by: alancalverd on 08/05/2017 23:58:22
The problem with a "god's eye view" of physics is the absence of any experimental evidence for a god with a fixed point of view, and a bizarre predilection for William of Ockham's pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate which distinguishes science from superstition.
Post by: xersanozgen on 09/05/2017 08:46:20
1- There are no "intentions" to a good experiment except to measure whatever we set out to. Thus we find (a) that the speed of light in vacuum is independent of its direction of propagation and (b) that light is an electromagnetic wave. Then we discover the relationships between electric and magnetic fields, and Maxwell uses these experimental relationships to show that c is theoretically constant, from which we derive a whole bunch of relativistic predictions that turn out to be true in practice, and some simple laboratory experiments of determining c without using a light beam and a stopwatch.
2- The problem with a "god's eye view" of physics is the absence of any experimental evidence for a god with a fixed point of view, and a bizarre predilection for William of Ockham's pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate which distinguishes science from superstition.
1- Yes, you are right “that the speed of light in vacuum is independent of its direction of propagation”. However some bodies may have hidden postulates (here is the initial intention; probably); for example they still suppose and label the measured value as “genuine relative” speed (at meaning to always move away from its source; to always increase the distance -between the photon and its source- by c) for the velocity of light. Even after 112 years they repeat the defect of SR. The question of commissar Colombo: which is the essential reference frame of light’s speed c how is labeled by coding “relative”; its local source or the space/most externel frame (LCS)?
2- No, “God’s eye” has a special importance in light kinematics (thanks to Goc). When an observer/receptor is an actor/component of light experiment, the perception/restriction of his sense of sight can affect upon the interpretation of results like in SR (SR declares the value c is highest velocity; yes an object never travel by bigger speed than c; however the distance between two independent objects can increase by bigger speed than c * ( but < 2c).
If we have not the theory SR and if we analyze the illusion of space-time, we would find LCS concept as a co-reference frame for light kinematics. LCS concept is simply and effectively to analyze light kinematics and calculate the age of universe ( https://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/77-11-oezgen-ersan-and-isinsu-ersan-light-kinematics-to-analyze-space-time.html (https://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/77-11-oezgen-ersan-and-isinsu-ersan-light-kinematics-to-analyze-space-time.html) )
* However if an observer is on one of them, he can perceive the events by c.
Post by: alancalverd on 09/05/2017 15:39:44
Isn't that the definition of velocity? If you change direction you have changed the vector, and velocity is a vector.
(at meaning to always move away from its source; to always increase the distance -between the photon and its source- by c) for the velocity of light.
Quote
SR declares the value c is highest velocity;
Not true. An experimentally verifiable consequence of SR is the impossibility of accelerating a massive object to c, nothing more than that.
Post by: David Cooper on 09/05/2017 17:15:38
The problem with a "god's eye view" of physics is the absence of any experimental evidence for a god with a fixed point of view, and a bizarre predilection for William of Ockham's pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate which distinguishes science from superstition.
Don't trip over the use of the word "God" there - it doesn't require anything superstitious for that view to be valid as it simply refers to the view that God would have if such a beast existed. The importance of the God's eye view of things is that it refers to the universe as it actually is; all the distortions caused by viewing from within the universe removed so that the universe can be understood properly.
Post by: alancalverd on 09/05/2017 18:11:47
The idea that we have a distorted view has no foundation. We see what we see, and our mathematical model predicts what we see next. If there were any unaccounted distortion, SR wouldn't work.
Post by: David Cooper on 09/05/2017 19:10:50
The view of a third party is not "special". If the third observer can see anything, he is part of the observable universe.
The idea that we have a distorted view has no foundation. We see what we see, and our mathematical model predicts what we see next. If there were any unaccounted distortion, SR wouldn't work.
The mathematical model generates the god's eye view from the distorted views that we see, and that's why the god's eye view is valid. To reject it is to reject the model.
Post by: xersanozgen on 10/05/2017 09:09:03
1- Isn't that the definition of velocity?
2- Not true. An experimentally verifiable consequence of SR is the impossibility of accelerating a massive object to c, nothing more than that.
1- Yes, we have habit to label a speed according to its first source; here is the hidden postulate. Whereas the reference/comparison frame of the ball's speed is not the moving player (even if he has an uniform motion). If you consider the player you will have some troubles on mechanical analysis. The reference frame for the ball's speed is the ground of stadium. Analyses must be realized by ground not the player (although, the player is the first frame for the ball). We must learn by this example, that the ground is a co- reference frame for the ball and other actors. Similarly, the source is the first frame for light; and we must distinguish about essence reference frame of light. In my opinion, it is space or most external frame (LCS); we must prefer the space for light kinematics. Space or LCS is co-reference frame for the light and other actors (source, observer, etc.)
2- Yes I confirm your answer too; "an object does not accelerate upto c". I did not mean this option. The distance between two independent object can increase by bigger speed than c (on God's eye). But the images always come to an observer by the speed c.
Post by: xersanozgen on 10/05/2017 09:26:11
The mathematical model generates the god's eye view from the distorted views that we see, and that's why the god's eye view is valid. To reject it is to reject the model.
Yes, here is wisdom.
We can perform to analyze light kinematics in accordance with God's sight on any sheet of paper. I realized this ( https://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/77-11-oezgen-ersan-and-isinsu-ersan-light-kinematics-to-analyze-space-time.html )
Post by: xersanozgen on 10/05/2017 11:57:50
The problem with a "god's eye view" of physics is the absence of any experimental evidence for a god with a fixed point of view, and a bizarre predilection for William of Ockham's pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate which distinguishes science from superstition.
Don't trip over the use of the word "God" there - it doesn't require anything superstitious for that view to be valid as it simply refers to the view that God would have if such a beast existed. The importance of the God's eye view of things is that it refers to the universe as it actually is; all the distortions caused by viewing from within the universe removed so that the universe can be understood properly.
If the light has infinite value for its velocity, we would see everything at simultaneous positions and by their current ages. While I analyze space-time I need at this meaning of "God's eye".
Post by: xersanozgen on 11/05/2017 10:25:47
Isn't that the definition of velocity?
Thanks alancalverd.
The argument of hidden/covert postulate is important for SR. To understand and internalize the argument “hidden postulate” will be like second Galilei event.
Also, the nuance/difference of “genuine/prominent relativity”, “nominal/notional relativity”, “temporary/momentary relativity” etc must be internalized. They are the simple subjects of fundamental physics. We cannot ignore these realities for the sake of mysticism or fantastic inferences like SR.
Post by: alancalverd on 11/05/2017 11:46:43
Post by: puppypower on 11/05/2017 12:08:26
Are there flaws in special relativity?
None that have been demonstrated by experiment.
The Theory of Special Relativity is not flawed. Rather the problem is most applications do not usually include all three terms; relativistic mass, distance and time. We tend to focus on distance and time; space-time and ignore relativistic mass. This result can be an energy balance problem that may be not be obvious.
As an example, say you are on a moving train. Someone sitting at the station watches you go by. You see the station appear to move, while the other person sees the train moving, Based on your train reference, you can do calculations and make predictions with the relative assumption and distance and time.
Let me now add the mass considerations. The train has X amount of mass, while the station has Y mass. Based on both references, there is a discrepancy in the amount of kinetic energy, even though both see the other moving at the same velocity. The mass will influence the amount of kinetic energy seen using relative velocity V. The kinetic energy is not relative to reference, since both can't be correct and also be different.
On the other hand, how would you measure the mass of each, if they are both in relative motion? From a practical and experimental POV, you cant make always use the relativistic mass, since it is not easy to measure. Therefore, it is left out for the time being. However, doing so can violate energy conservation, resulting in inference assumptions that may be totally consistent with one reference, but which is not real based on energy conservation. Without relativistic mass, you can see a mirage. A mirage is when the light from an object is in a different place than the mass of the object, If we go by the light, and ignore the mass, we can see the object in the wrong place, with others seeing the same thing. This may appear to need extra energy.
In the train example, say I assume the station was moving. We estimate it has mass, Y, and then we calculate the kinetic energy and from that we calculate the amount of fuel needed to achieve that speed and momentum for that mass. So far, this is all by the book.
In reality, the train burnt the fuel and was placed on motion due too this. The amount of energy needed is lower since the station is a large stone building. Using the relative assumption, the moving station caused me to add extra energy to the universe. But since everyone on the train appears to see the same mirage, which is consistent with space-time only calculations, it becomes the law which cannot be questioned.
Post by: xersanozgen on 11/05/2017 13:40:28
There's nothing fantastic or inferential about SR. We simply begin with Maxwell's equations (which are expermentally verifiable), derive a mathematical account of what happens, then test it experimentally. And it works.
I did not say opposite Maxwell's inferences. My alternative theory is based to maxwell; not aether.
But if we may activate our cognitive attention; SR supposed/considered that the local place or moving body is as an aether and it claims that the distance -between the photon and its source- always increases by c (it means "genuine/direct relativity" or aether hypothesis; whereas there are some different options for relativity).
It is interesting, SR also confirms Maxwell's inferences; however, the conlusions of SR endorses the aether hypothesis and Fitzgerald contraction etc.
If I want to emphatize for SR and Maxwell; I may say that: How is the beginning point of the elektro-magnetic circuit/cycle of Maxwell marked?
The answer of SR: The source, moving body, local place, everything are the marking objects. If the source has uniform motion this quality of the source is kept.
Concept of LCS : The begining point must be marked on space (the source passes over this point at the emitting moment). Yes it is impossible practically (*); but the analysis are possible on a sheet of paper.
(*) probably, SR wants to use the source/moving... to mark the beginning point instead of a physical object or perceptible reference because of this impossibility.
Post by: xersanozgen on 11/05/2017 15:19:49
Are there flaws in special relativity?
None that have been demonstrated by experiment.
The Theory of Special Relativity is not flawed. Rather the problem is most applications do not usually include all three terms; relativistic mass, distance and time. We tend to focus on distance and time; space-time and ignore relativistic mass. This result can be an energy balance problem that may be not be obvious.
As an example, say you are on a moving train. Someone sitting at the station watches you go by. You see the station appear to move, while the other person sees the train moving, Based on your train reference, you can do calculations and make predictions with the relative assumption and distance and time.
Let me now add the mass considerations. The train has X amount of mass, while the station has Y mass. Based on both references, there is a discrepancy in the amount of kinetic energy, even though both see the other moving at the same velocity. The mass will influence the amount of kinetic energy seen using relative velocity V. The kinetic energy is not relative to reference, since both can't be correct and also be different.
