Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: xersanozgen on 23/02/2020 12:28:39
-
WEAKEST POINT OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY
I got an impression that majority don't know the technical essence of SR from my former topic "Do you want to be clever than Einstein?" When the SR's mentality is not known, its flaws cannot be comprehended. Therefore I prepared an article that tells its essence easily and its effective flaw: Weakest point of special relativity..
MOD EDIT: Please post your main arguments here for discussion rather than link out to external sites
Edit: Fixed a typo in the title...
-
I am not interested wasting my time on a site that that accepts any pseudoscience paper offered. If you want to say something then why not just say what it is so we can discuss it on this forum.
-
I got an impression that majority don't know the technical essence of SR from my former topic
The majority got the impression that you don't understand it.
Which is more likely?Therefore I prepared an article that tells its essence easily and its effective flaw:
I'm glad it's not on this site.
-
...If you want to say something then why not just say what it is so we can discuss it on this forum.
Agreed, I’ve removed the link and expect the OP to summarise the main points here for discussion. However, don’t hold out much hope for rational discussion:
I got an impression that majority don't know the technical essence of SR from my former topic
The majority got the impression that you don't understand it.
Which is more likely?
-
I am not interested wasting my time on a site that that accepts any pseudoscience paper offered. If you want to say something then why not just say what it is so we can discuss it on this forum.
The learning and questioning the root of theory
Probably, Einstein had an opinion that his theory could not be easily understood and therefore he published a book which he described for high school students (1916) [1]. It will be useful to repeat and examine Einstein's mentality through the narrative in this book. Its high implications make it very important to understand and internalize the essence of the theory on the grade of necessary and sufficiently. We may not see its flaw without understanding its technical mentality.
Einstein's simplified statement (Figure 1):
Definitions:
K : Absolute (Reference) system
K ': Moving (relative) system (linearly in the + x direction with fixed v speed)
Pı: Identified single photon
Flow of events:
At the moment To, K' system and photon Pı start to move from point O.
At the moment Tı, the centre of K' reaches to point A and the photon Pı reaches to the point B.
The coordinates of photon Pı:
According to the K system : (x; t)
According to the system K' : (x'; t ')
K...........................................................................K'
.............................................................................L............................................................................⊕ Pı
L
O.........................................................................A.......................................................................... .....B
Figure 1- Coordinates of a photon according to different Cartesian systems
The coordinates of an object relative to any system are a routine/usual method of definition. Other/any points or systems can also be selected as reference systems. So far everything is customary, normal or classic in physics.
The stage where Special Relativity theory comes into play:
Einstein says, "When a person in the K system measures the speed of light, he will find the value ‘ c ‘;
x / t = OB / t = c (a)
Similarly, when the person in the relative K' system measures the speed of light, he finds the value c again; so
x '/ t' = AB / t '= c (b)
In order to achieve this equation (b), both the AB distance and the time t’ should take the values that the result will be ‘ c ‘, when they are divided. After that, it was solved with math or algebra and determined as Lorentz transformation equations.
In the original text of the theory, a fictive light source is allegorized on an object which it has uniform motion, and a photon goes away with the value ' c ' from this light source/object (SR says that the distance between object/source and photon continuously increases with the value ' c ' of speed).
[1] Einstein A., Relativity, The special and general theory,
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/30155
(http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/30155)
Note: Please look at attachment for better figure
-
In Special Relativity (SR) there are three equations; one each for mass, distance and time. Most discussions of SR involve relative reference, which limits SR to only relativistic distance and time. I call this two equation SR.
Relativistic mass, which is often ignored or even reasoned away, was included by Einstein, as a reality check, since it implies an energy balance. An energy balance allows one to show reference priority base on energy. Three equation SR; time, distance and mass, can contradict the relative reference assumptions of two equation SR; time and distance. This is where most of the confusion is.
For example, say we had a particle accelerator. We are going to accelerate radioactive and charged particles with a half life=X. If we give them sufficient velocity, the half life will get longer, due to time dilation.
Before we fire up the accelerator, we divide the radioactive isotope in halves, and place one half in a beaker nearby. This will be the control. If we limit ourselves to relativistic distance and time; two equation SR, then the motion of the two sets of particles becomes relative. However, both will not show a change in half life. This shows the reference are not relative. The stationary beaker will not change half life by pretending to be in motion, due to relative motion arguments.
The half life change, in one set of particles, is connected to the energy input of the accelerator and therefore the relativistic mass of the particles. The material in the beaker cannot alter it's half life simply by pretending it is the moving reference, even if the Doppler shift visuals say so. That is an illusion created by using two of three variable in SR. You need all three valuables, including relativistic mass, to see the hidden wires and therefore reality.
Relativistic mass, like rest mass, is a measure of energy via E=MC2. Only the reference with real energy will have relativistic mass.
When SR is applied to outer space, to explore the universe, such as via universal Red shift, we can only use 2 of 3 equations; distance and time, by default. We cannot directly measure relativistic mass with a telescope. We are stuck at the relative reference illusion, by default. We do not have the half life affect to show the hidden wires. This allows the illusion, that there is no center of the universe, even though the BB started from a center.
In summary, two equation SR is often all you can do, such as in space, but it can create illusions. Three equation SR is always better and more realistic, but this is not always practical. The student often has problems since very few teachers make a distinction between 2 and 3 equation leading to initiative confusion.
My theory is the 2 equation SR used by astral physics does not allow a good energy balance and this is coming back to bite them. There is a need to add dark energy and dark matter, neither of which can be seen in the lab to know they are real. But they are needed to help close an energy balance due to other observations. This duct tape is an artifact of two equation SR.
-
The stationary beaker will not change half life by pretending to be in motion, due to relative motion arguments.
The only reason for that is because the scientists in the room with the beaker are in the same reference frame as the beaker. So there would be no (or very little) difference in velocity and therefore negligible time dilation between the scientists and the beaker. In the reference frame of the radioactive particles travelling near the speed of light in the accelerator, their own half-life is normal whereas the half-life of the particles in the beaker is longer due to time dilation.
-
There are two important points to consider in this account of the theory:
1- The uniqueness of the photon (due to its existence): The defined photon, which we use as a subject, is unique in the universe, its existence and instant position is unique. Everyone agrees, including Einstein, Lorentz, Poincaré, etc.
2- The person in K' system is not aware that he is moving with v speed. How the Earth travels - in its orbit around the sun - by a speed of ~ 108 000 km/h and we are not aware of this motion; The K’ system should be considered similarly. Einsten had used the set of Peron (for K system), train (for K' system) sampling for easy explanation; the train is windowless, vibrationless and quiet; it is essential to indicate from the beginning.
Another important detail about methodology: In analyses we must consider to direct the photon by a perforated filter.
-
There are two important points to consider in this account of the theory:
1- The uniqueness of the photon (due to its existence): The defined photon, which we use as a subject, is unique in the universe, its existence and instant position is unique. Everyone agrees, including Einstein, Lorentz, Poincaré, etc.
This statement defies relativity and QM. Einstein for one would not say this, and neither would any physicist who knows the works of Bell. Lorentz would not have said it for other reasons, and I'm insufficiently familiar with Poincare's position to say if he'd actually agree to such a statement.
Point is, dropping names doesn't supporting all the nonsense in this thread. No known physicist said that.
Your opinion is interesting.
Because everybody can comprehend this. when we observer the Sun the photon pack that carries a view ( of Ti moment) is unique. Professional verifing is not necessary. You may think a photo camera and its flashing. This photon pack is unique. (While photon pack of a flashing travels, the camera and its -dead- flash device may not follow this photon pack).
I mentioned about identified unique photon; because, generally the "light" is used as a subject in texts, this coding may remind of continuous current of photons and may cause confusing. Also, Lorentz transformations considered a unique photon in its analysis.
-
Einsten had used the set of Peron
What is a "Peron"?
-
Einsten had used the set of Peron
What is a "Peron"?
Sorry.
Peron/Perron : The platform of railway station
-
Weakest point of Special Relativity
The identified photon travels/scans the OB distance in the time t (the K reference system must be considered to be an absolute stationary space); and the relation of x / t = c is a natural and unproblematic result.
To have x' / t' = c in the relative system K', the photon must take the AB distance in less time than t because the AB distance is shorter than OB. But it is not enough to reduce the numerical value of times. In order to obtain the result c in the division process, it is necessary to increase the numerical value of distance too. Slowing of the tempo of time (the growth of the unit of second: time dilation) to ensure that the time is reduced in numbers; to increase the numerical value of distance, unit of meter must be shorter (Fitzgerald contraction). The Lorentz transform equations change these units of dimensions .
Key point of SR mentality
SR has extraordinary inferences. Therefore we must carefully examine its technical essence and we have to be sure for first and every step. There are some points against the logic and causality in the mentality of SR that has been adopted so far: these are generally tolerated by “subjective reasoning” (rationalization).
Weakest point of SR can be explained easily:
When we remember again what was happening: At the moment To, K' and the photon of Pı set off from point O, after a period of time, at the moment Tı, the K' system reached to the point A; also, the photon Pı has reached to the point B.
We can see everything clearly from outside the K system.
But the theory SR says that: The person in the K' system perceives himself as immobile and uses the c value he finds when he measures the speed of light (he says "there is experimental evidence; I measured it"). In other words, if he measures the way of photon on the moment Tı (which will be the AB), he will think that the AB distance should be travelled by the speed c in a time between Tı - To. It will have to bend x' and t' to achieve this (x' / t' = c equation). Theory SR considers and analyses the photo of Tı instant; K' experimenter ignores the movement of OA way, because he is not aware his own motion on universal scale. But the outsiders (K system person) perceive the incident clearly; they cannot use a method like self-deception, they have no such luxury.
to be continued..
-
Sorry.
Peron/Perron : The platform of railway station
Huh. I had never actually heard of that before.
But the theory SR says that: The person in the K' system perceives himself as immobile and uses the c value he finds when he measures the speed of light (he says "there is experimental evidence; I measured it"). In other words, if he measures the way of photon on the moment Tı (which will be the AB), he will think that the AB distance should be travelled by the speed c in a time between Tı - To. It will have to bend x' and t' to achieve this (x' / t' = c equation). Theory SR considers and analyses the photo of Tı instant; K' experimenter ignores the movement of OA way, because he is not aware his own motion on universal scale. But the outsiders (K system person) perceive the incident clearly; they cannot use a method like self-deception, they have no such luxury.
