0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Naked scientists can analyse them by activating their own cognitive performance
Yes, the velocity of light is biggest value but not infinity; therefore astronomical observational data don't simultaneity. While the observer's motion parameter is belonging in present time, observed object's component is belonging ancient time. Observational detections are the resultant of these two nonequivalent component.
Quote from: xersanozgen on 15/03/2020 13:02:42Naked scientists can analyse them by activating their own cognitive performance They did.Like me they have found your ideas unclear or counter-factual.Did you not notice?Nobody has agreed with you.
Quote from: xersanozgen on 15/03/2020 12:49:51Yes, the velocity of light is biggest value but not infinity; therefore astronomical observational data don't simultaneity. While the observer's motion parameter is belonging in present time, observed object's component is belonging ancient time. Observational detections are the resultant of these two nonequivalent component.That's not what is meant by relativity of simultaneity. Einstein's train thought experiment doesn't require any kind of information lag due to the limited speed of light. The order of events is literally different in different reference frames, not merely seemingly different.
SR does not consider the restrictions that are reasoned by limited value of light's velocity.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 15/03/2020 13:48:54Quote from: xersanozgen on 15/03/2020 13:02:42Naked scientists can analyse them by activating their own cognitive performance They did.Like me they have found your ideas unclear or counter-factual.Did you not notice?Nobody has agreed with you.I read my this topic again. In my opinion my study is most easily understandable text about SR. If you can prevent emotional approach or polemic based attitude; you can be informed different sights. Otherwise you will onlycan record the note that somebody objects to SR
You have to go beyond 13 billion light years from the origin of the big bang inversion to the world of dark energy.
to prove a hypothesis
"hypothetical/pseudo relativity" is more convenient for light kinematics.
Quote from: puppypower on 29/02/2020 12:03:20SR is fine, however data collection and the philosophy of science often require we apply SR in a way, that is not in touch with the reality of the needs for energy conservation.Conservation of energy is relative to the reference frame. In any given frame, the amount of energy measured will always be the same. Between frames, it can differ (for exactly the reasons you pointed out in your train example). Neither is more correct than the other.
SR is fine, however data collection and the philosophy of science often require we apply SR in a way, that is not in touch with the reality of the needs for energy conservation.
If you could drop the "mentality" stuff, and just clearly show the claimed defect, that would help.Otherwise it just looks like an attempt to justify an argument from incredulity.
Nobody will assume an asteroid is in relative motion with the earth and therefore the earth is moving relative to the asteroid.
What we will do is have a head on collusion of the two relative references. If the 120 women has the energy and she hits a train at 20 mph head on, she will come to a stop and the 10,000 ton train will not move. Both will be still.If the train has the energy and it hits the stationary woman head-on, she will immediately change directions and move in the opposite direction at 20 MPH. Pretending will not change the outcome of the head on collusion. If we can avoid a collusion, we can continue to pretend. We never see any two relative references colliding in any scenario; reality check. This is done on purpose.
I’ll briefly tell again for you.
Somebodies may have dogma, stigma, emotional, chauvinistic attitude about SR (even narcissistic breakage is possible). Of course we can understand these humanly reactions. However, these are reactions that have no place in science; reality is always forcemajor.