On the other hand, how would you measure the mass of each, if they are both in relative motion? From a practical and experimental POV, you cant make always use the relativistic mass, since it is not easy to measure. Therefore, it is left out for the time being. However, doing so can violate energy conservation, resulting in inference assumptions that may be totally consistent with one reference, but which is not real based on energy conservation. Without relativistic mass, you can see a mirage. A mirage is when the light from an object is in a different place than the mass of the object, If we go by the light, and ignore the mass, we can see the object in the wrong place, with others seeing the same thing. This may appear to need extra energy.
In the train example, say I assume the station was moving. We estimate it has mass, Y, and then we calculate the kinetic energy and from that we calculate the amount of fuel needed to achieve that speed and momentum for that mass. So far, this is all by the book.
In reality, the train burnt the fuel and was placed on motion due too this. The amount of energy needed is lower since the station is a large stone building. Using the relative assumption, the moving station caused me to add extra energy to the universe. But since everyone on the train appears to see the same mirage, which is consistent with space-time only calculations, it becomes the law which cannot be questioned.
Wellcome and thanks for your efforts.
I don’t want to repeat my syntheses at above as an answer.
However, SR is a simple geometrical (or “way- speed- time” problem for light) based theory; it does not contain mass, energy or other things. Yes the theory SR cannot be understood easily; but, it is not complex, if we generate well-directed mental references. To arrogate/impute high/advanced meanings is not required.
SR is a first approach for the motion of light and in my opinion it must/can be revised/advanced in accordance with precision considerations. However we must thank to SR that it had been useful for accuracy of light kinematics
{ The Light as a Super Reference Frame
Abstract: Light kinematics and the special relativity can be reviewed accompanied with more dimensions,
factors, conditions and especially revision of postulates. The Special Theory of Relativity gives the reference role to a
moving body or its fictive light source. We analyzed reverse/opposite arrangement: The light is assigned as a
reference frame and the other/local actors (moving body/source/observer) undertake relative roles. This revise/new
concept is supported by the same experiments that they are effective for special theory. And new method is more
functional for light kinematics and it allows cosmological analysis by providing the simultaneity and equivalency.}
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/5858 (http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/5858)
SR considers the light at single position (moving/going away). It does not mention about oncoming position. I want to present a mental experiment like your train-perron example:
We consider two moving trains that they have big visible clocks. If the trains move away from each other, the observers (in the trains) perceive the clock of the other train by lower tempo. Inverse position, if the trains approach to each other, at this position the observers perceive the clock of the other train by faster tempo. Although these clocks works normal tempo and the trains have uniform motion.
Does these results interpret by the theory SR ?????
Post by: xersanozgen on 14/05/2017 13:06:02
S…………………………………………………S'’……………………………...P’
O…………………………………………………A………………………………B
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ LCS
1- The source of light (S) and the photon (P) are on the point O at the moment Tı.
2- The source of light arrives to the point A and the photon arrives to the point B at the moment T2.
3- OA = v.t (t = T2 – T1) ; OB = c.t ;
4- AB = OB – OA = c.t – v.t = (c – v).t , BUT, we or SR believe that the velocity of the light is a fixed value according to its source; because we want and hope to measure its relative velocity at the meaning “ c +/- v ”; we get that the result is always the value “ c “, so the escaping speed of the light is always “ c “.
5- Thus, the length of AB must be c.t (we had determined that the value of c is fixed)
6- C = AB / t = fixed value = 300 000 km/s ; what can we do to achieve this equation? We can/must increase the numerator and decrease the denominator.
Post by: GoC on 14/05/2017 13:30:29
Post by: xersanozgen on 15/05/2017 09:00:29
Are A + B inertial? Or is B fixed?
SR mentality uses local places for analyzing; therefore A and B fixed points according to SR. Rigid stick is mentioned at some text. Probably the Earth is supposed as a fixed frame. If the source has uniform motion, it is considered as an inertial frame and SR allows to use the source as a marker for the points of operation/analyzing.
The concept of LCS: The points O, A, B are fixed points on LCS absolutely according to alternative theory. The source, observer and the photon have their own motions on LCS. The relative velocity of photon is the value c according to LCS. The speeds of other actors (source, observer, everything) must be also considered the values according to LCS for scientific integrity.
Post by: xersanozgen on 16/05/2017 09:31:44
To review the SR analysis may be explanatory to distinguish its flaws (Please don’t regress; it is not complex, you may see that it is so simple astonishly.
S…………………………………………………S'’……………………………...P’
O…………………………………………………A………………………………B
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ LCS
1- The source of light (S) and the photon (P) are on the point O at the moment Tı.
2- The source of light arrives to the point A and the photon arrives to the point B at the moment T2.
3- OA = v.t (t = T2 – T1) ; OB = c.t ;
4- AB = OB – OA = c.t – v.t = (c – v).t , BUT, we or SR believe that the velocity of the light is a fixed value according to its source; because we want and hope to measure its relative velocity at the meaning “ c +/- v ”; we get that the result is always the value “ c “, so the escaping speed of the light is always “ c “.
5- Thus, the length of AB must be c.t (we had determined that the value of c is fixed)
6- C = AB / t = fixed value = 300 000 km/s ; what can we do to achieve this equation? We can/must increase the numerator and decrease the denominator.
SR had applied this ranking/analyzing by using S' (the presence of the source) instead of the point A (Please remember football analogy; the player has freedom to go anywhere, after he sent the ball; similarly the source does not have to follow its any photon after emitting.
SR does not consider the concept of co-reference frame. This neglecting has a serious potential of confusing.
Post by: guest39538 on 16/05/2017 15:07:27
Post by: guest39538 on 16/05/2017 15:18:50
see attached for error in logic in the video.
t/dx is not equal to t/dxy and your imaginations are misleading you.
Post by: xersanozgen on 16/05/2017 17:02:13
Ok let us look at the first flaw, I have found us a video that explains it pretty well and print screened a shot from the video to add relativistic correctness.
see attached for error in logic in the video.
t/dx is not equal to t/dxy and your imaginations are misleading you.
Thanks Thebox for your examples. They seem much persuasive.
However, I had discussed this example with Einstein fictionally in my book.
wait me (If I can learn to post the figures here)
Post by: guest39538 on 16/05/2017 17:14:21
Ok let us look at the first flaw, I have found us a video that explains it pretty well and print screened a shot from the video to add relativistic correctness.
see attached for error in logic in the video.
t/dx is not equal to t/dxy and your imaginations are misleading you.
Thanks Thebox for your examples. They seem much persuasive.
However, I had discussed this example with Einstein fictionally in my book.
wait me (If I can learn to post the figures here)
Could you please quote the fictional conversation from your book? I would be very interested in reading this.
Post by: xersanozgen on 17/05/2017 10:47:46
Could you please quote the fictional conversation from your book? I would be very interested in reading this.
Dear Thebox,
My fictional conversation with Einstein takes 32 pages, therefore I want to submit a brief:
1- I may say directly that in your video for the position v = c, light’s path is being parallel to shuttle’s path (does it mean that the time stops?). This result is wrong / impossible; because the minimum angle of light is 45° degree (tangent φ ≤ 1; or H = L).
2- If we set the tangent value of light’s path as c/v (or H / L = the distance between two mirrors / the length of shuttle’s way by the time H/c) by a filter, at this layout the light will travel smallest way ( H ) between two mirrors (perpendicular direction of the shuttle’s way). So, it means time tempo will be faster. The faster tempo is not mentioned for SR.
3- However an alternative option is possible except these explanations; so the fact may be different. If we set your video example as tangent of light’s angle as the value ∞ (If we use a filter for perpendicular path of light), the total way of light will always be H again [please remember a stairway and the total of steps’ heights (figure 15 at attachment)].
Post by: guest39538 on 17/05/2017 12:40:51
Could you please quote the fictional conversation from your book? I would be very interested in reading this.
Dear Thebox,
My fictional conversation with Einstein takes 32 pages, therefore I want to submit a brief:
1- I may say directly that in your video for the position v = c, light’s path is being parallel to shuttle’s path (does it mean that the time stops?). This result is wrong / impossible; because the minimum angle of light is 45° degree (tangent φ ≤ 1; or H = L).
Ok, I am not quite sure what you are getting at but I can tell you that light does not have any angles at all, the observer is imaginary angled to the light, the light always travels a linearity. Normal matter such as a rock does not reflect light. Only mirrored surfaces reflect light proven by a laser in the dark travelling through a medium .
Angles are only ''relative'' of light. of the imagination.
Post by: xersanozgen on 17/05/2017 14:26:26
Post by: xersanozgen on 17/05/2017 15:40:24
Ok, I am not quite sure what you are getting at but I can tell you that light does not have any angles at all, the observer is imaginary angled to the light, the light always travels a linearity. Normal matter such as a rock does not reflect light. Only mirrored surfaces reflect light proven by a laser in the dark travelling through a medium .Angles are only ''relative'' of light. of the imagination.
The science likes and wants transparency, discipline, certainty not cloudy. We must consider/use -while we are analyzing and telling- a defined/unique photon instead of "light". When the term "light" is preferred, a rationalization window is opening that is a reason of confusing (*). To realize the light experiments by continuous/uninterrupted light is already a serious problem in itself.
To isolate a single photon or few photons by Kerr obturator and to set a route for these photons by filters are possible.
(*) Unfortunetly, SR and related texts contain similar inelaborate explanations. The light ridicules with human mind; we must not serve for its mystic aims.
By the way, the position of a sky object -that we perceive it- is indicated by the coordinates "x, y, z, T" ; all of them are belonging to past and they determine/represent the emitting point and moment of a single photon. However the observing object had been marked on LCS; and at present time it is not located on this point.
Post by: xersanozgen on 19/05/2017 08:13:14
Why was I obliged to examine the theory SR?
I have serious interest for philosophy and cosmology. I ascribe high interpretation for the phenomenon that human’s performance for calculating the age of universe. I wanted to realize this performance myself. And I realized too.
In this study, 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.
Briefly, my SR interest is not directly. The subject of SR’s defects was a secondary inference of my primary project (the age of universe).
19130
Post by: xersanozgen on 27/05/2017 11:57:00
SR considers the "genuine relativity" for light's motion. Whereas other options (nominal/titular and temporary/momentary relativity) define preferable/better the relative motion of light (please allow you yourself). SR had never examined these other types of relativity. Its decision is not result of a scrutiny.