Both the person in the K' reference frame and the person in the K reference frame will get correct measurements. Length contraction and time dilation allow the results to be translated from one reference frame to the other. Neither is more or less correct than the other.
-
Special Relativity has three parameters, one each for mass, distance and time. The relative reference approach only uses two of the three variables. We are concerned with velocity; d/t, space-time (d,t) distance (d) and time (t). The third variable, relativistic mass, which allows one to do an absolute energy balance, is not included in two variable SR analysis. The two parameters SR analysis never stresses momentum (mv), kinetic energy (1/2MV2)and energy (E=MC2) balances They are only concerned with the visuals in space and time. This leads to confusion since two and three parameter SR analysis are like comparing apples to oranges.
There is nothing wrong with the theory of SR. Each of the three parameters has been proven in the lab. The problem is more connected to the practical limitations of observational data, This often reduces SR to two measurable parameters. We cannot directly measure relativistic mass (m) the same way as energy (d,t). Mass and relativistic mass is typically inferred and calculated from visual energy signal affects.
When two reference frames measure the speed of light via photons, since photons are energy and not mass, this special case gets to ignore relativistic mass. The two parameter approach for SR is valid in this unique case. The twin paradox is another a special case, since the idea of twins assumes identical mass. When we deal with observation systems that contain variable mass, then relativistic mass needs to be involved to get the correct energy balance. This is not always possible to measure, due to practical limitations.
When we look at the universe, we are dealing with the energy emissions from massive objects. However, the signals we get are all connected to energy, since energy moves faster than mass. Mass and energy divide. We indirectly infer mass and momentum, but cannot measure it directly as relativistic mass. This practical limitation in the raw data reduces the SR to two parameters, which then can lead to problems, such as an uncertainty in the universal energy balance. We use two parameter SR to infer the relativistic mass so we can simulate three parameter SR, without a direct measurement of relativistic mass. This follows the philosophy of science, but it falls short of the target.
Say we have a train with a passenger A, His spouse B is waiting at the train station for the train to arrive. If we do a two parameter SR analysis either frame can assume they are stationary or in motion. Your imagination can go wild since the light energy will reinforce what you think you see. That part is real.
If we had to add relativistic mass and make this a three parameter SR analysis, each relative reference scenario will come up with a different energy balance. A moving train that weighs 10,000 tons will have more kinetic energy than a spouse who weighs 120 pounds, if both have velocity=V. At that point, knowing that 1000 gallons of diesel fuel was used, two parameter relative reference assumption does not pan out. However, as long as we do not know that amount of fuel used, we can pretend, since the visual signals in space and time make it ambiguous.
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. To change this will require a way to directly measure relativistic mass in distant objects.
-
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.
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.
-
Due to our ability to look from outside the K system, we can see clearly what is going on: Photon Pı has actually passed all points of the OB way in the Tı - T0 period; there is no abnormality.
The person in the K' system attempts to interpret an illusion (he thinks that the AB way is taken by c speed instead of OB way). If he is not aware that the view from the internal and actually relative system to the whole / event will may be caused wrong perceptions (such as "The Sun is rotating around the world"), probably his conclusions will also be wrong. To give a reference frame role to an object (which is in local and actually relative motion) causes wrong perceiving and decision. We had learned this due to Copernicus and Galilei.
The essence of the event: The perception of the relative system (K') experimenter is wrong. Why can we continue to analyse this as if it were real, while those in the K system and the outer consecutive system also comprehend this mistake? Answer: “I find the c value when I measure the speed of light in the train. When the person in the K system also measures the speed of the same photon, he will find ‘c‘ again. Then the relative velocity of the light is c according to all systems”.
Is there another option? Yes it is possible and SR had not discerned this option:
-
If he is not aware that the view from the internal and actually relative system to the whole / event will may be caused wrong perceptions (such as "The Sun is rotating around the world")
The Earth orbiting the Sun is a case of accelerating motion, which (unlike inertial motion) is not relative. So it's a false analogy.
The perception of the relative system (K') experimenter is wrong.
Wrong according to who? Relativity says all inertial frames are equally valid.
-
If he is not aware that the view from the internal and actually relative system to the whole / event will may be caused wrong perceptions (such as "The Sun is rotating around the world")
1- The Earth orbiting the Sun is a case of accelerating motion, which (unlike inertial motion) is not relative. So it's a false analogy.
The perception of the relative system (K') experimenter is wrong.
2- Wrong according to who? Relativity says all inertial frames are equally valid.
1-In the big picture, the world revolves around the sun and its own axis. In the order of universal structures, the world takes place in a subset of the sun. So the sun is the reference system; the world is in relative motion. Observing from the internal or relative object to the reference object causes false perception, and we think the sun revolves around the earth. Wrong perception and false stigma.
There is a similar error in the special theory of relativity. The local and actually relative object (light source/train) has been made as a reference frame and the light's motion is analyzed according to the source/train/Earth. There is potential for wrong perception. Already the K' person cannot know that the photon had travelled the way OA (please look at the fig.1); he considers only AB way. Light is a universal reality like energy and the most external frame (space or LCS) must be used as reference system (Of course, in this case, the value of the speed of the source/train/Earth/ a star will be used at the universal scale).
2- Yes SR says this. It is Galilean relativity principle. If an object has uniform motion, this object can be used as an inertial frame. Yes this is correct; but for objects which have mass. Because relative objects get have a beginning speed from these masses. However light has not a measurable mass and the light never take a speed from its source.
-
In the big picture, the world revolves around the sun and its own axis. In the order of universal structures, the world takes place in a subset of the sun. So the sun is the reference system; the world is in relative motion. Observing from the internal or relative object to the reference object causes false perception, and we think the sun revolves around the earth. Wrong perception and false stigma.
None of that makes sense.
Some bits are plainly wrong like "we think the sun revolves around the earth".
-
Is there another option? Yes it is possible and SR had not discerned this option:
We can measure just the universal speed of light by present experiment (mirrored double path, uninterrupted light etc.); we cannot measure local relative speed and other kinds of relative speeds. The measurements for every direction give the same value; this reality is a powerful evidence for this option.
Initial or root pre-acceptance (postulate) causing special relativity theory and subsequent foamings: To label each measured speed as "genuine relative" to the current local environment (Whereas, an alternative definition was possible: "hypothetical relative"). This attitude is a stigma resulting from our local experience in mechanics. Since this theoretical misconception is at the postulate level, it reduces the inferences and verification experiments to the ad-hoc level.
Whereas the person in K’ or Lorentz, Einstein and others, wherever they are measuring; in fact, if they knew that they could measure the speed of light only and always universal value (that is, according to the space), they would not be exposed to this wrong perception. It is interesting to ignore this option even when the evidence is available. Another flaw for SR is to ignore the types of relativity; There are varieties such as "exact relativity", "hypothetical relativity" and "momentary relativity" [2]. "Which one of them applies to light?" This may be questioned; but, relativity types never considered in SR, they has not been studied; a process such as choosing the appropriate one for light has not been applied.
-
I simply cannot follow your arguments.
If you agree that the speed of light is invariant in all reference frames, then special relativity automatically follows as a result. Space has to contract, time has to dilate and simultaneity has to be relative in order for all observers in all reference frames to measure the speed of light in a vacuum as being the same.
-
I simply cannot follow your arguments.
If you agree that the speed of light is invariant in all reference frames, then special relativity automatically follows as a result. Space has to contract, time has to dilate and simultaneity has to be relative in order for all observers in all reference frames to measure the speed of light in a vacuum as being the same.
When Copernicus / Galilei said, "The world actually rotates around the sun, but we misinterpret the view that caused by the world’s turning around its axis", the paradigm of period excluded and judged them. Humanity could not perceive a technical complexity. SR has also similar complexity.
Humanity could not comprehend the complexity of SR and preferred to admire for brilliant inferences of SR. But the measured light velocity value is actually the relative value according to the outer space. This has experimental evidence: measurements give the same result in every direction. Consequently, due to its special conditions (round-trip, double-track and continuous photon current, etc.), our light velocity measurement cannot measure the local relative speed according to the experimental environment or source, but its universal speed is relative value according to the outer space.
-
Einstein and others also expected the result to be c +/- v at the start of the measurement; that is, in the accompaniment of the ethereal mentality - they intended to measure the relative speed of the light according to the source, but when they detected the result always in c, they used it with the same intention: as the escaping speed from the source. This is the weakest point of the theory.
However, there are other options that have a natural example in the world: after the player shots to the ball in the football game, he moves to his new strategic position; the speed of the ball -for the next moments- is no longer according to the player; is relative to the ground. That is, it is a relative value to the common reference frame. In this setup, if the player is considered instead of light source, ball as the photon, and the ground as outer space, we will reach the judgment that is consistent for light kinematics. When we flashed the photo flash, we can no longer claim that the distance between the camera and the photon pack will varies with c. After flashing the camera (the dead photo flash) may moves freely in any direction. There is a similar situation in the relationship between Voyager and the World (Discussion 7).
-
The Physics detective, wrote some links on relativity and explains reasonably clearly why the speed of light is MEASURED as constant here is a link http://physicsdetective.com/the-speed-of-light/ Maybe this helps demystify you.
-
The Physics detective, wrote some links on relativity and explains reasonably clearly why the speed of light is MEASURED as constant here is a link http://physicsdetective.com/the-speed-of-light/ Maybe this helps demystify you.
A photon (that is generated in the centre of the Sun) can arrive to out of Sun about 10 million years. Because light is absorbed and
re-emitted by molecules.
We work for SR with the light/photon that travels in vacuum.
-
The Physics detective, wrote some links on relativity and explains reasonably clearly why the speed of light is MEASURED as constant here is a link http://physicsdetective.com/the-speed-of-light/ Maybe this helps demystify you.
A photon (that is generated in the centre of the Sun) can arrive to out of Sun about 10 million years. Because light is absorbed and
re-emitted by molecules.
