0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
LCS method predicts that the results of one way will be different than c
Quote from: xersanozgen on 29/06/2020 17:25:03LCS method predicts that the results of one way will be different than cGosh!
You generally say only "NO".
Here is a science forum; do you know?
Your position becomes off-side (like singing from a distance).
If you have not any technical arguments. you never be usefull for the subject.
No, it can't- what you "measure" is what decision you made about the definition of simultaneous.
Quote from: xersanozgen on 30/06/2020 09:26:09You generally say only "NO". Because you are generally wrong.Quote from: xersanozgen on 30/06/2020 09:26:09Here is a science forum; do you know?Yes, I know this is a science forum.Science is based on evidence.You don't have any evidence.So, what are you doing here?Quote from: xersanozgen on 30/06/2020 09:26:09Your position becomes off-side (like singing from a distance).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offside_(association_football)Not very much like singing.Quote from: xersanozgen on 30/06/2020 09:26:09If you have not any technical arguments. you never be usefull for the subject. If I raise technical points like this oneQuote from: Bored chemist on 28/06/2020 15:13:01No, it can't- what you "measure" is what decision you made about the definition of simultaneous.And you pretend that I didn't, and repeatedly refuse to address technical questions then it's you who isn't useful.So, why do you do it?Why won't you address simple questions about what you have said?Is it because you know that you have no good answer?
Einstein would not fall into similar error.
You can negative with arguments.
. It is a shame to say "you are wrong" directly
A new theory for light kinematics has been shared by me in scientific papers.
Some one can object for some points and discuss.
I will not answer without technical questions.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 12/05/2020 18:24:26Never mind moving on from 2.4xersanozgenEvery single test of relativity has shown that it gets the right answer.Does your idea give the same answer as relativity?If it does then it is redundant.If it does not then it is wrong.There is no option where your idea is useful.
To what level of accuracy do you think relativity has been tested?How many significant figures?
Quote from: xersanozgen on 28/06/2020 16:26:54In my opinion, the experiments (that are offered by me) will solve syncronization problems.What problems?
In my opinion, the experiments (that are offered by me) will solve syncronization problems.
They did.Like me they have found your ideas unclear or counter-factual.Did you not notice?
Why did you post a paper that talks about measuring the one way speed of light, when you know it is impossible?
Do you realise the difference between what they say and what you seem to think it says?Saying "constancy of the one-way speed has not been confirmed" is not the same as saying that"the one way speed is different."
No, it can't- what you "measure" is what decision you made about the definition of simultaneous.Do you understand that?
1- Those who have an idea without reading and learning like you will get the note "There are those who object to SR".
Quote from: puppypower on 29/06/2020 14:40:02you will never hear the examples mention the masses of the train and/or stationary person and the energy or fuel used.Yes you do.For example, there's the fact that, even though the rest mass of the protons is tiny, the magnets at CERN have to be well bolted down in order to withstand the huge reaction forces generated by forcing those protons into a circular path.People make nerdy jokes about how fast them must be going- given how much weight they have gained.It seems you just haven't been paying attention.The physics is perfectly well known, and it works. It has passes every single test known.Quote from: puppypower on 29/06/2020 14:40:02If the heavy hits a stationary light,Quote from: puppypower on 29/06/2020 14:40:02 It is space and we have no fixed reference point to know who is moving at what speed, So, which is it?
you will never hear the examples mention the masses of the train and/or stationary person and the energy or fuel used.
If the heavy hits a stationary light,
It is space and we have no fixed reference point to know who is moving at what speed,
This is possible because we are close to the experiment and we can measure the mass and do a proper energy balance. All we need to do is get the electric bill. But this type of accurate energy and mass balance does not happen when we look out into space. There we have to assume reference is relative, and the mass affects of SR need to be calculated with relative assumptions, since we cannot measure it directly. Another way to see this is say we run a second experiment at CERN. This time we will use 1 kg of protons. Half of the protons will be used in the accelerator and the other half will assume a relative reference position on a table in the lunch room. Since reference is relative. if we use only t. and d, we will pretend the lunch room protons are moving relative to the particles in the collider who are not assume stationary. If the mass affects of SR are indeed relative, then as the relativistic mass in the collider increases; metal creaking, we should see an increase the mass of the protons on the lunch room table, depending on how well we pretend relative motion. This is not observed, no matter how hard we pretend and try, since the energy balance used creates two different absolute references, with only the collider reference having the real energy needed for real SR mass affects. Pretending to move in relative space and time is not the same as moving in real terms, if we need to create relativistic mass. In space, where we cannot do any proper energy balance, we get to pretend via the spatial illusion affect . One may ask is dark matter the same as relativistic mass? Since M,D. T and all work together space-time will become curved, locally, if relativistic mass is present; interconnected in absolute terms to work as a team. This space-time impact sometimes extending beyond itself as seen at CERN.
And we can define this value is the increasing speed of the distance between the photon and its source.
One way measurings never give a value as c.
More support for special relativity in recent experiment: https://scitechdaily.com/cosmic-cataclysm-allows-precise-test-of-einsteins-theory-of-general-relativity/
I designed experiments for the speed of moving away from the source of the photon.
Quote from: xersanozgen on 20/07/2020 17:16:34I designed experiments for the speed of moving away from the source of the photon. Show us the designs.
(their lengths are equal).
My experiment solves all problems.