To understand the wrong mentality of SR postulates is significant for science history; it is interesting that these options of light's relativity is not mentioned by anybody until today.
In my opinion the new definition may be called by "Second Galilei Event".
Post by: xersanozgen on 10/06/2017 14:15:04
We can understand the essence and flaws of SR by this figure
The essence of SR
1- The velocities of the photons P' and P'' are the value c according to the point O that is located on the World/rails. When we measure the velocity of light, we find the value c on the world.
2- The velocities of the photons P' and P'' are the value c according to their source that has uniform motion by the speed v. When we measure the velocity of the same light, we find the value c again on the world or train/rocket.
The flaws of SR:
Post by: xersanozgen on 11/06/2017 10:47:23
Our mind may be deceived by going position toward same direction of the source and its photon. Same direction has
convenience to rationalize the mistake.
Please, examine the photon P'' (that goes toward - x). This photon had released while the source is passing over the point O at the moment To and it travels the distance OP'' ; the source get the distance OS during same time.
So, every points of the distance SP'' is not traveled by the photon.
If our mind complete the interval automatically, this is not scientific.
To analyze by taking a photo on a moment of time t may not reflect the authentic reality; and the position of same direction helps for misinformation. SR and Lorentz had neglected the attitude about continiuum of tracing.
Post by: PmbPhy on 12/06/2017 01:09:49
I thought I'd check this thread out only because I'm bored. All too often I run into comments like the following.
Remember the Galileo event! Everybody had said that "The sun turns around the earth" exept Galileo.First off, you were wrongly corrected regarding this. While it was Copernicus's theory which said that the Earth orbits the Sun it was Galileo who provided evidence for it.
Anyway, the fact that Galileo argued this and his argument has been borne out by observations its always the crackpot who uses this as an example as if everyone who disagrees with a current theory can rightly compare themselves with Galileo. Wrong! So wrong in fact that its been put on the crackpot index
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
which states
40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
Please don't bore us with such comparisons in the future. We all see right through it.
Post by: xersanozgen on 12/06/2017 08:57:56
I thought I'd check this thread out only because I'm bored. All too often I run into comments like the following.Remember the Galileo event! Everybody had said that "The sun turns around the earth" except Galileo.
First off, you were wrongly corrected regarding this. While it was Copernicus's theory which said that the Earth orbits the Sun it was Galileo who provided evidence for it.
Anyway, the fact that Galileo argued this and his argument has been borne out by observations its always the crackpot who uses this as an example as if everyone who disagrees with a current theory can rightly compare themselves with Galileo. Wrong! So wrong in fact that its been put on the crackpot index.
Thanks for your interest. Yes you are right it was Copernicus's theory. He had determined that the Earth has orbital motion around the Sun. When I mark Galilei, similar corrections were replied.
I think and distinguish that Galilei's claim was about "axial rotation of the earth". Already the opposite (or genuine explanation) of the perception/illusion/opinion "the Sun turns around the Earth" must be axial rotation. If the Earth has not axial rotation, the relative motion of the Sun according to Earth reference frame may be the same for during one year probably. Besides, If the Earth has only axial rotation and it never has orbital motion the common wrong perception would be valid again. So / in my opinion Galilei's subject was axial rotation that is more hot/effective for common opinion/ one daily event.
We may see an example of first approach due to this interpretation. Thanks Pmbphy.
We may evaluate the flaws of SR and revise it for major/absolute reality.
We must prefer to reconsider by advanced paradigm instead of first approaches. We can overcome the captivity of glamorous ideas.
We may allow to understand the clues of flaws and we may prefer to discuss by scientific arguments instead of labelling "crackpot" for the sake of "Naked Science".
40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
Yes, I agree. I prefer to say like a self-image "irresistible fascination of criticising upon Einstein". I had mentioned in my book. So, I am aware similar psycological motivation. I have explained formerly that my arguments are generated as a by-product of my main project (light kinematics to analyze space-time). If you can allow you yourself for the clues/arguments probably you will may have the possibility of recording different options. To label like "crackpot" or to use trivializations by irrelevant argument may prevent your scientific wisdom. Please focus technical subjects.
I will go on share technically
Post by: xersanozgen on 14/06/2017 09:55:43
In SR an outer reference frame is present -but indirectly or hidden- because of the moving body’s speed; In Lorentz, this second reference frame is used and mentioned distinctly; but, here it is all. The inference of time dilation seems convenient and consistent on these conditions. We human/science stayed at this closed frame for 112 years. Unfortunately, humanly attitudes are predominant.
The relative speed of moving body gets different values (but limited by c) according to each one of other sequential frames (Solar system, Milky way galaxy, local cluster, super cluster… universe, multiverse… most external frame /space/ LCS). And every different value of the parameter v (v is the speed of moving body) requires different time tempo because of SR mentality; but this result is impossible for the clock of moving body and the concept of abstract time.
Here are the factors that help for misinformation on readings SR:
To analyze the motion of moving body and light on same direction,
To consider the light like uninterrupted form instead of identified photon,
To ignore other relativity types and to attribute/apply the well-known/genuine relativity type for also the light’s motion.
To ignore other external frames, to consider just the local frame,
To neglect tracing the positions of the photon, and to calculate by taking a photo at a moment of time (it means freezing the time; whereas SR and Lorentz had emphasized the importance of 4th dimension.
These attitudes are not methodological / scientific; they were one of well-intentioned efforts to define nature events and this first approach fastinate us, the inferences of SR, especially time travel is - so to say- a bribe for our archetypical passion of mysticism.
Post by: xersanozgen on 15/06/2017 08:17:15
Galaxy clusters were discovered at later times.
The theory SR was publicized at 1905; so, the hierarchical ranking of outer/external reference frames could not be known. However, we know and can consider them.
The absolute truth has a habit like to come out always.
Post by: xersanozgen on 17/06/2017 08:56:36
SR supposes/determines that the value c is the top limit for all type of speeds. (SR likes to restrict events for example the moving body and its fictive light; whereas the universe is not consisted merely these two objects: excessively reductionist attitude) Yes we can simplfy to analyze; but then we have to superpose in accordance with the nature.
This postulate indicates that the theory SR considers merely the "genuine relativity" (If only/I wish, the English language would has some specific words for the types of relativity; the coding by single word can direct the mind and caused confusion); because the value c is the top limit for "genuine relativity". SR had ignored other relativity types.
Whereas the top limit is the value 2c for other relativity types.
We must reconsider and revise this postulate of SR.
Post by: xersanozgen on 19/06/2017 13:02:31
Quote from: PmbPhy
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
I liked this crackpot index. They are humanly behauvoirs that we are often encountering in forums (especially "you think/understand wrong").
However, an important point has been forgetted: To take aim at the person instead of his/her syntheses/submissions. In my opinion 80 point. ;)
Post by: xersanozgen on 21/06/2017 09:51:50
Of course optimal scale of reduction method is important for science. If we exaggerate the reduction method, the results may be fantastic/amazing like illusionists’ attractions (Had K. Popper studied this subject? He had mindfulness for prophecy and prediction). Illusionists are successful to direct/confuse our mental references.
SR has excessive reductionist attitude and -moreover- neglected superposing process.
We may remember briefly:
. SR reduces the entire universe/nature to a moving body and its fictive light; so much so that, an outer reference frame is –please- considered because of moving body’s speed.
. SR sets the analysis for only single direction. The moving body and the light go toward same direction.
. SR considers only one type of relativity concept. In SR the relation of the light and its source is considered like the relation of a car and the road (genuine relativity).
. SR freezes the time by taking a photo at a moment of flowing time. I had explained that how did this attitude cause wrong perception by the example opposite directions.
Besides the methodological defects are not limited by these points:
. SR directly supposes and labels the measured speed for light like a local relative speed. It never discusses and interprets which speed is measuring; as if a dogmatic opinion or implicit postulate. The same measurement result on everywhere can also indicate/include a different option that the universal (not local relative) speed can be always measured by present experiment. So, if we want to measure the universal value of the light's velocity, we would use the present measurement experiment and we would label/interpret the result value inaccordance with our beginning intention.
. In science the test subject must be identified object; so, a numbered photon instead of the abstract coding “light”.
(SR neglects the essential/a priori isolation like to use a numbered photon).
Post by: xersanozgen on 25/06/2017 10:31:13
A car provides its speed due to its road interactively. Car's speed is essential relative to the road. The road is comparison/reference frame for car's speed.
A photon is released by a source and the relation of source-photon ended at the emitting moment. The velocity of light is realised without a help of source. to claim that a photon always move away by the velocity c from its source is like to claim that a ball always move away by its speed from the player who shot it (player can change his position independently after shotting; it means the relation ends after shotting moment).
If you believe the SR; time-travel is possible also on a ground of stadium.
We can overcome this first approach consideration.
we are in knowledge/information age. We can well-directed reconsider the light kinematics..
Post by: xersanozgen on 28/07/2017 09:43:56
The refracting and reflecting subjects of light had been solved and defined easily; however light kinematics contains more/most difficult problem. First approaches can be wrong/deceptive/illusion probably. If -at next- Human cognitive capacity can have high qualities like functionality and cosiness of an autobahn (superhighway), new generations will may label as “occultist efforts” for these first approaches.
(*) We may remember the award systems.
(**) However we can improve and manage our capacity by hard discipline/methodology. The clues/points of low discipline about analysis of SR has been indicated at the section # 137.
20575
Post by: xersanozgen on 01/08/2017 09:45:39
SR considers only one type of relativity concept. In SR the relation of the light and its source is considered like the relation of a car and the road (genuine relativity).
We may say that this preference is the key point/trick of the theory SR; because, minimum three types of relativity can be defined;
Genuine relativity
Nominal/titular relativity
Momentary/temporary relativity
1. Genuine relativity: In this regard, we must remember the essence of the concept of
simple relativity. A car obtains its speed by applying power to the road surface via
friction, such that the numerical value of its speed is relative to the road. Thus, the
road is the reference frame (or comparing/inertial object) for the speed of the car.
The car obtains its speed via its frictional pushing against the road or in actuality,
the mass under the road. The road or mass of the Earth beneath it, has an active
(but indirect) role in the motion and speed of the car. In other words, the speed of
the moving body is relative to the mass of the reference frame. At the time of
motion, the car’s speed remains relative to the road. The distance between the car
and its starting point can be determined by this relative value of its speed.