We work for SR with the light/photon that travels in vacuum.
When light passes through a medium it is absorbed and re-emitted. Cherenkov radiation is a good example on this planet without having to go tot the sun. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation
-
This has experimental evidence: measurements give the same result in every direction.
Which is exactly why special relativity is accurate in the first place.
-
:o
This has experimental evidence: measurements give the same result in every direction.
Which is exactly why special relativity is accurate in the first place.
The orbit of the Moon is a circle according to the Earth. However its form is like a helical spring (that its axis is a circle) according to the Sun. According to the Galaxy the form is a helical spring again but with open axis. ... According to LCS/space it may be like the form of DNA.
If our universe can be consisted of a source and its light; I would convince myself for SR mentality.
Thanks for your pass.
Please examine the motion relationship of Voyager and Earth. Voyager sometimes approaches forward the Earth.?????? :o :'(
-
The orbit of the Moon is a circle according to the Earth. However its form is like a helical spring (that its axis is a circle) according to the Sun. According to the Galaxy the form is a helical spring again but with open axis. ... According to LCS/space it may be like the form of DNA.
Again, accelerating motion is not relative.
Voyager sometimes approaches forward the Earth.
Did you mean towards the Earth? What evidence do you have for this?
-
Voyager sometimes approaches forward the Earth.
Did you mean towards the Earth? What evidence do you have for this?
His syntactic travesty aside, the distance between us and voyager does regularly decrease.
It is moving out of the solar system at something on the order of 16 km/sec (and slowing), while Earth orbits at 30 km/sec, so part of every year our orbit outruns the receding probe, thus bringing it closer to us.
-
The orbit of the Moon is a circle according to the Earth.
No.
-
If our universe can be consisted of a source and its light; I would convince myself for SR mentality.
Thanks for your pass.
Please examine the motion relationship of Voyager and Earth. Voyager sometimes approaches forward the Earth.
None of that even parses.
-
His syntactic travesty aside, the distance between us and voyager does regularly decrease.
It is moving out of the solar system at something on the order of 16 km/sec (and slowing), while Earth orbits at 30 km/sec, so part of every year our orbit outruns the receding probe, thus bringing it closer to us.
Huh, that's interesting.
-
Voyager sometimes approaches forward the Earth.
Did you mean towards the Earth? What evidence do you have for this?
His syntactic travesty aside, the distance between us and voyager does regularly decrease.
It is moving out of the solar system at something on the order of 16 km/sec (and slowing), while Earth orbits at 30 km/sec, so part of every year our orbit outruns the receding probe, thus bringing it closer to us.
Yes it would be "toward".
Congratulations halc ; you have distinguished the nuance between "exact/genuine relativity" and "hypothetical/pseudo relativity".
The motion of "Voyager" is hypothetical/pseudo relative according to the Earth. The speed of increasing/decreasing for intermediate distance is the value Vearth +/- Vvoyager (Of course we isolated relationship of Solar system and Voyager; in fact, while Vv is universal, Ve is local or according to the Sun).
We have to similarly consider the relationship of source and its light. To comprehend the weakest point of SR is easier anymore due to your explanation.
-
In science history there are many examples of analyzing with insufficient factors.
Phologiston theory was generated by Stahll (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory)).
But, the term/notion of oxigene and oxidation were not known until Lavoisier. When the dust of metals was burned the weight of its ash had increased; to revive his theory, Stahl had asserted that the phologiston has negative weight (?).
Similarly there is a factor that is neglected in SR mentality.
The kinds of relativity:
(a) Genuine/exact relativity: A vehicle gets its speed by pushing the road. The speed of this vehicle is defined as “genuine relative” to the road. The contribution of the road is essential. The power is applied to the road continuously for genuine relativity. The upper limit of genuine relative speed is ‘c’ (the value of light’s velocity).
(b) Hypothetical/pseudo relativity: The changing speed of the distance between two vehicles which are moving on the same road. This speed is defined as “hypothetical relative.” The vehicles do not apply power to each other. The upper limit of hypothetical relative speed is 2c.
(c) Momentary/temporary relativity: When a player throws a ball, the ball’s speed according to the player is “momentary relative”. The power has been applied momentarily. After throwing, the motion of the ball is transferred to the type of hypothetical relativity; the player can go anywhere freely. However, it can be said that the ball’s speed is “genuine relative” according to the ground. The ground is the co-reference frame for the player and ball. For genuine relativity, the starting point of the ball is marked on the ground, not by the existence of player (or his/her following positions).
Which one is significant for light (an identified photon)?
-
Similarly there is a factor that is neglected in SR mentality.
We've been through this before. Nothing that you mention is beyond special relativity's ability to account for.
-
My clues will be useful for somebody who has the performance of comprehending and analyzing about complexities.
If a camera (on the Voyager) flashs and send a photon pack forward, the increasing/decreasing speed of intermediate distance between this photons and the Earth will be the value c +/- Vu.
-
Which one is significant for light (an identified photon)?
SR prefers to use merely the concept of “genuine relativity” for the motion of light according to its source and every frame [4]. However, requirements of genuine relativity are not realized for light; the source and photons never apply a power for the motion. Further, the source can go in any direction freely after the photon was emitted, like the player (the increasing/decreasing speed of intermediate distance is the vectorial total of their speeds, but if an observer is an actor in the experiment he never can perceive a larger value than c). Eventually the velocity of a photon according to its source is “momentary relative” and then “hypothetical relative” in the following time.
-
If a camera (on the Voyager) flashs and send a photon pack forward, the increasing/decreasing speed of intermediate distance between this photons and the Earth will be the value c +/- Vu.
Not in Earth's reference frame it won't. The speed of the photon would always be measured as c.
-
Naked 3.7.20 10 am
Kryptid said to Xersanozgen
If you agree that the speed of light is invariant in all reference frames, then special relativity automatically follows as a result. Space has to contract, time has to dilate and simultaneity has to be relative in order for all observers in all reference frames to measure the speed of light in a vacuum as being the same.
GG: This would appear strange to our senses. We look at things from a ruler and a time clock. So we have three spatial dimensions and one time dimension. Yet if we measure the speed of light from two different reference frames that are moving with respect to each other, we get the same answer.
So a ruler in one frame is different from a ruler in another frame. And a time clock in one frame is different from a time clock in another frame. Yet for the photon
Velocity = distance/time = Constant
From this what you say appears to be true. The time clock slows and the distance traveled shrinks. That is what we observe. The accuracy of our automobile direction equipment depends upon it. Your words are true but they make no sense.
An object moves toward us at high speed. Does the object travel the entire distance to us in a continuous fashion? Or does the object jump from spot to spot? The faster the object moves the larger the jumps. Space has not shrunk but the distance jumped each time has expanded as the velocity increases.
We can say that within space there are two light speed dimensions. We could also say that within space we have a variable jump distance depending upon the relative velocity of the reference frames.
Einstein’s theory is mathematically correct for sure. However it fails to explain how it works.
-
We can say that within space there are two light speed dimensions.
Please don't try to inject your own pseudo-science into this already-fringe thread.
-
The orbit of the Moon is a circle according to the Earth.
Editorial comment: In English, we would normally say "The orbit of the Moon is a circle relative to the Earth.".
Or perhaps "The orbit of the Moon is a circle according to an observer on the Earth."
Apology: English is a rather irregular language, thrown together from many disparate ingredients...
-
If a camera (on the Voyager) flashs and send a photon pack forward, the increasing/decreasing speed of intermediate distance between this photons and the Earth will be the value c +/- Vu.
Not in Earth's reference frame it won't. The speed of the photon would always be measured as c.
Your that phrase is correct; I agreed too: "The speed of the photon would always be measured as c." (*)
But this phrase is incorrect: "The photon always moves away with the speed c from its source or any reference frame.
Our brain can distinguish this nuance. Already the weakest point of SR is that : To suppose every measured speed as relative value (escaping speed from its first frame) according to local place (**). Whereas we have an alternative option: we can always measure the universal velocity of light on everywhere.
Einstein said that "Physics rules are the same in everywhere". Yes it is right; but as your phrase: It will measure as the value c on everywhere.
Intermediate distance will increases/decreases with the speed c +/- Vu ; but if we measure the photon's speed we will find the value ' c ' due to known device (double path, uninterrapted photons etc.). I will give a new method to measure local speed in my discussion section.
(*) Because, -with present experiment- we can measure the velocity of light that is a relative value according to the outer space (not according to its source or other frames).
(**) To label or define every measured speed as relative value according to first frame is a mechanical habit. We have not to use this attitude for universal subjects like Light kinematics without questioning.
-
The orbit of the Moon is a circle according to the Earth.
Editorial comment: In English, we would normally say "The orbit of the Moon is a circle relative to the Earth.".
Or perhaps "The orbit of the Moon is a circle according to an observer on the Earth."
Apology: English is a rather irregular language, thrown together from many disparate ingredients...
Thanks for corrections.
-
But this phrase is incorrect: "The photon always moves away with the speed c from its source or any reference frame.
Well, yes. The difference between the speed of a photon and the speed of the light source that emitted the photon can appear to be different from c in my reference frame (so long as I am not the light source in question). But special relativity doesn't have a problem with that, so I still don't know what your argument against special relativity is.
-
Summary and discussion
The main mistake of special relativity theory is to give a reference role to a local object. When the candidates for reference frame are evaluated according to their coverage capacity - how the sun is superior and more inclusive than the Earth - the light (or light coordinate system: LCS * ) is far superior to the light source or a moving body due to its universal qualities.
In the extension of this basic misconception, accepting every speed in the definition of "exact relativity" and perceiving the photon-source relationship in the context of the car- road relationship is the weakest point of the special relativity theory. However, there is relationship between the two cars on the same road; these cars do not apply force to each other; briefly, this setup may be called as "hypothetical relativity". The relationship between a light source and a photon is in the definition of "hypothetical relativity". After the photon is released, the source can move freely in other directions; the distance between the photon and the source changes with the speed c +/- VU, but the current measuring device always gives the value c.
* Light Coordinate System (LCS) Actually, to use co-reference frame foe analyses is gold standard. Relativity method is a seconder solution.
-
The main mistake of special relativity theory is to give a reference role to a local object.
Given that experimental evidence backs up special relativity's predictions, it's not a mistake. It's the observed reality.
-
I still don't know what your argument against special relativity is.
I have not an aim to convince somebody. I am sharing my detections that are in my cosmological analysis project (to calculate the age of universe). Of cource, you may prefer to get or not; your choice.
However, you may examine my explanation about figure 2.
-
Of cource, you may prefer to get or not; your choice.
It's not that I'm choosing not to understand you. It's that your arguments are not something that special relativity has trouble handling. What I'm not understanding is why you think these scenarios you are thinking of don't mesh with special relativity.
-
The main mistake of special relativity theory is to give a reference role to a local object.
Given that experimental evidence backs up special relativity's predictions, it's not a mistake. It's the observed reality.
The hypothesis that life derives from rotten meat was sensed from observations. And it was proven by broth experiments in the jar.
-
The hypothesis that life derives from rotten meat was sensed from observations. And it was proven by broth experiments in the jar.
So if you think there are inherent flaws in the experiments testing special relativity, how about pointing out those flaws? Be specific. I want to know what particular aspect of the experiments were done incorrectly. Why don't we start with time dilation experiments like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ives%E2%80%93Stilwell_experiment ?
-
Do we analyse everythings which have speed by SR mentality? For example brain's thinking speed or PC's processing speed. If we continuously push the "a " button its writing speed on the monitor does not get an addition from train's speed like light.
My own discussions:
1- The formations in universe are ranking at hiererchical order in accordance with their capacities. Moon, Earth Sun, Galaxy, local cluster, super cluster.... universe...multiverse, space (LCS). The value of light’s velocity ( c ) is a relative speed according to outmost reference frame (LCS). The speed v (of local place, a train or source) is belonging to a most internal frame. c and v are never used in a same formula; the speed value of the train must be adapted according to the reference frame of light's velocity: Vu.
2- SR allows to accept the same value of light’s relative velocity according to every sequential frames; Earth, Solar system, galaxy, ....., Universe, outer space. Its argument is “Physics rules are the same in everywhere”. This argument is valid; but at that form: “The present measuring experiment gives the same value ‘ c ‘ on everywhere”. Because this specific experiment can measure just universal speed of light; not local relative speed according to its source. We must can distinguish the serious difference of meaning (nuance) between those phrases "it is measured" and "it always moves away with the speed c from its source"
3- The special theory of relativity wants the uniform motion of the K’ system as an initial requirement. This condition is the Galilean relativity principle and applies to the relativity of objects that have mass. When we release a pebble freely in a train travelling at constant speed and linearly, its path is a vertical line that combines the point where the pebble falls and the tips of our fingers; because the pebble has a horizontal initial velocity value which is transferred from the train due to its mass. But since there is no measurable mass of light, there is no horizontal speed transmitted to the photon from the speed of the train or its source. For light kinematics, we have not an argument for applying the Galilei relativity principle to a moving body for inertial frame role; however, uniform motion of the source may solely simplify the analysis.
4-
-
Xersanozgen
The speed v (of local place, a train or source) is belonging to a most internal frame. c and v are never used in a same formula; the speed value of the train must be adapted according to the reference frame of light's velocity: Vu.
GG: The importance of the speed of the photon is that is the standard. Photons always travel at C in a vacuum. If you take the geometric mean of C-V and C+ V you get Einstein's formula for length and clock speed. What does that mean? Space and time take into account the C and V. The space time package does care about the C and V.
-
Xersanozgen
The speed v (of local place, a train or source) is belonging to a most internal frame. c and v are never used in a same formula; the speed value of the train must be adapted according to the reference frame of light's velocity: Vu.
GG: The importance of the speed of the photon is that is the standard. Photons always travel at C in a vacuum. If you take the geometric mean of C-V and C+ V you get Einstein's formula for length and clock speed. What does that mean? Space and time take into account the C and V. The space time package does care about the C and V.
Yes, photons travels with the speed value c in vacuum. I have not any doubt.
But, the distance between an identified photon and its source increases/decreases with the speed c +/- Vu. Please consider the source as a photo/camera-flash instead of a Star. After flashing, the dead flash or the source has not to follow this photon; it can freely go to opposite direction or other every direction.
This (After flashing, the dead flash has not to follow this photon) is a natural phenomenon that our brain can distinguish.
-
Do we analyse everythings which have speed by SR mentality? For example brain's thinking speed or PC's processing speed. If we continuously push the "a " button its writing speed on the monitor does not get an addition from train's speed like light.
My own discussions:
1- The formations in universe are ranking at hiererchical order in accordance with their capacities. Moon, Earth Sun, Galaxy, local cluster, super cluster.... universe...multiverse, space (LCS). The value of light’s velocity ( c ) is a relative speed according to outmost reference frame (LCS). The speed v (of local place, a train or source) is belonging to a most internal frame. c and v are never used in a same formula; the speed value of the train must be adapted according to the reference frame of light's velocity: Vu.
2- SR allows to accept the same value of light’s relative velocity according to every sequential frames; Earth, Solar system, galaxy, ....., Universe, outer space. Its argument is “Physics rules are the same in everywhere”. This argument is valid; but at that form: “The present measuring experiment gives the same value ‘ c ‘ on everywhere”. Because this specific experiment can measure just universal speed of light; not local relative speed according to its source. We must can distinguish the serious difference of meaning (nuance) between those phrases "it is measured" and "it always moves away with the speed c from its source"
3- The special theory of relativity wants the uniform motion of the K’ system as an initial requirement. This condition is the Galilean relativity principle and applies to the relativity of objects that have mass. When we release a pebble freely in a train travelling at constant speed and linearly, its path is a vertical line that combines the point where the pebble falls and the tips of our fingers; because the pebble has a horizontal initial velocity value which is transferred from the train due to its mass. But since there is no measurable mass of light, there is no horizontal speed transmitted to the photon from the speed of the train or its source. For light kinematics, we have not an argument for applying the Galilei relativity principle to a moving body for inertial frame role; however, uniform motion of the source may solely simplify the analysis.
4-
I asked where the error in our experimental setups to test special relativity are. I don't see you even attempting to address that.
-
Xersanozgen says:Naked 3.10.20 1 pm
But, the distance between an identified photon and its source increases/decreases with the speed c +/- Vu. Please consider the source as a photo/camera-flash instead of a Star. After flashing, the dead flash or the source has not to follow this photon; it can freely go to opposite direction or other every direction.
This (After flashing, the dead flash has not to follow this photon) is a natural phenomenon that our brain can distinguish.
GG: Relativity is great up to a point. When we compare two moving platforms that are relatively slow moving, relativity works great. We run into problems when we look at the relative velocity of two photons moving in opposite directions. What is the speed?
If we observe the photons from a higher light speed dimension the speed is
S = C + C = 2C For your example the speed between the platform and the photon is
S = C + V or
S = C – V
Two particles traveling toward each other at 0.9C will have a relative velocity of 1.8C.
Things will get complicated when the gravitational fields of the large groups of particles interact with each other. This will tend to force the closing speed to approach C.
In any event in my opinion you are correct. Sometimes ordinary physics applies and sometimes Einstein’s relativity applies. The die heart Einsteinian people like to go far out in space and declare that relativity works. Yet we live on a slow moving planet and everything we observe is from this slow moving planet. Two spaceships far out in space will most likely not find Einsteinian rules and regulations.
-
Two spaceships far out in space will most likely not find Einsteinian rules and regulations.
Do you have actual evidence to support this claim? Because there is certainly evidence against it.
-
GG: Relativity is great up to a point. When we compare two moving platforms that are relatively slow moving, relativity works great. We run into problems when we look at the relative velocity of two photons moving in opposite directions. What is the speed?
If we observe the photons from a higher light speed dimension the speed is
S = C + C = 2C For your example the speed between the platform and the photon is
S = C + V or
S = C – V
Two particles traveling toward each other at 0.9C will have a relative velocity of 1.8C.
Things will get complicated when the gravitational fields of the large groups of particles interact with each other. This will tend to force the closing speed to approach C.
In any event in my opinion you are correct. Sometimes ordinary physics applies and sometimes Einstein’s relativity applies. The die heart Einsteinian people like to go far out in space and declare that relativity works. Yet we live on a slow moving planet and everything we observe is from this slow moving planet. Two spaceships far out in space will most likely not find Einsteinian rules and regulations.
1- A star's photons (which are emitted at The moment) generate a spherical surface that its radius increases with c. The diameter of this sphere increases with 2c. But if an observer is included into the event (on a photon), he cannot see other tip of diameter; he will always see the centre of sphere.
2- In my study (Light kinematic to analyze space time) the speed of the Earth (With local group cluster or Virgo super cluster) is high: VU = ~ 0.60 c
-
Kryptid said:
Do you have actual evidence to support this claim? Because there is certainly evidence against it.
GG: Do you have evidence from way out in space? All evidence is based upon what we observe here. Therefore there is no valid evidence of what the two spaceships will observe. Things change when the spaceships exist in a common gravitational field.
-
Xer says:
1- A star's photons (which are emitted at The moment) generate a spherical surface that its radius increases with c. The diameter of this sphere increases with 2c. But if an observer is included into the event (on a photon), he cannot see other tip of diameter; he will always see the centre of sphere.
2- In my study (Light kinematic to analyze space time) the speed of the Earth (With local group cluster or Virgo super cluster) is high: VU = ~ 0.60 c
GG: That would mostly be true for an observer limited to C. From an infinite light speed plane, he would see the entire sphere. From a light speed C plane, he would not see the center but what slowly appears as a surface plane to him.
It seems to me that we are slowly slowing toward light speed C. Since we are within a strong gravitational field, Einstein's relativity applies. Yet a single photon is independent of Einstein's rules. It has no gravitational field.
-
My own discussions
4- Every points of path OB are scanned by the photon itself along the time T1 – T0. However, since the experimenter in the K ’system is unaware of his own motion, he is mistaken to determine this distance as AB at the time of T1. When the detection is incorrect, it is natural that the analysis and the result will be also incorrect. While the photon travels to + x direction and if its source or K' system goes to the direction –x (which is naturally possible), the photon only scans every points of the way OB. We cannot claim that the photon travelled the way DO or DB. (figure 2). If we insist for SR, we find
t'(opposite direction) > t'(same direction)
that if we simultaneously consider both option, the clock of K' system cannot indicate these different times.