2. Nominal/supposed relativity: Think about two cars moving on the same road.
When we give the reference role to one of them (we suppose that it is immobile),
the speed of other car (vectorial total of their speeds) can be defined as “nominal
relative”. This car does not obtain this value of its speed due to other car. In this
regard, the nominal relative value of a particular speed is the titular / notional /
artificial / comparative value. The increasing/decreasing speed of the distance
between these two cars can be defined by coding for the “nominal relative” speed
of each car.
3. Momentary/temporary relativity: If a player throws a ball, what is the reference
frame of the ball’s speed? The player is the reason for the ball’s motion, as the
player supplies the power. Therefore, we can say that “the ball moves away from
the player at the speed at which was thrown” or “the ball’s speed has a value that is
relative to the player”. However, this holds only if the player does not leave the
point from which (s)he threw the ball. Naturally the player has freedom to move
after throwing the ball. At any given moment of flowing time, the distance
between the player and the ball will differ from the “v.t” value, because the player
can travel in any direction [even if (s)he maintains uniform motion]. However, the
relativity-based computation is valid with regard to the throwing point (which can
be marked on the ground); thus, the main reference frame regarding the relativity
of the ball’s speed is the mass of the ground. The player determines the quality of
reference frame only at the throwing moment; at subsequent moments the distance
between the player and the ball cannot be determined merely by the throwing
speed. Likewise, the relativity of the ball’s speed is valid only with regard to the
point (marked on the ground) at which the ball was thrown. Thus, the ground is the
co-reference frame for the motions of the player and the ball.
Which type of relativity pertains to the relationship between light and its
source/moving body? SR theory considers “the relativity concept” according to its first
meaning (genuine relativity). Based on SR theory “the distance between a photon and its
source always increases with the value of speed c “. We must, therefore, discuss “what
contribution the source makes to the velocity of light?” or whether “the source makes any
such contribution at all”. The source never applies a power akin to pushing or throwing. In
addition, the light does not apply such power to the source or moving body or its
place/ground.
. The light’s velocity results from electro-magnetic cycles in space. The value of
light’s velocity can be defined based on the concept of “genuine relativity”, which considers
only the space involved. I prefer to call this major reference frame “Light coordinate system
(LCS)”. If we suppose that the source throws the photons, then the relationship between the
light and its source (or moving body) is defined by momentary relativity by-which the light
instantly transfers to the LCS. In this case, the LCS is the co-reference frame for the motions
of the light and the other actors (source, observer, everything). The values of all parameters
involved must be determined based on a co-reference frame, which is the LCS for light
kinematics.
English language gives a different word for nuances. Why has not it encoded for different concepts of relativity? In my opinion, the subject of relativity in physics has not been deserved deep interest.
Post by: xersanozgen on 23/08/2017 15:08:26
Post by: guest4091 on 25/08/2017 18:26:09
If Einstein could be alive he would reconsider relativity theories by alternative LCS concept and he would revise his paradigm; because the arguments about methodological defects are clear/transparent and effective.The closest thing to your LCS concept is the cmb. If you move to the imagined location of emission, you don't find any markers or evidence. If it originated from a material object, the object has moved since the emission. The coordinate transformations obviously depend on spatial coordinates, which are material objects.The LCS is just as elusive as the absolute rest frame! SR has an established history of successful experimental agreements.
Post by: xersanozgen on 26/08/2017 11:02:13
1- The LCS is just as elusive as the absolute rest frame!
2- SR has an established history of successful experimental agreements.
1- The LCS or outer space is an absolute rest frame. Yes you are right; it is not tangible and we human need concrete objects for marking/comparing/relativity.
The nature does not care this reality or cognitive requirements of scientists.
However, we are not helpless; we can use a sheet of paper as outer space for light kinematics analyses (the parameters of other f-actors must be adapted/evaluated according to LCS). This method allows to use Galilean/classical relativity (the top limit for genuine relativity is ‘ c ‘; but the top limit for nominal/pseudo relativity is ‘ 2c ‘).
But the analysis of LCS method does not present interesting or sensation results like time travel.
2- If you share these experiments (Muon ????) I can present alternative interpretion by LCS mentality.
Post by: xersanozgen on 28/08/2017 10:26:19
1- The measuring experiments of the light's velocity; the result: we get the same value on everywhere
The conclusion of SR: this measured value is relative speed of light according to its source or local place (train/perron/the place of experiment)
Interpretation of LCS: we can measure just the universal speed of light (relative value according to outmost space frame).The isotropic quality of measuring experiment is a powerfull evidence for universal speed.
2- Michelson - Morley interferometer experiment: The amount of fringes is the same for different directions.
The conclusion of SR: The velocity of light never gets any addition from its source's speed.
Interpretation of LCS: The light arrives by always the velocity ' c ' to an observer/receptor.
3- Muon experiment: It claims Natural muons lives longer than the muons of laboratory.
The conclusion according to SR: the diference of time can be explained by the formulas of SR.
Interpretation of LCS: The paper of this experiment use the muon's speed value according to the Earth for calculation; whereas it must consider the difference of the speeds of natural and laboratory muons; but, unfortunately the speeds of natural muons and laboratory muons are on the same level.
Post by: guest4091 on 28/08/2017 20:38:19
In reality, the train burnt the fuel and was placed on motion due too this. The amount of energy needed is lower since the station is a large stone buildingCould that be why physicists accelerate the particles and not the lab?
Post by: xersanozgen on 29/08/2017 09:56:33
Post by: xersanozgen on 31/08/2017 09:44:14
LCS concept considers the same experimental results of the theory SR:
1- The measuring experiments of the light's velocity; the result: we get the same value on everywhere
The conclusion of SR: this measured value is relative speed of light according to its source or local place (train/perron/the place of experiment)
Interpretation of LCS: we can measure just the universal speed of light (relative value according to outmost space frame).The isotropic quality of measuring experiment is a powerfull evidence for universal speed.
2- Michelson - Morley interferometer experiment: The amount of fringes is the same for different directions.
The conclusion of SR: The velocity of light never gets any addition from its source's speed.
Interpretation of LCS: The light arrives by always the velocity ' c ' to an observer/receptor.
3- Muon experiment: It claims Natural muons lives longer than the muons of laboratory.
The conclusion according to SR: the diference of time can be explained by the formulas of SR.
Interpretation of LCS: The paper of this experiment use the muon's speed value according to the Earth for calculation; whereas it must consider the difference of the speeds of natural and laboratory muons; but, unfortunately the speeds of natural muons and laboratory muons are on the same level.
4- GPS corrections: It is claimed that the relativity theories is usen for GPS correction about practical useage area.
We can examine this subject:
Each satellite in the GPS constellation orbits at an altitude of about 20,000 km from the ground, and has an orbital speed of about 14,000 km/hour (4 km/sec) (http://www.gpsports.com/gpsports_website/articles/GPS%20-%20What%20is%20it.pdf )
The Earth has the rotational speed at equator about 1667 km/hour (0.46 km/sec).
To achieve this level of precision, the clock ticks from the GPS satellites must be known to an accuracy of 20-30 nanoseconds. However, because the satellites are constantly moving relative to observers on the Earth, effects predicted by the Special and General theories of Relativity must be taken into account to achieve the desired 20-30 nanosecond accuracy. ( http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html )
The path length of microwave is 2 x 20,000 = 40,000 km; and the duration is 40 000/300 000 = 0.133 sec = 133 000 microsec.= 133 000 000 nanosec
( transposition because of the limited value of light's velocity: 0.133 sec x 4 km/sec = 0.532 km )
max transposition because of relativity theory: 0.000000030 sec x 4 kmsec = 0.00000012 km = 0.012 centimeter.
Alright, now, we may look/consider the tolerans of GPS:
The accuracy commitments do not apply to GPS devices, but rather to the signals transmitted in space. For example, the government commits to broadcasting the GPS signal in space with a global average user range error (URE) of ≤7.8 m (25.6 ft.), with 95% probability. Actual performance exceeds the specification. On May 11, 2016, the global average URE was ≤0.715 m (2.3 ft.), 95% of the time. ( http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/ )
So, what is the conclusion? Is the GPS relativity correction sufficient for endorsement the theory?
Post by: xersanozgen on 20/09/2017 19:53:44
The theory of SR has an important position in cognitive improvement of humanity. The theory is still used to provoke the interest for science by popular science digests. But in future, it will get a place in science history like a getting confused on the border of intellectual performance/capacity. The theory served fantasy for our archetypical mysticism due to its fantastic inferences like “time travel”; we thought that we could discovery an important secret of nature. Therefore we assign it as an idol in accompanied with admiration and hubris. Peoples liked and settled with this catharsis. Even a powerful chauvinism was generated for SR and GR. They ignored to examine the essence of theory mentality; they present the arguments like psycho-rationalization for supporting the theory. They wear some blinkers that are labelled by “admiration”, “time travel”, “I am so happy” etc . Are there chauvinism and other emotional attitudes in science? Here is already present about SR. These blinkers don’t allow considering the arguments of methodological defects. In my opinion this attitude will be continued for years/centuries** because of chauvinism and mysticism passions even if the scientists internalize the LCS concept.
The peoples of Cosmic Civilizations Union (If UCC is present) have experienced SR adventure and they use it as a test to decide for relation with other civilizations.
(**) This relation decision of UCC will be activated when we will begin to use the LCS concept.
Post by: xersanozgen on 22/09/2017 08:46:05
What is the approaching speed?
Or what is the speed of decreasing the distance between these two photons?
The distance to the Andromeda Galaxy is 2.54 million light-years. When will these photons meet?.
Post by: xersanozgen on 02/11/2017 14:46:41
Abstract: If length contraction is real, the electrical resistance value of a conductive cable must be changed in accordance with its different directions because of its universal motion. The management of precision is important for this experiment. Our electrical resistance based experiment did not indicate an evidence for the length contraction; all measured values are isotropic.
Post by: guest39538 on 02/11/2017 14:55:13
https://www.academia.edu/34982209/An_Experiment_for_Lorentz_-Fitzgerald_Contraction (https://www.academia.edu/34982209/An_Experiment_for_Lorentz_-Fitzgerald_Contraction)Length contraction is ''real'' using the present semantics involved.
Abstract: If length contraction is real, the electrical resistance value of a conductive cable must be changed in accordance with its different directions because of its universal motion. The management of precision is important for this experiment. Our electrical resistance based experiment did not indicate an evidence for the length contraction; all measured values are isotropic.