K'.........................K......................................................................................Pı
L..........................L.....................................................................................*
D...........................O.....................................................................................B
Figure 2. If the source goes to the direction – x
5- SR restricts the thought by isolating the light / photon with its source and analysing their motions only with the method of relativity. If we can isolate a single photon in an experiment on the Earth and if we can detect T0 and T1 moments precisely (L: distance between light source and photon detector):
(T1 - T0). c - L = VU. (T1 - T0) (c)
We may use this equation (c). If the motion of the world is parallel to the photon and in the same direction, the photon’s arrival point will be translated a little due to the VU speed of the world according to the LCS and the travelled length by the photon will be different than L.
-
Do you have evidence from way out in space?
As a matter of fact, I do. The Hulse-Taylor binary neutron star system is 21,000 light-years away. Its orbit is decaying due to gravitational radiation and is decaying at the rate predicted by relativity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulse%E2%80%93Taylor_binary
The existence (and properties) of gravitational waves in itself is a prediction of relativity that was confirmed by LIGO and VIRGO (and, of course, those came from deep space): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gravitational_wave_observations
The gravitational redshift predictions of relativity have been tested using the black hole at the center of our galaxy and it passed the test: https://www.livescience.com/66031-einstein-relativity-works-around-black-hole.html
And, of course, there is the first test of relativity that involved gravitational lensing of light around the Sun. The results were consistent with relativity but not with Newtonian physics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens#History
Since we are within a strong gravitational field, Einstein's relativity applies.
That would be true for general relativity but not for special relativity. Special relativity was formulated without gravity being involved at all.
My own discussions
4- Every points of path OB are scanned by the photon itself along the time T1 – T0. However, since the experimenter in the K ’system is unaware of his own motion, he is mistaken to determine this distance as AB at the time of T1. When the detection is incorrect, it is natural that the analysis and the result will be also incorrect. While the photon travels to + x direction and if its source or K' system goes to the direction –x (which is naturally possible), the photon only scans every points of the way OB. We cannot claim that the photon travelled the way DO or DB. (figure 2). If we insist for SR, we find
t'(opposite direction) > t'(same direction)
that if we simultaneously consider both option, the clock of K' system cannot indicate these different times.
K'.........................K......................................................................................Pı
L..........................L.....................................................................................*
D...........................O.....................................................................................B
Figure 2. If the source goes to the direction – x
5- SR restricts the thought by isolating the light / photon with its source and analysing their motions only with the method of relativity. If we can isolate a single photon in an experiment on the Earth and if we can detect T0 and T1 moments precisely (L: distance between light source and photon detector):
(T1 - T0). c - L = VU. (T1 - T0) (c)
We may use this equation (c). If the motion of the world is parallel to the photon and in the same direction, the photon’s arrival point will be translated a little due to the VU speed of the world according to the LCS and the travelled length by the photon will be different than L.
I'm still waiting for you to tell me what the flaws in our experiments are. You can't tell us that they are flawed and then not tell us how they are flawed. If your claims aren't testable, then they aren't science.
-
Yet a single photon is independent of Einstein's rules. It has no gravitational field.
Photons do gravitate, it has been observed, it is a fact.
-
K'.........................K......................................................................................Pı
L..........................L.....................................................................................*
D...........................O.....................................................................................B
Figure 2. If the source goes to the direction – x
I'm still waiting for you to tell me what the flaws in our experiments are. You can't tell us that they are flawed and then not tell us how they are flawed. If your claims aren't testable, then they aren't science.
If we examine the figure 2 (Please look at attachment), we can clearly comprehend the flaw of SR. Because, when the source goes to opposite direction of the photon, the distance of DO does not be included of the photon's way. The photon never scans the way DO. Photon passes over every points of OB way after emitting. So, "exact/genuine relativity" cannot be mentioned. Please remember the relationship of car and road.
Please share those experiments' articles and links. I 'll interpret them.
-
The weakest point of special relativity is Einstein developed the theory with three equations, one each for mass, distance and time. However, the lion's share of practical applications only use two equations; distance and time. This creates a problem.
An analogy can be seen below in the following image. The image of a ball below looks 3-D to the eyes. However, if you touch the ball; computer screen, is actually 2-D. I call this mind affect a spatial illusion. It looks 3-D to the mind, while only being 2-D in terms of reality. You will need the sense of touch, to see through the illusion. If tor only use two eyes, you can be easily fooled.
As a more practical example, say you had two rockets, moving at relative velocity V. One rocket has mass=M and the other rocket has mass equal 2M. If we assume there is no absolute reference, but reference are relative, how do we do an energy balance? The kinetic energy will be twice as much for the second alternative as the first. If you arbitrarily pick one of the other, since both are relative and there is no absolute reference, you either create or take way energy from the universe.This will require fudge factors that are based on fantasy.
A spatial illusion can fool the mind. Spatial illusions are 2-D but uses shadows and highlights to create the illusion of 3-D. The highlights and shadows stage the scenario and theory a certain way to help create the 3-D affect out of 2-D. The highlights can be observational data, while the shadowing is connected to the denial of truth, such as energy conservation needs or relativistic mass is not real or needed.
Many people sense that something is not quite proper. But the skinny is, three variable SR versus two variable SR. Three variable SR can create spatial theory, while two variable SR creates spatial illusion theory, unless you use very specific scenarios such as twins or equal mass so the energy balance is normalized.
(https://ih0.redbubble.net/image.481782716.4852/st,small,845x845-pad,1000x1000,f8f8f8.u1.jpg)
-
The weakest point of special relativity is Einstein developed the theory with three equations, one each for mass, distance and time. However, the lion's share of practical applications only use two equations; distance and time. This creates a problem.
Yes you are right; Einstein only had used two factors, while light kinematics requires minimum eight factors. Illusionists use excessive isolation for their shows. Of course, Einstein had not similar intention; he was a hunter of amazing/brillant events.
Karl Popper said that: If you find an amazing or spectacular /exciting result by using x factors, you have to repeat your analysis with x+ 1 factors.
-
My own discussions
6- The most effective defending against this study which reveals the inaccuracy of SR's first postulate, may be to address player-ball analogy in space conditions: when the football player and ball are isolated in space conditions; we have to consider Newton's third law (For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction). If the player throws a ball, while the ball goes to a direction, the player also gets a motion at opposite direction (in proportion of the player and the ball's masses) and if the method of relativity is considered; -that is, assuming the player as inertial frame - the distance between the ball and the player changes with the ball's speed. In essence, exact/genuine relativity is realized. This is true; this explanation may convince some people. But, we have to distinguish the essence of event: the action-reaction principle is valid between masses and applying a force is mentioned. Neither the source nor the photon does not push the other. Photon never need to apply a power for its motion. Also the source never apply a force to the photon. When the photon is released, it travels on the bed of the electromagnetic cycle by energy. The role of the source is to release the photon; it has not any contribution for photon's motion. Since there is no measurable mass of light, the effect is not subject to the action-reaction principle. If a relative speed is defined for light/photon, this is the value according to space or LCS. The source can be freely transferred to the new position just like the footballer after releasing the photon. At the releasing moment, the source just has passed over the releasing point of the photon that is marked at LCS.
7- SR insistently uses the "exact relativity" type; that is, (claiming that the distance between the photon and the source always increases with the speed of c) SR imposes an imperative that the source always follows the photon. There is never an event like this in nature; contrariwise, our camera can go freely to anywhere after the flashing. Another example: when the Earth travels in the opposite direction in its orbit around the sun, the relative speed of Voyager 1 or 2 according to the Earth transfers to type of "hypothetical relative" instead of "exact relative" (Earth's speed on its orbit is ~ 30 km/sec; Voyager's speed according to the Sun is ~ 15 km/sec), when the relationship of motion between Voyager and the world are isolated (when the big picture is ignored), the state of approaching the world can be realized.
-
Naked 3.12.20 10 am
Discussion with Kryptid:
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Yesterday at 09:40:31
Do you have evidence from way out in space?
Kryptid: As a matter of fact, I do. The Hulse-Taylor binary neutron star system is 21,000 light-years away. Its orbit is decaying due to gravitational radiation and is decaying at the rate predicted by relativity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulse%E2%80%93Taylor_binary
The existence (and properties) of gravitational waves in itself is a prediction of relativity that was confirmed by LIGO and VIRGO (and, of course, those came from deep space): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gravitational_wave_observations
The gravitational redshift predictions of relativity have been tested using the black hole at the center of our galaxy and it passed the test: https://www.livescience.com/66031-einstein-relativity-works-around-black-hole.html
And, of course, there is the first test of relativity that involved gravitational lensing of light around the Sun. The results were consistent with relativity but not with Newtonian physics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens#History
GG: All these important experimental data are from objects that have strong gravitational fields and that are picked up by our gravitational field. They show that Einstein is correct in his describing function equations. Yet they do not prove that the universe works according to Einstein.
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Yesterday at 09:50:57
Since we are within a strong gravitational field, Einstein's relativity applies.
Kryptoid: That would be true for general relativity but not for special relativity. Special relativity was formulated without gravity being involved at all.
GG: Unless we could go to outer space and conduct tests there, there is no evidence that what Einstein says is true. In Engineering school describing functions are used to solve complex non-linear systems. These are best fit equations which produce good results. In my opinion Einstein’s work is a mathematical describing function solution to a very complex problem. Most likely it is the best that can be done but it is not the true answer.
-
If we examine the figure 2 (Please look at attachment), we can clearly comprehend the flaw of SR. Because, when the source goes to opposite direction of the photon, the distance of DO does not be included of the photon's way. The photon never scans the way DO. Photon passes over every points of OB way after emitting. So, "exact/genuine relativity" cannot be mentioned. Please remember the relationship of car and road.
And, again, this isn't something that special relativity has a problem with...
SR imposes an imperative that the source always follows the photon.
No it doesn't. The source can move however it likes. It's just that length contraction and time dilation will always occur in the source's reference frame such that the velocity of the emitted photon is always measured as c by the source.
Please share those experiments' articles and links. I 'll interpret them.
Here's one: http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/Publikationen/2009/Eisele%20et%20al%20Laboratory%20Test%20of%20the%20Isotropy%20of%20Light%20Propagation%20at%20the%2010-17%20Level%202009.pdf
and that are picked up by our gravitational field.
What is "picked up by our gravitational field" supposed to mean?
Yet they do not prove that the universe works according to Einstein.
Which is just as well, because science isn't about proof. It's about evidence.
Unless we could go to outer space and conduct tests there, there is no evidence that what Einstein says is true.
And what is your reasoning that going into outer space would make any difference? Like I said, special relativity makes predictions that didn't involve the gravitational field of objects at all. They have been found to be extremely accurate with experiments on Earth. Are you really trying to suggest that Earth's gravitational field somehow, coincidentally, perfectly changes the values of experimental data so that it matches up with a theory that doesn't even include gravity?
-
Naked 3.12.20 6 pm
Discussion with Kryptid:
GG: and that are picked up by our gravitational field.
Kryptid: What is "picked up by our gravitational field" supposed to mean?
GG: Space as I see it is composed of a blend of the gravitational field and the electromagnetic fields. Without the fields nothing can pass through space.
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Today at 13:17:38
GG: Yet they do not prove that the universe works according to Einstein.
Kryptid: Which is just as well, because science isn't about proof. It's about evidence.
GG: Ok.
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Today at 13:17:38
GG: Unless we could go to outer space and conduct tests there, there is no evidence that what Einstein says is true.
And what is your reasoning that going into outer space would make any difference? Like I said, special relativity makes predictions that didn't involve the gravitational field of objects at all. They have been found to be extremely accurate with experiments on Earth. Are you really trying to suggest that Earth's gravitational field somehow, coincidentally, perfectly changes the values of experimental data so that it matches up with a theory that doesn't even include gravity?
GG: I do not see space as an independent entity apart from the fields. If you can get rid of the fields then you could erase the universe. The Earths field is connected to all the other fields but if you move very far apart from a minimum amount of gravitational field, a spaceship would self-destruct into nothingness. The only thing left would be light speed Cs photonic dot-waves. That is what we would find way out in space.
-
GG: Space as I see it is composed of a blend of the gravitational field and the electromagnetic fields. Without the fields nothing can pass through space.
And I'm guessing, as is usual for you, this is an assertion devoid of evidence.
GG: I do not see space as an independent entity apart from the fields. If you can get rid of the fields then you could erase the universe. The Earths field is connected to all the other fields but if you move very far apart from a minimum amount of gravitational field, a spaceship would self-destruct into nothingness. The only thing left would be light speed Cs photonic dot-waves. That is what we would find way out in space.
Ditto about the "devoid of evidence" thing. Thanks to IceCube, we have been able to detect neutrinos from an extragalactic source four billion light-years away: https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/pt.6.1.20180712a/full/ So obviously, photons aren't the only things that can traverse billions of light-years of intergalactic space without "self-destructing into nothingness".
-
If we examine the figure 2 (Please look at attachment), we can clearly comprehend the flaw of SR. Because, when the source goes to opposite direction of the photon, the distance of DO does not be included of the photon's way. The photon never scans the way DO. Photon passes over every points of OB way after emitting. So, "exact/genuine relativity" cannot be mentioned. Please remember the relationship of car and road.
1- And, again, this isn't something that special relativity has a problem with...
SR imposes an imperative that the source always follows the photon.
2- No it doesn't. The source can move however it likes. It's just that length contraction and time dilation will always occur in the source's reference frame such that the velocity of the emitted photon is always measured as c by the source.
Please share those experiments' articles and links. I 'll interpret them.
3- Here's one: http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/Publikationen/2009/Eisele%20et%20al%20Laboratory%20Test%20of%20the%20Isotropy%20of%20Light%20Propagation%20at%20the%2010-17%20Level%202009.pdf
1- SR had used only the option of "exact/genuine relativity". The relationship of a car and its road is a "exact/genuine relativty". In this option relative object scans all points of the way by applying power to the road. At the same direction setup of SR it seems that this requirement is realized. But, opposite direction clearly indicates the flaw of suppozing "exact relativity". Because always c > VU .
Superficial sight can be confusing.
2- YES, the velocity of the emitted photon is always measured as c by the source. It is correct. The distance between the source and the photon increases/decreases with c +/- Vu ; but if you measure, you will always find ' c '. To suppose every measured speed as "exact relative" or escaping speed from the source/first frame is a mechanical habit:
Is the ball's speed an "escaping/exact relative" value according to the player? Please...
3- Thanks for the experiment. This article reports that the velocity of light is absolutely isotropic. This is the same of my claim. This determination indicates that we can only measure the universal speed of the light. In other words, the photons pertinaciously travel by its velocity; other objects's motions are according to the light or light ccordinate system. Already, ıf you examine my figure 3 (attach.) the photon arrives to an eye or an object with the value ' c '; the speed of the eye or object is not effective.
-
If you agree that anyone in any reference frame must measure light to travel at c regardless of their movement, then what is the problem? That's exactly what special relativity predicts.
-
If you agree that anyone in any reference frame must measure light to travel at c regardless of their movement, then what is the problem? That's exactly what special relativity predicts.
We're back to beginning.
We should be able to notice the nuance. SR is a first approach for light kinematics. We can advance Light kinematics due to revising technical essence of SR.
SR claims that measured value c is relative value according to the source and other sequential frames.
I say that the value c is relative value according to only outer space. The emitting/starting point of the identified photon is marked on outer space (or light coordinate system). When the source (e.g. a star) moves, next identified photon's starting point will be marked on a new point on LCS.
To define the measured speed as "exact relative" according to first frame is a classic mechanical habit.
In light kinematics, the distance between the source and the identified photon increases/decreases with c /- Vu. But when we measure the speed of the photon (by present method) we will find c again. On everywhere and on every direction, isotropic results indicate that we can only measure the universal speed of the photon not local relative speed.
I offer a new experiment (for single path; my discussions 5). Please examine it.
-
I say that the value c is relative value according to only outer space.
Outer space isn't a reference frame.
-
I say that the value c is relative value according to only outer space.
Outer space isn't a reference frame.
Outer space or LCS is not tangible. Nature does not care a convenience for humans. However we have a solution: a sheet of paper is useful for theoretical analyses.
Of course, to assign a common reference frame is gold standart for analyses. The light is universal reality like energy; and when we consider hierarchical ranking for formations in universe; we have to choice most external frame.
On the other hand, to negative a theory is not reputable. To offer a new solution/method is more significant. Here is LCS method for light kinematics:
1-The motion of the photon and the light source are analysed in a common frame.
2-This frame is most external reference system: outer space or LCS.
3-The velocity of the light is the value ‘ c ‘ according to LCS.
4-The speed of celestial object/light source must be adapted according to LCS: VU
5-The starting point of the photon is marked in the space/LCS.
6-A photon arrives to eye of an observer with the value c of light’s speed (Figure 3)
7-A cosmological analysis must be treated between biggest formations in universe (super clusters).
8-The Earth will be considered at the centre of Virgo for using observational data.
SR does not allow cosmological analyses because of non-simultaneity of data. LCS method provides with these conditions.
In astronomy and cosmology, the primary origin of information/data and processing f-actor is “light" that arrived to us from celestial objects. Accurate determination of the motion properties of light is important. The special theory of relativity fulfilled its function as a first approach, and thanks to it for a new step (LCS method) forward was created. This new approach [2] allows cosmological analysis and helps to elaborately determine the age of the universe [3]:
[3] [3] Ersan Ö, Ersan I, Physics Essays, 2013, 26 (1)
Light kinematics to analyze space time (Doi:10.4006/0836-1398-26.1.49) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258810900_Light_kinematics_to_analyze_space-time (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258810900_Light_kinematics_to_analyze_space-time)
-
SR does not allow cosmological analyses because of non-simultaneity of data.
Non-simultaneity is a direct consequence of an invariant speed of light. You have agreed that light speed is invariant. As such, non-simultaneity must be a feature of your model as well.
-
It seems the "Weakest point of special relativity" is that some people refuse to understand it before deciding to criticise it.
-
SR does not allow cosmological analyses because of non-simultaneity of data.
Non-simultaneity is a direct consequence of an invariant speed of light. You have agreed that light speed is invariant. As such, non-simultaneity must be a feature of your model as well.
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.
However LCS method can overcome this problem. When we consider big-bang cosmology, we can analyse the deformed form of universe because of limited value of light's velocity (It is like asymmetric ellipsoidal egg or water drop). Then, astronomical parameters are theoretically calculated by considering this visible form; various diagrams are generated and compared present real observational data. It is possible and it was realized by me [3].
-
It seems the "Weakest point of special relativity" is that some people refuse to understand it before deciding to criticise it.
My arguments were clearly shared.
Naked scientists can analyse them by activating their own cognitive performance or directly refuse like you.
Nobody upsets.
-
Naked 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.
-
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.
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.
-
Naked 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
-
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.
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.
Yes you are right; SR does not consider the restrictions that are reasoned by limited value of light's velocity.
Whereas, The primary reason of the illusion/complexity of space time is the limited/finite velocity of light.
LCS method considers this reason for light kinematics and cosmological analyses.
-
SR does not consider the restrictions that are reasoned by limited value of light's velocity.
Yes it does. If it didn't, its equations wouldn't make sense (given that they are based on a finite speed of light).
-
Naked 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 may have read it and thought it is clear.
But the important thing is that nobody else did.
Do you not see how that is a problem?
-
https://dilbert.com/strip/1992-08-03
-
Kryptid says:
Ditto about the "devoid of evidence" thing. Thanks to IceCube, we have been able to detect neutrinos from an extragalactic source four billion light-years away: https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/pt.6.1.20180712a/full/ So obviously, photons aren't the only things that can traverse billions of light-years of intergalactic space without "self-destructing into nothingness".
GG: Sounds good but not far enough. You have to go beyond 13 billion light years from the origin of the big bang inversion to the world of dark energy.