Post by: xersanozgen on 03/11/2017 08:18:37
https://www.academia.edu/34982209/An_Experiment_for_Lorentz_-Fitzgerald_Contraction (https://www.academia.edu/34982209/An_Experiment_for_Lorentz_-Fitzgerald_Contraction)Length contraction is ''real'' using the present semantics involved.
Abstract: If length contraction is real, the electrical resistance value of a conductive cable must be changed in accordance with its different directions because of its universal motion. The management of precision is important for this experiment. Our electrical resistance based experiment did not indicate an evidence for the length contraction; all measured values are isotropic.
Please note this experiment; put to a rack in brain.
If I or someone say that to believe is a scientific method, you must object.
Of course we want to protect our holly; however to update in science is ordinary.
Naked scientists must want to catch genuineness instead of dogmatism.
Don’t worry for length contraction or SR; because, people always need idols (of course these idols/fantastic inferences are more respectable according to astrology etc.), the mystical admiration or dogmatic appropriation will remain for few centuries, even if inaccuracy of them is determined.
Post by: xersanozgen on 04/11/2017 11:51:25
Fitzgerald had submitted a saver claim (contraction) for aether concept against the negative result of Michelson - Morley experiment.
1- It's not a claim and never was. Lorentz stated it as a postulate for the null result of the MMX and its something that is subject to observation. A "claim" is something that is stated with no evidence of it being valid. That's not the same thing as a postulate.
2- The Lorentz validity of Lorentz contraction has been demonstrated many times. One observation concerns the observation of muons which are created in the upper atmosphere. For details see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction
Lorentz contraction also manifests itself by observations of the EM field surrounding conductors. For details see:
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/physics_world/em/rotating_magnet.htm
Whether or not someone has actually constructed an experiment, run it and recorded the results is another story. However I'm fairly sure that there's ample evidence out there which imply it.
One thing to understand regarding the validity of various things is that one makes a prediction and then constructs an experiment and/or makes an observation. If the observation contradicts the prediction then what led to the prediction is wrong. If the observation is consistent with the prediction then we have more confidence in the prediction and what led us to the prediction.
3- Einstein's special theory of relativity (SR) one can derive the Lorentz contraction from the two postulates of SR, i.e. in SR Lorentz contraction is not a postulate but is derived.
If you've never seen the derivation of Lorentz contraction and know algebra then you can follow the derivation at the web page I created for that purpose. See:
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/physics_world/sr/lorentz_contraction.htm
1- Is a saver/reviver idea requirement for aether hypothesis? There is already Maxwell’s determination for radiating of light. Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction and the theory SR want to verify aether hypothesis. And similar following efforts will fall to position of AD-HOC. We know anymore that the light can radiate in vacuum without physical medium/aether. Is the insistence a logic attitude about a quitted hypothesis?
2- The muon paragraph of your link:
“ The range of action of muons at high velocities is much higher than that of slower ones. The atmosphere has its proper length in the Earth frame, while the increased muon range is explained by their longer lifetimes due to time dilation (see Time dilation of moving particles). However, in the muon frame their lifetime is unchanged but the atmosphere is contracted so that even their small range is sufficient to reach the surface of earth. “
I had read some scientific article about muons. If you make half-read, the phrase “slower ones” may convinces you. If you deeply research this subject, you will see that slower muons are produced in laboratory; whereas the velocities atmospheric muons and laboratory muons have similar value. But, these articles consider the speed value of laboratory muons as zero. Some scientists may delude himself or they may want to misinform.
3- Yes if you accept the postulate that a moving body (*) can be reference frame for the motion of light, you can derive length contraction. However, there is an alternative option: the space can be considered as co-reference frame for the motions of light and other actors (source, observer, etc. … everything). This analysis is possible and we must not forbid this option.
(*) Moving body or light’s source is always a relative object; therefore to give a reference role to source is a defect like first Galilei event (The Earth was considered as a main reference frame for Sun’s motion, whereas indeed, Earth is relative position according to Sun). So, local-centric analyses cannot be accuracy for universal subjects like light’s motion.
Finally, people want experimental evidence for many events. However if we would like some fantastic inferences because of our archetypal mysticism passion, we may want to ignore these experimental evidences. But the genuine reality has already force major.
Post by: guest39538 on 04/11/2017 14:11:28
Do you understand what semantics mean?https://www.academia.edu/34982209/An_Experiment_for_Lorentz_-Fitzgerald_Contraction (https://www.academia.edu/34982209/An_Experiment_for_Lorentz_-Fitzgerald_Contraction)Length contraction is ''real'' using the present semantics involved.
Abstract: If length contraction is real, the electrical resistance value of a conductive cable must be changed in accordance with its different directions because of its universal motion. The management of precision is important for this experiment. Our electrical resistance based experiment did not indicate an evidence for the length contraction; all measured values are isotropic.
Please note this experiment; put to a rack in brain.
If I or someone say that to believe is a scientific method, you must object.
Of course we want to protect our holly; however to update in science is ordinary.
Naked scientists must want to catch genuineness instead of dogmatism.
Don’t worry for length contraction or SR; because, people always need idols (of course these idols/fantastic inferences are more respectable according to astrology etc.), the mystical admiration or dogmatic appropriation will remain for few centuries, even if inaccuracy of them is determined.
You can't put this experiment in the back of your head because it works correctly to the semantics involved. It is a factual length contraction, but if we use simple logic we can easily observe no length contraction. If we remove the 1 second of present time from the situation, changing the thought experiment using time Planck, there is no dilation or contraction.
I can and have already proved this but the proof itself and facts do not really help the situation where the untruth actually works for our needs of GPS.
Post by: xersanozgen on 05/11/2017 08:29:31
I can and have already proved this but the proof itself and facts do not really help the situation where the untruth actually works for our needs of GPS.
I want to share again the GPS evidence:
It is claimed that the relativity theories is usen for GPS correction about practical useage area.
We can examine this subject:
Each satellite in the GPS constellation orbits at an altitude of about 20,000 km from the ground, and has an orbital speed of about 14,000 km/hour (4 km/sec) (http://www.gpsports.com/gpsports_website/articles/GPS%20-%20What%20is%20it.pdf )
The Earth has the rotational speed at equator about 1667 km/hour (0.46 km/sec).
To achieve this level of precision, the clock ticks from the GPS satellites must be known to an accuracy of 20-30 nanoseconds. However, because the satellites are constantly moving relative to observers on the Earth, effects predicted by the Special and General theories of Relativity must be taken into account to achieve the desired 20-30 nanosecond accuracy. ( http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html )
The path length of microwave is 2 x 20,000 = 40,000 km; and the duration is 40 000/300 000 = 0.133 sec = 133 000 microsec.= 133 000 000 nanosec
( transposition because of the limited value of light's velocity: 0.133 sec x 4 km/sec = 0.532 km )
max transposition because of relativity theory: 0.000000030 sec x 4 kmsec = 0.00000012 km = 0.012 centimeter.
Alright, now, we may look/consider the tolerans of GPS:
The accuracy commitments do not apply to GPS devices, but rather to the signals transmitted in space. For example, the government commits to broadcasting the GPS signal in space with a global average user range error (URE) of ≤7.8 m (25.6 ft.), with 95% probability. Actual performance exceeds the specification. On May 11, 2016, the global average URE was ≤0.715 m (2.3 ft.), 95% of the time. ( http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/ )
So, what is the conclusion? Is the GPS relativity correction sufficient for endorsement the theory?
Post by: yor_on on 05/11/2017 15:11:31
" Basically, because of length contraction you can squeeze in more charged particles in a single bunch than you could without length contraction. The design of the particle accelerator takes this length contraction into account, and the accelerator functions as designed. " By Dale
And here are some more effects involving length contractions
http://www.iflscience.com/physics/4-examples-relativity-everyday-life/
Whatever idea you have you will need a explanation for them, and a test proving your idea to give an explanation for some behavior where standard physics (SR) fails.
Post by: xersanozgen on 06/11/2017 09:12:03
hmm, when it comes to gps and the way you define the values there I don't know. That would probably need to get into a real in depth analysis with more exactness. But there are other tests where you need to compensate for length contractions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity#Time_dilation_and_length_contraction
" Basically, because of length contraction you can squeeze in more charged particles in a single bunch than you could without length contraction. The design of the particle accelerator takes this length contraction into account, and the accelerator functions as designed. " By Dale
And here are some more effects involving length contractions
http://www.iflscience.com/physics/4-examples-relativity-everyday-life/
Whatever idea you have you will need a explanation for them, and a test proving your idea to give an explanation for some behavior where standard physics (SR) fails.
I submitted my arguments and shared some analyses.
Key or clue: To use outmost frame is a useful method; and the velocity of light is the value c according to this outmost frame too. We know that to assign/use a relative/local object as reference frame causes wrong perception and false determination (First Galilei event).
Unfortunately, there is not an instruction about the management of mental references yet, even for science.
Naked scientists have cognitive performance and they can prioitise their own analysis instead of memorisation.
Don't worry, mystery passion or mysticism is dominant; and current opinions and SR will be remained for hunderts years.
Post by: xersanozgen on 15/11/2017 17:16:03
To believe may be more useful and significant than science?????
Is this attitude psychologic or scientific ?
Post by: Yahya on 17/11/2017 22:53:09
Post by: Yahya on 17/11/2017 23:02:21
Post by: xersanozgen on 19/11/2017 12:16:19
length contraction ? complete destruction to the atom size
You may be right.
Two mass have the same characteristic and scientific integrity. But it is not just reasonable/correct that to consider and analyze an object/mass (source or moving body) and the light (so, Energy) in a mechanical/relativity problem. A mass/object and energy/light/photon together; in my opinion, this case is not proper. However the theory SR considers them in a mechanical relation because of just their traveling.
Post by: xersanozgen on 05/02/2018 08:25:28
We may call this " SECOND GALILEI EVENT".
If you want to testify for this cognitive revival, please visit http://www.mrelativity.net/ (http://www.mrelativity.net/).
Post by: xersanozgen on 22/02/2018 10:57:05
WHICH ONE is RIGHT?
How is the path of the light in a moving train?
Energy is the origin of everything in universe. Light is also a universal phenomenon and a derivative form of energy. Naturally, we may be asymmetric position about solving the properties of the light. In other words, we can say that the light ridicules on our minds; or "the light challenges to human's mind".
Einstein and the others worked heroically or as Don Quichotte . But while the contradictious inferences must be a signal of incoherence, on the contrary the theory has become idol.
Analyzing the trace/path of light emitted from the base within a moving train is a good example of how both the speculative relativity theory flaws and both light kinematics and human intelligence work in the presence of low resolution.
This analysis should be performed in at least five dimensions. Methodology and hard discipline should be applied. Otherwise we will get fantastic results like special relativity theory.
My submissions are from my published articles ( Physics Essays; General Science Journal; Academia.edu : Özgen Ersan . Please indicate for citation .
Post by: Colin2B on 22/02/2018 11:45:53
Thank you
Post by: xersanozgen on 05/03/2018 07:12:20
WHICH ONE is RIGHT?
How is the path of the light in a moving train?
Analyzing the trace/path of light emitted from the base within a moving train is a good example of how both the speculative relativity theory flaws and both light kinematics and human intelligence work in the presence of low resolution.
This analysis should be performed in at least five dimensions. Methodology and hard discipline should be applied. Otherwise we will get fantastic results like special relativity theory.
The link of article:
https://www.academia.edu/36057326/Th..._a_Moving_Body (https://www.academia.edu/36057326/Th..._a_Moving_Body)
Post by: xersanozgen on 14/04/2018 11:39:18
The paradoxes (incongruities to causality) signal that there is a mistake in the mentality of the thesis. Karl Popper, in his book "The Logic of the Scientific Research," states: "If a thesis gives the signal when it is constructed with x number of variables, then this thesis should be reconsidered with x + 1 number of variables"; this is exactly what I have already done in this topic and my publications on this subject; special relativity, the motion of the light in 4 dimensions; I studied in 5 dimensions.
The fifth dimension is that analysis must be done in a common and external reference system. The special theory of relativity gave a reference role to the local place or body; this attitude includes the potential for incoherence, just as the "sun is turning around the world" stigmatization.
Post by: Le Repteux on 17/04/2018 19:53:04
In science like everywhere else, pictures are worth thousand words. Have you ever had a look at David Cooper's simulation of the MM experiment? (http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/relativity.html) Run it again if you already did and look closely at the way the photon moves in the laser before getting out of it. To stay in the laser while it is moving, light has to travel sideways to the motion, because otherwise, it would hit the walls before being reflected at its ends. We need a background though to see that effect, and that background is the same as an ether because light is moving with regard to it. Nevertheless, we could not measure our speed or our direction with regard to that background with the help of an interferometer or any other instrument because all the particles of the instrument would suffer the same light behavior. No need for the postulate that c is the same whatever the speed of the observer: c doesn't need to be the same, and it is effectively not the same in both directions in that simulation. That postulate is completely misleading and it complicates the understanding considerably.
Post by: xersanozgen on 18/04/2018 18:45:50
Hi Xerzanozgen,
In science like everywhere else, pictures are worth thousand words. Have you ever had a look at David Cooper's simulation of the MM experiment? (http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/relativity.html) Run it again if you already did and look closely at the way the photon moves in the laser before getting out of it. To stay in the laser while it is moving, light has to travel sideways to the motion, because otherwise, it would hit the walls before being reflected at its ends. We need a background though to see that effect, and that background is the same as an ether because light is moving with regard to it. Nevertheless, we could not measure our speed or our direction with regard to that background with the help of an interferometer or any other instrument because all the particles of the instrument would suffer the same light behavior. No need for the postulate that c is the same whatever the speed of the observer: c doesn't need to be the same, and it is effectively not the same in both directions in that simulation. That postulate is completely misleading and it complicates the understanding considerably.
Thanks for your interest. I read David Cooper's study.
I encounter more study about unvalidity of SR; the last one: Millenium relativity (http://www.mrelativity.net (http://www.mrelativity.net)).
Yes, in universe everything has motion and we need an inertial system for cosmological analyses.
SR had considered a moving body/source for reference frame of light's motion. Lorentz had additionally considered an outer sequential / tandem reference frame. Both of them have a postula that the velocity of light is relative (*) value according to everything referring to measurement experiments.
They and other academicians cannot overcome a dogma that a measured speed is a relative parameter according to local place or its first reference frame; in fact we can measure the velocity of light that is relative according to most external frame (space or LCS). Results are the same value and isotropic: that is a powerfull evidence for this.
(*) Genuine relative. (Please look at "relativity types" of that paper : http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/6600 (http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/6600))
Post by: Le Repteux on 18/04/2018 18:58:55
Post by: xersanozgen on 19/04/2018 09:16:50
What is isotropic is the two way speed of light, not the one way, but that precision is not part of the postulate and it should, otherwise it leads to incongruities. The one way speed of light is impossible to observe anyway, so to consider it is isotropic is only an ad hoc assumption.
I would must preferred that expression :): The results of light's velocity measurements are the same for every directions; also, in M-M experiment the fringes are the same on every directions. This reality verifies the hypothesis that we can measure the velocity of light according to exclusively outmost external frame. Present measuring experiment (double path, uninterrupted light etc) cannot measure local relative value of light's velocity (*).
Besides, there is an important point that is overlooked: when the light is used by uninterrupted form in experiments, we cannot guaranteed the requirement that test object must be identified. For example, in MM experiments two photon packets (interferential) may not be the halves of the same light packet. In fact, each one of them has been emitted at different times in accordance with the lengths of their way.
(*) To consider every measured speed as relative value (according to local place) is an habit of mechanical physics. Lorentz, Einstein and others had considered and labelled the velocity of light as "genuine relative" according to local frame or source/moving body and they had used Galilean relativity principle for inertial role of moving body (uniform motion).
Post by: Le Repteux on 19/04/2018 14:34:03
Quote from: xerzanozgen
The primary postulate of STR is that the speed of light has the same value in any inertial frame. This postulate must be revised to include the concept that ”the velocity of light is measured by the same value ‘c’ on everywhere”, because the present measuring system can only measure the universal value of light’s velocity, as opposed to its local and relative speed.That's an exert of the conclusion of your paper on the defects of relativity. In the phrase ”the velocity of light is measured by the same value ‘c’ on everywhere” , I don't understand the "on everywhere". Can you say it differently please?
Post by: xersanozgen on 19/04/2018 16:59:52
Quote
”the velocity of light is measured by the same value ‘c’ on everywhere” , I don't understand the "on everywhere". Can you say it differently please?
If we measure the velocity of light with present experiment in moving train or on the Earth and on the Sun or Galaxy...... universe, multiverse and outmost space, we will find the value c.
Measurements give always the same value c on everywhere and for every directions.
Post by: Le Repteux on 19/04/2018 17:15:18
Post by: xersanozgen on 19/04/2018 18:54:26
I have a study about "Light Kinematics and calculating the age of universe" in a Canadian journal (Physics Essays 26.1 2013).
We human measure the velocity of light; but some of us may load exaggerated meaning to this action like Einstein, Lorentz and others. The action is "to measure"; but they interpret as "to go away from local source"; whereas there is a serious/significant nuance between two options.
Post by: Le Repteux on 19/04/2018 21:59:18
Post by: guest45734 on 20/04/2018 12:09:24
and forget to look at this link https://phys.org/news/2007-10-gamma-ray-physics.html#nRlv
Post by: xersanozgen on 21/04/2018 09:50:04
I discovered that idea while I was trying to analyze how doppler effect would propagate between two bonded atoms while they would be accelerated.
How is the light move in water or fiberoptic cable? In my opinion a photon or quant/energy is absorbed by an atom and emitted again by this atom; therefore its speed decreases. But when the water or fiber cable has a motion, which value does the velocity of light get?
SR is interested in light's motion in vacuum.
Post by: xersanozgen on 21/04/2018 10:18:21
Is this link of any interest ref the speed of light :) https://phys.org/news/2015-03-einstein-scientists-spacetime-foam.html#nRlv
and forget to look at this link https://phys.org/news/2007-10-gamma-ray-physics.html#nRlv
English language generates a special word for every nuance; however in Latine languages had coded this phemenon by a single word: "Relativity".
Even in classical physics relativity has types for different meaning:
Genuine/natural relativity: The speed of a car according to its road is "genuine relative". Top limit is "c".
Nominal/artificial/notional relativity: The speed of a car according to anothe moving car is "nominal relative". Top limit is "2c".
Momentary/temporary relativity : when a ball is ejected by a player, the speed of the ball according to player is "momentary relative".
For detailed explanation: III. Types of relativity http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/6600 (http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/6600)
The primary postulate of SR is that: the velocity of light according to its source is "genuine relative"; whereas the velocity of a photon according to its source or local place is "nominal relative" or "momentary relative". Human mind must/may overcome this shallow knowledge/postulate.
Therefore SR is first approachment for light kinematics and contains flaws and the efforts for confirming SR is AD-HOC.
Post by: Le Repteux on 24/04/2018 22:54:50
How does the light move in water or fiberoptic cable? In my opinion a photon or quant/energy is absorbed by an atom and emitted again by this atom; therefore its speed decreases. But when the water or fiber cable has a motion, which value does the velocity of light get?In my simulations, light travels in vacuum too, but you are right, when it hits a particle, it cannot be re-emitted instantly, thus some time should be added to the light clocks each time a photon hits a particle, which means that in my twins simulation, the clock that is traveling should be less retarded by that phenomenon than the clock at rest because the photon hits the particles less often. I wonder if that phenomenon would not help me to dampen the contraction I get while letting the first particle get closer to the second one during acceleration. I give it a speed, then I let that information get to the second particle by doppler effect, and I wait till the photon is back with no doppler effect in it to increase its speed again. I get so much contraction this way that the time is contracted instead of being dilated. To get less contraction, I have to find a way to slow down the particles a bit during their acceleration, but this way has to be a real mechanism, not an ad hoc number just to fit the data.
SR is interested in light's motion in vacuum.
In fact, what I have to find is the precise way my particles resist to acceleration. For the moment, I use the time the photon takes to travel between the particles. During that time, the speed of the first particle cannot increase, and since the force is still there, it has to resist to it. That only counts for the mass due to the bonding energy of those particles though, not the mass of each particle measured separately. The mass of each particle is due to the bonding energy of their own components, which are exchanging much more energetic photons compared to the ones the particles are exchanging, so the reason why those components resist so much to be accelerated might not only be the time those photons take between them, but also their energy. In that mechanism, the relation between energy and time is evident: the less the photons take time between the components, the more the frequency of that interaction is high, and the more the intensity of the light is important too because the sources of light are closer to one another. So my idea that mass is due to the time the photons take between the particles still holds, but I have to back it with the idea that the particles resist to less energetic photons than the ones their components exchange, and that they increase their speed only once during the time their components increase theirs millions of times.