-
You have to go beyond 13 billion light years from the origin of the big bang inversion to the world of dark energy.
Given that the Big Bang happened everywhere in the Universe simultaneously (all space that currently exists in the Universe started as the same point or very close to the same point), I can't make sense of this claim.
-
Social sciences have to use the methodologic principles that are generated from area of nature / technic science (and other statistical analyses). Nevertheless, general acceptance may not be obtained for majority. Objections, opposite hypothesis, polemics are realized.
In nature sciences, to prove a hypothesis is stronger and more technical comparing to social sciences. Arguments are technical, essential, persuasive.
The technical essence of relativity include three kinds of relative speed. SR had neglected to consider them and it had directly used the concept of "exact/genuine relativity" for light. Whereas, when we examine them we can see that "hypothetical/pseudo relativity" is more convenient for light kinematics.
-
to prove a hypothesis
You can't prove a hypothesis. At least not a scientific one. You just gain evidence for it by getting it past more and more stringent tests.
-
"hypothetical/pseudo relativity" is more convenient for light kinematics.
The question is not "what is convenient" but "what gives the right answer".
And SR gives the right answer.
-
The theory of special relativity has extraordinary and amazing inferences; therefore the consistency of its technical essence gets more significance. In this study, the primary mentality of the special relativity is re-examined with the help of present and advanced methodology moreover its postulates are questioned on the universal scale. A defect caused by locality and neglected factors were detected. Reforming postulates offers a potential for new expansions in terms of light kinematics and cosmological analyses.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
This is not entirely true, but is part of the illusion that is rationalized because of two parameter SR. As an experiment to prove this, say we assume energy is relative, based on two parameter SR. The train and woman are each in relative motion and the system energy is assumed relative.
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.
If we had two twin trains and a head on collusion, then we will get the same collusion result, either way, and 2 parameter SR will look correct. This is how the system was gamed. Mass is an invariant under SR, while mass and relativistic mass contain the kinetic energy of SR, that is overlooked in the first scenario, but normalized in the second.
Up to the head on collusion we can pretend and make bold statements about an energy illusion due to using two parameter SR. If we knew the realistic mass in advance, we would be able to predict the outcome of any collusion scenario.
The theory of relative reference is not statement of fact, but really is a statement of practical limitations in most thought and physical experiments. It is up to science to figure out how to get around these practical limitations, so we are not fooled by what we think we see based on energy but without direct mass to double check.
Nobody will assume an asteroid is in relative motion with the earth and therefore the earth is moving relative to the asteroid. That energy balance would be easy to disprove based on relative mass of each object. Center of mass is more of an absolute. That model would also have to explain how the earth can also be in a different relative motion with the sun, the moon and all the planets all at the same time. However, this is how we model space, since it is too far away to accurately measure mass and relativistic mass. There is no center. of mass. The illusion is harder to see through at further distances.
-
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.
I’ll briefly tell again for you.
However, you have to allow yourself for understanding the technical arguments. If you don’t want to understand; whole efforts are useless. I am ready to answer all of technical objections.
Weakest point of Special Relativity:
1- SR neglects the kinds of relativity and directly uses the option of “exact/genuine relativity” for the relation of light and its source.
2- Whereas, there are 3 types of relativity:
a- Exact/genuine relativity: We apply a power to road while we are walking; and our speed is at the meaning of “exact/genuine relative” according to first reference frame (the road). The distance (between us and our first ref. Frame) increases with this speed.
b- Hypothetical/pseudo relativity: If a player throws a ball by applying power, the ball’s speed is hypothetical/pseudo relative according to first reference frame (the player). Because after throwing, the player can go to his new position and the distance between the ball and player increases with the speed V(player) +/- V(ball). These speeds are exact relative according to a common reference frame (the ground). Another example: two moving cars on the same road; the speed of one of them according to other one is pseudo relative. The cars do not apply a power for other's motion.
c- Momentary/temporary relativity: The speed of the ball on the throwing moment is momentary relative.
3- When we examine and discuss them we can see that the relationship of light and its source matches with the relationship the player-ball or two cars (hypothetical/pseudo relativity). After emitting an identified photon, the source can go to every directions freely. We can consider the outer space as a common reference frame for analysis (The speed of the source must be adapted according to the space).
4- We human have a mechanical habit that we label every measured speeds as “exact/genuine relative” according to first reference frame. Whereas we can always measure universal velocity of light instead of local relative speed.
-
Nobody will assume an asteroid is in relative motion with the earth and therefore the earth is moving relative to the asteroid.
A similar misconception is present for twin paradox. we can assign any one as reference frame of them If we choice the person on the Earth as relative object, in this case other one of twins will be older one according to SR mentality. So, as the result both of them will be the same age. The paradox of paradox.
-
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.
In either scenario, the woman is at rest in her own reference frame and the train is moving. In either scenario, the train stops moving in the woman's reference frame when the woman comes into contact with it. The acceleration experienced upon impact is the same in both cases. So the two scenarios actually are the same as far as relativity is concerned.
I’ll briefly tell again for you.
All you are doing is repeating what you've said before. Nothing you have said invalidates relativity.
-
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.
SR is a first approach for light's motion by deductive logic . It is based on a superficial and local mentality that accepts each measured speed relative to the first frame. This point (a postulate of SR) was analyzed with micro-surgical sensitivity * and purely integrative/inductive method. The light source relationship is like a ball player relationship (actually, as in a lake experiment; I will share). Authenticity/nature will not care that some ones internalize it or not.
(*) Another example for micro surgery method: The book "secret" named tells the importance of mental projection and advises to ask from the universe. There are those who adopt it. However, the real expression to be respected in this regard is this: "You have not a chance to shoot anything you do not aim".
-
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.
There is no emotion or dogma here. You simply have not provided any evidence against special relativity to get emotional about in the first place.
-
There is no emotion or dogma here. You simply have not provided any evidence against special relativity to get emotional about in the first place.
You just say that you are not convinced without mentioning technical details; you may be perceived as blind allegiance / opponent and you can be taken lightly. If you are aiming for consolidation on behalf of Einsten; the main owner of the theory SR is actually Lorentz and Poincare; Einstein was overly excited and appropriated this idea (See history of SR Wikipedia or Bernstein’s book).
Of course, I will respond to you considering that you represent other followers who are like you. It is not easy to look warmly by sympathy at the claim that the special relativity theory is false. Those who have previously examined and caught ownself-objection but have not been able to reach a holistic conclusion can easily understand my arguments and feel peace/catharsis and refresh their own cognitive self-confidence.
Some scientists may be realize the process of cancer diagnosis psychological reactions (denial, anger, bargain, cause, acceptance / compliance) in the face of my clues because of the theory's fame, general acceptance formation, patronage by the scientific paradigm, and continuous affirmation in popular science journals. Also, you don't have to worry; Because even if the scientific paradigm is revised, the majority will continue to worship theory (There are still those who believe that the world is flat; no doubt, the suspended position of the world in space can cause depression in deep thought).
Those who want to witness an important event in the history of science due to the fame of the theory should make some effort to evaluate clues (at least they can apply active learning method by analyzing on a paper).
The theory SR offers some options for our philosophical need for meaning, just like ufo speculations. a kind of bribe to mysticism for majority (Mostly at the meaning of archetypal mysticism; for example, astrology is living).
It is possible to find examples similar to light behavior in the world of objects in nature. I sampled from the football game. Another is the lake surface analogy (please see the figure).
If an experimentalist freely leaves a pebble to a calm lake, an expanding ring wave is generated. The expanding speed of ring wave does not increase when the experimentalist (source/ first reference frame) stands, walks or runs. On this analogy the ring wave represents the light, and the surface of the lake represents a co-reference frame instead of the space or LCS.
-
You just say that you are not convinced without mentioning technical details;
You have not provided ANY details, or even any evidence.
-
You just say that you are not convinced without mentioning technical details; you may be perceived as blind allegiance / opponent and you can be taken lightly.
This thread has gone back and forth a bit like this:
OP: "The Big Bang Theory is wrong because explosions don't create anything, they only destroy things."
Us: "The Big Bang wasn't an explosion. That's a common misconception."
OP: "The Big Bang Theory is wrong because explosions don't create anything, they only destroy things."
Rinse and repeat. Except in this case, your claim is that relativity can't deal with the scenarios you bring up, while we know that it can. But, for some reason, you won't accept that so you keep repeating your arguments over and over.
-
You just say that you are not convinced without mentioning technical details;
You have not provided ANY details, or even any evidence.
Dear bored chemist,
Your polemic phrases give me the right to answer and the same level of speaking credit.
If I remember correctly, you had could not comprehend the requirement of control / comparison material in the muon lifetime experiment in my other topic (Do you want to be clever than Einstein).
Bored chemist had said:
“This idea of two sorts of muons is just plain silly.
And it's something you made up with no actual evidence.
Do you think what you are doing is science?”
You are challenging by high self confidenting. Whereas, science education is not required to understand this. Even, A person on the street will ask to you as "relative to what?". The differences (longer lifetime for muons) cannot be claimed/known without a comparison material.
So, you falled into the position of absolute off-side. Therefore, your referee role is unacceptable and your groundless refusals are not respected either. Your own opinions and prejudies are your problem as a closed cycle.
In a philosophy forum that I am a member of, one participant could not tolerate others' ability of philosophical synthesis and he was always negativing like you; he worked to trivialize the person instead of analyzing the ideas. I guess that he wanted to seem as a hero for womens by using his philosopy interest. We patiently normalized him.
As if you are overdose disturbed with new theories. Do you think the new theories section should be canceled?
Your reactive answers are like an exclamation of a frazzled person: “No, it cannot be.” There is not technical content . This attitude is not a standard of forum; at the most, it may be placed at the marginal section of Gauss diagram ( besides, your forum activity is 100 %: marginal).
I know that there are much SR fanatics. Normally, they confine theirselves to notice that “Some one objects to the esence of SR”. They never be panic.
If you like to tease /challence to people or new ideas/theories; I think you can be more happy in social forums. There is not a risk of off-side. Already in social forums, the arguments of new hypotheses use the examples of marginal sections of Gauss diagram.