Now, I have to find a way to add those information to my mechanism. Maybe I should make a simulation of the whole process, showing simultaneously the components' steps and the particles' steps. This way, we could see how one long step between the particles is in fact composed of a lot of shorter steps between their components, and how that longer step is in fact made of a long acceleration followed by a long deceleration, to which each one of the shorter steps has to resist individually. The particles and the components getting contracted at the same time would avoid either of them to observe that contraction, but I can't see how the contraction between the components could reduce the contraction between the particles, and that's what I'm trying to discover. There is a difference in the kind of steps each scale has to execute though: the step from one particle is made of the steps from two components, so I have to figure out how only one photon at the particles' scale can influence the motion of two particles at the components' scale. That photon is made of the light emitted by two components, so that when they are inline and that their steps are synchronized, thus when they are on constant motion, almost all the light is absorbed by interference, whereas when they are accelerated, they get pushed out of sync, so some light escapes from the system.
Thanks for permitting me to think that out Xer, it's easier to think when we're not talking to walls. :0) It may look as if my simulations were not related to relativity, but they are. They're all about what would be going on between sources of light if light was not instantaneous.
Post by: xersanozgen on 25/04/2018 12:45:10
When we use SR and Lorentz transfomations we always find the value of velocity of Light as:
c = 300 000 rail.km / rail.second (original velocity of Light)
and
c = 300 000 train.km / train.second (relative velocity of light)
Now, please actice your cognitive performance; are these values or "traveling amount on unit time" equal? Is numerical equality sufficient?
Whereas the theory SR accepts as primary / apriori postulate that the fixity of light's velocity.
Intrinsically / fundamentally / authentically, this requirement has not been realized in SR and Lorentz.
When the units are different, the numeric values must be different for equality of the action.
If the fixity of light's velocity (travelling ability of the light) is the primary target, it must be that: for v = 60 % c
300 000 rail.km/rail.second = 468 750 train.km /train.second
Post by: xersanozgen on 26/04/2018 10:25:43
In my simulations, light travels in vacuum too, but you are right, when it hits a particle, it cannot be re-emitted instantly, thus some time should be added to the light clocks each time a photon hits a particle, which means that in my twins simulation, the clock that is traveling should be less retarded by that phenomenon than the clock at rest because the photon hits the particles less often. I wonder if that phenomenon would not help me to dampen the contraction I get while letting the first particle get closer to the second one during acceleration. I give it a speed, then I let that information get to the second particle by doppler effect, and I wait till the photon is back with no doppler effect in it to increase its speed again. I get so much contraction this way that the time is contracted instead of being dilated. To get less contraction, I have to find a way to slow down the particles a bit during their acceleration, but this way has to be a real mechanism, not an ad hoc number just to fit the data.
In my opinion, there is no the aether (*), already light does not need a material medium like gas or air for its motion. However the light can be carried by some mirrored apparatus; but this setting is not an aether.
An important flaw of SR is to consider the light by uninterrupted form. An identified unique photon must be analyzed on light kinematics and as you said by attitude of tracing the process steps for every atto seconds. to consider some moments of motion/action may be confusing and misleading. Unfortunately, Doppler effect and interference are not mentioned for a single photon.
(*) of course the vacuum is not exactly empty; even we can say that every where is full of photons. Does photon soup work as aether?
Post by: Le Repteux on 27/04/2018 15:35:59
Post by: xersanozgen on 28/04/2018 17:29:14
Some theses can be discredited because of new or revised paradigm. There are many examples in science history. Also the theory SR is a living / actual example,
SR had not perceived the biggest picture and assigned the local things (source, moving body) for reference role. Therefore it is fully wrong.
The subject of SR is an IQ test anymore for humanity. Thanks to Einstein for his powerfull step for more advanced light kinematics.
Post by: Le Repteux on 28/04/2018 17:48:40
Post by: xersanozgen on 30/04/2018 07:19:03
Some theses can be discredited because of new or revised paradigm. There are many examples in science history. Also the theory SR is a living / actual example,
SR had not perceived the biggest picture and assigned the local things (source, moving body) for reference role. Therefore it is fully wrong.
The subject of SR is an IQ test anymore for humanity. Thanks to Einstein for his powerfull step for more advanced light kinematics.
:)
Post by: xersanozgen on 11/05/2018 10:34:51
David Cooper taught me to make simulations, so you can take a look at them to understand what I mean.
We may see that the theory SR had neglected "simulation" or "tracing" the photon step by step for every atto second.
If we reconsider SR analysis, while the photon goes to + x, the photon passes over the points on the KA (not on the K'A) for the time T.
To analyze the event upon a photo that is taken at the moment T will be misleading.
Post by: Le Repteux on 11/05/2018 13:23:49
Post by: xersanozgen on 13/05/2018 15:18:59
In my simulations, for the photons to travel at c in any direction with regard to us, they have to travel at c with regard to the screen, because the screen is at rest with regard to us, but this way, they cannot travel at c with regard to any moving object on the screen, so even if it is impossible to measure their speed in only one direction, it is false to pretend that it would be c if we could, and that's what the relativists pretend. Those simulations help us to study relativity, but they also help us to know what is going on between bonded particles, so they might help us to link relativity theory to quantum theory. Unfortunately, relativists cannot study them without first questioning relativity, and they cannot do that without risking their jobs. That's how things work at any scale: it takes time for a change to happen in any system, including in my simulations, and it also takes chance, so let's go on pushing until chance pushes on our side.
I want to emphase again:
A source set free an identified photon at the moment To. At the moment Tı, the distance between this photon and the source is L = (c + / - V) (Tı - To) according to us. (V = the speed of the source according to universal scale or outmost external frame)
But Einstein and other relativists claim that L = c (Tı - To) for this distance. Their argument is the measurement of light velocity; because they find the value c (they label/accept this value c as genuine relative speed according to the source (as if they are uninformed about nominal/comparized/"so-called"/pseudo relativity); and they suppose that the source keeps its inertial position. Whenas the source has always an universal motion.
We measure always the universal velocity of light (not local relative speed) due to present measurement experiment.
I can suggest a method to measure the pseudo relative speed of light compared its source:
We must set two analog cinema camera at interval distance L. We remote them with equal length cable. We can determine the start and finish moments for a single photon (photon will mark a line to surfaces of both films. The first points of these lines gives the start (To) and finish (Tı) moments. And:
L / (Tı - To) = c + / - V
This experiment must be set for different directions, simultaneously. Min. and max. values can be interpreted .
Note: This experiment was published in my book (Özgen Ersan "Pseudo Science" ISBN 978.9944.0402.0.4 2008) Please indicate citation.
Post by: Le Repteux on 13/05/2018 15:33:04
Post by: xersanozgen on 14/05/2018 09:40:39
I agree that we only measure the universal velocity of light, but I don't understand your experiment. Could you elaborate a bit?
AB = L
Settings:
Point A: The light source (laser)
Kerr obturator
Analog cinema cam
Point B: Analog cinema cam
Point C: Remote buttons and cable relating (AC = BC)
Process (night conditions)
1- Cameras and laser are worked.
2- A reference point is marked on film bands by a button.
3- Obturator allows a photon packet.
4- Both cameras tape one apiece light lines.
5- First points of light lines on the films' are used to calculate/determine the start (To) and finish (Tı) moments.
6- V = [L / (Tı - To) ] - c : Universal velocity of the Earth (the projective value on AB).
For precision the speed of films must/can be increased or the bigger distance can be preferred.
Post by: Le Repteux on 15/05/2018 20:45:42
Post by: xersanozgen on 15/05/2018 22:46:59
In which direction is the photon sent? I think I need a diagram.
A -----------------------------------------------------> B
Post by: Le Repteux on 16/05/2018 13:00:26
Post by: xersanozgen on 16/05/2018 15:56:41
But the light signals CA and CB are sent in opposed directions, so they don't have the same speed.
This problem can be solved by cable connecting; of cource the length of cables must be equal.
Post by: Le Repteux on 16/05/2018 16:08:06
Post by: xersanozgen on 16/05/2018 18:52:11
In M-M experiment one of the two photon packects (that they arrived to interference screen at the moment T3) had began to its motion at the moment T1, and the other had began to its motion at the moment T2.
Did you consider this point?
Post by: Le Repteux on 16/05/2018 20:31:01
The two photons of the MM experiment come from the same photon that has been split in two at the same two way mirror, so at T1, they were necessarily at the same place at the same moment. Am I missing something?
Post by: xersanozgen on 17/05/2018 10:37:31
1- The speed of an electromagnetic signal is the same as the speed of light, so no need to change the experiment.
2- The two photons of the MM experiment come from the same photon that has been split in two at the same two way mirror, so at T1, they were necessarily at the same place at the same moment. Am I missing something?
1- In my opinion, it is not possible for the electric current to behave like light in a copper cable or be influenced by the world's universal speed. The cables will send commands at the same time.
2- I am sorry YES; or No.............This is a humanly and a general misconception / one of false facts. The experiment has been repeated thousands of times and with more precision, but this error has not been distinguished. Interesting.
I want to share this information: In experiment, light is used in continuous form. It is a mistake to think that the halves of the same photon packet has entered, and unfortunately the human mind allows this fault.
It can be perceived that the moment of releases are different, when the two lights' paths backward from T3 are traced with constant light speed.T1 ≠ T2 and they interfrence at the moment T3.
Post by: Le Repteux on 20/05/2018 15:48:00
1- In my opinion, it is not possible for the electric current to behave like light in a copper cable or be influenced by the world's universal speed. The cables will send commands at the same time.Unless the signal has a mass, it cannot travel at the same speed in both directions. Electrons have a mass, but they can't propagate the signal because they are much too slow when they travel in a cable. The signal is considered to be propagating by induction, which is similar to the way light propagates. If you would change your electric cables for fiber optic ones, we could more easily analyze how the signal propagates.
Quote
I want to share this information: In experiment, light is used in continuous form. It is a mistake to think that the halves of the same photon packet has entered, and unfortunately the human mind allows this fault.Photons can now be sent one at a time, so if researchers observe an interference, it must be because they do split in two at the first mirror.
Post by: xersanozgen on 21/05/2018 12:12:35
Photons can now be sent one at a time, so if researchers observe an interference, it must be because they do split in two at the first mirror.
A single photon never genetare doppler effect, redshift and interference.
If you use a single photon in MM experiment, one of the light will arrive to board at the moment T3 and the other will arrive at the moment T4 and you never see fringes.
Post by: Le Repteux on 21/05/2018 14:37:14
A single photon never generate doppler effect, redshift and interference.If we can measure the frequency of a single photon, and I think we can because we can measure its energy and transform it into frequency, then it should be able to suffer doppler effect.
Quote
If you use a single photon in MM experiment, one of the light will arrive to board at the moment T3 and the other will arrive at the moment T4 and you never see fringes.In the two slit experiment, we can observe fringes with only one photon, so why not in the MM experiment? Did you make that experiment, or do you have a link to somebody who did?
Post by: xersanozgen on 22/05/2018 09:13:00
QuoteIf you use a single photon in MM experiment, one of the light will arrive to board at the moment T3 and the other will arrive at the moment T4 and you never see fringes.
In the two slit experiment, we can observe fringes with only one photon, so why not in the MM experiment?
If we set an analog cine-cam instead of the monitor/board of interferometer, we will see two different points/lines on the film band for the halves of single photon packet. This experiment is simple and easy.
Post by: Le Repteux on 22/05/2018 13:18:57
Post by: opportunity on 22/05/2018 14:43:49
The idea Dirac proposed was annexed by the idea of "Positrons".....yet reality does not collapse around us with gravity (in effect) given positrons in theory would annihilate electrons.
Are there flaws in "special" relativity?
Are there flaws in using the idea of light as entropy to gauge a theory of everything in the absence of understanding the enthalpic nature of gravity?
Post by: xersanozgen on 23/05/2018 09:55:27
Are there flaws in "special" relativity?
S. Hawking had said something as the meaning of "Science philisophy does not contribute anymore".
In my opinion, methodology or science has not perfection yet. Yes we see high successes. However human has not consciousness about "management of mental references". We human have some false facts. For example in light kinematics (or SR) scientists may assign local object (source) as a reference frame for universal problems; and they directly use genuine relativity for light ( they don't consider/distinguish relativity kinds: Please look at http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/6600 (http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/6600)).
Why cannot the science overcome a fallacy for years?
Post by: xersanozgen on 23/05/2018 10:11:15
My simulations show that SR is wrong pretending that c is the same in all directions, but they also show that it is right about us not being able to measure our own speed through space, which also means that we can't measure c one way, and you think that SR is wrong all the way, which is not necessary for me to study it more closely. You probably have a fundamental reason to think this way, for instance a theory that you think is right and that contradicts SR. Is that so?
My arguments are simple/naked:
1- There are the types of relativity (genuine relativity, pseudo/nominal relativity, momentary relativity); SR prefers "genuine relativity" for light's velocity. Whereas, the velocity of light is nominal or momentary relative value according to local place or its source.
2- In light kinematics, most external frame (space or LCS) must be considered as co-reference frame , not local frame or source.
Post by: Le Repteux on 23/05/2018 13:22:19
Post by: xersanozgen on 24/05/2018 16:02:33
Your two points mean that c is not the same in all directions, and that's enough to say that SR is wrong, so why are you trying to prove that we can measure it with an experiment where light travels in only one direction? My simulations show that c is not the same in all directions, but they also show that we can't measure it one way without a faster than light device. Relativists don't like to discuss that point because they would finally have to admit that it is the two way speed of light that is always c, which means that, during a measure, light could very well be traveling faster one way and slower the other way. That's what Lorentz aether theory shows, and they admit that it gives the same numbers than SR, so what are they waiting to admit it is better?
I have not suspicion that SR is wrong. The mental adventure of SR is transparent for me: Second Galilei fact.
I had shared some phenomenons to tell the defects of SR. I want to repeat:
Lake Analogue: (Please look at the figure / my book: Pseudo Science)
1- Person (experimentalist) represents the light source,
2- The quiet surface of lake represents outer space or LCS (light Coordinate System),
3- The ring wave represents the light ( a photon packet).
4- The increasing speed of wave's radius represents the velocity of light.
Experimentalist release the pebble and the pebble causes a ring wave.
As shown, it is possible an event that a motion cannot be impressed by the speed of its source.
We cannot determine/say that the relative speed of a point of wave is ' c ' according to experimentalist (the reason/source of the motion of wave).
The distance between him and a point of wave is L = (c +/- V) t
However, The universal velocity of light is ' c ' ; this is genuine relative value according to outer/outmost space and our present measurement experiment can already measures the value at this meaning. We cannot measure the relative speed according to source or local place..
the pseudo or nominal relative velocity of light according to its source/local things is the value "c + / - V" ( V is source's universal speed according to outmost space).
Post by: xersanozgen on 25/05/2018 08:43:54
In lake analogue the surface of the lake is a co-reference frame for the motions of experimentalist and ring wave. All in order.
In light kinematics the outmost space is a co-reference frame for the motion of the photon and other things.
Post by: Le Repteux on 25/05/2018 16:18:56
Post by: xersanozgen on 26/05/2018 09:13:48
A lake wave is effectively not always going at the same speed with regard to an observer that is moving with regard to it, and it is the same with light waves, except that in the case of light, we can't see the wave moving because we would need a faster than light wave to do so and we don't have it. In other words, we can use light to measure the speed of a lake wave, whereas there is nothing faster than light to measure the speed of the light wave. This is why we can easily measure the one way speed of the lake wave, whereas we can only measure the two way speed of light.
Yes, I agree; the light cannot assist.
On LCS concept, starting point of the photon is marked on LCS (most external frame) and it move away from this point by ' c '. Of course, LCS is not tangible, but surface of a sheet of paper is useful for theoretical analyses.
You may reconsider/trial your simulation by this concept. So, for MM experiment, while the setting/mechanism travels because of universal motion of the earth, starting point and reflecting points (from mirrors) must be marked on LCS every time.
Post by: Le Repteux on 26/05/2018 14:13:27
Post by: xersanozgen on 28/05/2018 09:41:12
1- Your sheet surface is equivalent to the computer screen in my simulations.
2- On the screen, c is the same in all directions.
3- Einstein must have had a distorted mind to believe that light could mysteriously behave the way he pretended, and those who supported him also. Now we are stuck with that crazy idea that has nothing to do with logic.
4- Specialists on scientific forums go on repeating what they learned instead of analyzing it. Using simulations to show the way light moves is quite new though; apart those from David and me,
5- I can't find any on the web, so it is probable that some scientists will accept them with time. Any scientist here that dare to confront that daemon? :0)
1- Yes. Screen is LCS (Light Coordinate System).
2- The coordinates (x; y; z; T) of the starting point of photon and other actors must be marked on LCS.
3- Einstein was a mystery haunter. Mystery is an our humanly archetipical defect and we must overcome it for scientific realities.
4- Unfortunately, people may choose someone else's guidance instead of using their own mind. The ability of analyzing and synthesising is not common/prevalent. However, the presence of scientists -who behaves similarly- is amazing. If you research any subject deeply, probably you will feel loneness.
5- I had encountered some studies about your interest: Conrad Ranzan
https://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/76-10-conrad-ranzan-the-three-components-of-the-speed-of-light-postulate-the-presence-of-aether-introduces-a-harmony-into-three-diverse-aspects-of-the-speed-of-light.html (https://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/76-10-conrad-ranzan-the-three-components-of-the-speed-of-light-postulate-the-presence-of-aether-introduces-a-harmony-into-three-diverse-aspects-of-the-speed-of-light.html)
Post by: Le Repteux on 28/05/2018 14:58:22
Post by: xersanozgen on 08/07/2018 14:11:17
When watching the world cup matches, to understand the key/main mistake of SR may be simplier. We may consider the motion relationship of a player and ball as a light source and a photon motion relationship.
In special relativity, the light source or moving body has uniform motion (fixed speed and linear path) for inertial frame role; Our football player may run uniformly too.
In special relativity, the distance between the photon and the source increases with the speed of c, that means the velocity of the photon is relative value according to source or moving body. SR considers the measured value of light’s velocity as a relative value to the source; Similar mentality labels the ball speed according to the player. If the ball speed is relative to the player, the distance between the ball and the player increases with the ball's speed (we allow the player to have an inert frame assuming uniform movement).
So, the time dilation and length contraction must be realized in football game because of SR mentality. But not. Even, there's no mental confusion.
Because the world or the ground is a common reference frame for player and ball. To analyze the motions of player and the ball is possible by classical methods; movement parameters are already adapted according to the same frame/ground.
WE HAVE A GOLD STANDARD: USING A CO- REFERENCE FRAMEWORK IN MOTION ANALYZES. The relativity method has to give the same results.
Special theory of relativity ignores this principle. Or SR is also the victim of an illusion. The devil is right here: do not prioritise to use a co-reference frame for light kinematics analyses.
Post by: Le Repteux on 08/07/2018 14:24:31
Post by: guest39538 on 08/07/2018 17:53:38
Post by: xersanozgen on 09/07/2018 10:00:48
The indication of "The sun turns around the Earth" is not consistent although visual/experimental evidences. Because the Earth is on relative position, the Sun is on reference position and analyzing/perception from relative position can be misleading. I hope, this phenemon is clear/transparent.
However, the opinion about "The Moon turns around the Earth" is consistent. Because natural roles are proper.
Light is an universal reality; but the Earth and local objects (e.g. source or observer) are on relative/poor position according to the ranking of natural reference frames (outer space, multiverse, visible universe, filament formations, super clusters, subgroups, galaxies, star systems, planets, orbiters, vehicles/trains, source/observer).
The universal value of light's velocity ( c ) and the local values of source's or observer's speed ( v ) * must not used in same formula according to scientific integrity. Here is vital mistake of SR. Please distinguish this nuance. Galilei had pointed this reason and principle at 1600s.
* the parameter V ( the resultant speed value of the source according to most external frame/ outer space) can be used with ' c '.
Post by: xersanozgen on 10/07/2018 08:38:06
????parlour trick.jpg (278.18 kB . 3168x1772 - viewed 3952 times)
Information/interpretation/arguments/claims???? Please
Post by: xersanozgen on 04/03/2019 17:41:56
In summary, If light kinematics has 6-7 essential (necessary and sufficient) factor and if we consider two factors of them; probably we may generate a theory like special relativity.
http://vixra.org/abs/1903.0044 (http://vixra.org/abs/1903.0044)
33732