Sorry, your polemic phrases gave me the right to answer and the same level of speaking credit.
Best regards...
-
You are challenging by high self confidenting. Whereas, science education is not required to understand this. Even, A person on the street will ask to you as "relative to what?". The differences (longer lifetime for muons) cannot be claimed/known without a comparison material.
Time dilation experiments have been done with control groups before. Perhaps you've heard of the one involving a clock on a plane and comparing that with a clock left on the ground?
-
Time dilation experiments have been done with control groups before. Perhaps you've heard of the one involving a clock on a plane and comparing that with a clock left on the ground?
I have an answer for this (probably this evidence is time contraction instead of time dilation).
Please give a link for a scientific paper that I want to answer in accordance with the interpration of my mentality. about light kinematics.
-
This probably gives enough information to make a start.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment
You can follow the references if you need more.
But the interesting thing is that you don't seem to have known about it.
Why didn't you find out about relativity, before trying to prove it wrong?
-
I have an answer for this (probably this evidence is time contraction instead of time dilation).
What is the different between time contraction and time dilation? More importantly, how can one experimentally determine the difference between the two?
Please give a link for a scientific paper that I want to answer in accordance with the interpration of my mentality. about light kinematics.
http://www.personal.psu.edu/rq9/HOW/Atomic_Clocks_Predictions.pdf
-
I have an answer for this (probably this evidence is time contraction instead of time dilation).
What is the different between time contraction and time dilation? More importantly, how can one experimentally determine the difference between the two?
Please give a link for a scientific paper that I want to answer in accordance with the interpration of my mentality. about light kinematics.
http://www.personal.psu.edu/rq9/HOW/Atomic_Clocks_Predictions.pdf
Well, In the papers the effect of gravity has been considered and isolated. Kinematic effect has caused different results for the direction west and east. Comparison clock is on the earth.
As a result, both tempo slowing (time dilation) and faster tempo (time contraction) have been detected.These have been expressed as "lost" and "gain"; Why?
If you consider only "lost option"; BİNGO, you can convince yourself about an evidence for time dilation (by favoritism or subjective rationalisation). But "gain option" (faster tempo/time contraction) is realized too.
The theory of special relativity always predicts/claims only time dilation (slower tempo) . However, in the experiment, faster tempo/ time contraction due to movement was also detected. This result cannot be explained by SR mentality.
-
This result cannot be explained by SR mentality.
Obviously it can be, since the measurements matched the predictions made by relativity. Check the data again.
-
This result cannot be explained by SR mentality.
Obviously it can be, since the measurements matched the predictions made by relativity. Check the data again.
They reasoned random positions of Moon and Sun; but, they neglect energy factor (termic, radiation, microwave, etc). These cause faster frequence for atoms. They confirm sufficient precision of atomic clocks although their difference about 60 %.
We encounter efforts to support the theory SR generally and even in scientific papers. In my opinion, if these papers would be sure, they would clearly use/say the coding "time dilation" instead of "lost" and "gain". They prefer ambiguity and hope your labelling as "time dilation".
There is present similar manipulation/misinformation in the paper of muon lifetime and trouton rankine experiments. They use the inverse of relationship reason-result.
Favoritsm may causes strained interpretation.
-
This result cannot be explained by SR mentality.
Obviously it can be, since the measurements matched the predictions made by relativity. Check the data again.
They reasoned random positions of Moon and Sun; but, they neglect energy factor (termic, radiation, microwave, etc). These cause faster frequence for atoms. They confirm sufficient precision of atomic clocks although their difference about 60 %.
We encounter efforts to support the theory SR generally and even in scientific papers. In my opinion, if these papers would be sure, they would clearly use/say the coding "time dilation" instead of "lost" and "gain". They prefer ambiguity and hope your labelling as "time dilation".
There is present similar manipulation/misinformation in the paper of muon lifetime and trouton rankine experiments. They use the inverse of relationship reason-result.
Favoritsm may causes strained interpretation.
To what level of accuracy do you think relativity has been tested?
How many significant figures?
-
They reasoned random positions of Moon and Sun; but, they neglect energy factor (termic, radiation, microwave, etc).
That effect would be very small on time dilation.
These cause faster frequence for atoms.
Evidence?
We encounter efforts to support the theory SR generally and even in scientific papers. In my opinion, if these papers would be sure, they would clearly use/say the coding "time dilation" instead of "lost" and "gain". They prefer ambiguity and hope your labelling as "time dilation"
.
There is no manipulation. Time lost and time gained are relative to the clock left back on Earth. This video explains it:
All three clocks in the experiment would experience time dilation relative to a clock floating in free space. However, one of the planes experiences more time dilation than the clock on the ground and the other experiences less time dilation than the clock on the ground. This is why one plane is recorded as gaining time and the other as losing time (because it's relative to the clock on the ground). This is consistent with what relativity predicts, not inconsistent with it.
-
These cause faster frequence for atoms.
1- Evidence?
We encounter efforts to support the theory SR generally and even in scientific papers. In my opinion, if these papers would be sure, they would clearly use/say the coding "time dilation" instead of "lost" and "gain". They prefer ambiguity and hope your labelling as "time dilation"
.
2- There is no manipulation. Time lost and time gained are relative to the clock left back on Earth. This video explains it:
All three clocks in the experiment would experience time dilation relative to a clock floating in free space. However, one of the planes experiences more time dilation than the clock on the ground and the other experiences less time dilation than the clock on the ground. This is why one plane is recorded as gaining time and the other as losing time (because it's relative to the clock on the ground). This is consistent with what relativity predicts, not inconsistent with it.
1- Especially higher temperature (thermal energy) causes faster tempo for atomic clocks (*)
2- I had understood that: If the "lost time" represents "time dilation/slower tempo", the other "gained time" is "faster tempo". Your interpretation is cleverly riposting rescuer; congratulations. But:
2.1- Primarily, the airplane's relative speed (according to solar system or space) is not Vearth +/- Vairplane; If this is right, the time of west travels would be smaller (as half or quarter compare east travels). We have not a perception like this. The inverse status is right because of atmosphere's opposite speed. Please examine.
Misinformation to convince like the others; or neglecting/ignoring few essential factors.
2.2 If the theory has accuracy, the clocks on the airplanes have to indicate the same time. If we isolated them, their relative speeds according to other one is the same ( V relative = V1 + V2). SR likes the isolation (e.g. a photon and its source). Thereby each one of the clocks would be exposed to a same value of time dilation??? The results did not support this requirement.
(*) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock)
The principle of operation of an atomic clock is based on atomic physics; it measures the electromagnetic signal that electrons in atoms emit when they change energy levels. Early atomic clocks were based on masers at room temperature. Since 2004, more accurate atomic clocks first cool the atoms to near absolute zero temperature by slowing them with lasers and probing them in atomic fountains in a microwave-filled cavity. An example of this is the NIST-F1 atomic clock, one of the national primary time and frequency standards of the United States.
The accuracy of an atomic clock depends on two factors: the first is temperature of the sample atoms—colder atoms move much more slowly, allowing longer probe times, the second is the frequency and intrinsic linewidth of the electronic or hyperfine transition. Higher frequencies and narrow lines increase the precision.
-
Especially higher temperature (thermal energy) causes faster tempo for atomic clocks (*)
One would presume that all three clocks are identical and kept at close to the same temperature, thus eliminating any such influence.
2.1- Primarily, the airplane's relative speed (according to solar system or space) is not Vearth +/- Vairplane; If this is right, the time of west travels would be smaller (as half or quarter compare east travels). We have not a perception like this. The inverse status is right because of atmosphere's opposite speed. Please examine.
Misinformation to convince like the others; or neglecting/ignoring few essential factors.
2.2 If the theory has accuracy, the clocks on the airplanes have to indicate the same time. If we isolated them, their relative speeds according to other one is the same ( V relative = V1 + V2). SR likes the isolation (e.g. a photon and its source). Thereby each one of the clocks would be exposed to a same value of time dilation??? The results did not support this requirement.
The aircraft flying in opposite directions around the Earth are actually not equivalent to each other and thus you would not expect their time dilation factors to be identical. They are not in inertial frames. Rather, they are accelerating because they are flying in a circle. Acceleration is not relative. The aircraft flying with the Earth's rotation will complete the circle faster than the aircraft flying against the Earth's rotation will. This means that the aircraft flying with the Earth's rotation will have a higher acceleration than the other plane.
-
The aircraft flying in opposite directions around the Earth are actually not equivalent to each other and thus you would not expect their time dilation factors to be identical. They are not in inertial frames. Rather, they are accelerating because they are flying in a circle. Acceleration is not relative. The aircraft flying with the Earth's rotation will complete the circle faster than the aircraft flying against the Earth's rotation will. This means that the aircraft flying with the Earth's rotation will have a higher acceleration than the other plane.
They are not in inertial frames.
Yes, OK. I also want to help. SR is valid for uniform motions. That is, fixed speed and straight path in accordance with Galilean relativity principle.
SR allows to assign local place/object/Earth for reference/inertial frame. And we may suppose the aircrafts on linear path for small time. And the atomic clocks have to indicate the same time.
However in GR, similar problems are ignored.
Yes your evidence does not support for SR by many reasons (especially, Vearth +/- Vairplane resultant speeds are clearly wrong);. It contains an intention of manipulation and misinformation. Some one may accept them.
-
And the atomic clocks have to indicate the same time.
Why would they have to indicate the same time when they aren't experiencing the same motion? One plane is experiencing greater acceleration than the clock on the ground, and the other plane is experiencing less acceleration than the clock on the ground.
(especially, Vearth +/- Vairplane resultant speeds are clearly wrong)
How so?
-
And the atomic clocks have to indicate the same time.
Why would they have to indicate the same time when they aren't experiencing the same motion? One plane is experiencing greater acceleration than the clock on the ground, and the other plane is experiencing less acceleration than the clock on the ground.
(especially, Vearth +/- Vairplane resultant speeds are clearly wrong)
How so?
1- In accordance with SR mentality, when we isolate the aircrafts (we consider that there are only these two aircraft in universe. SR had analyzed light's motion by isolating a photon and its source), their relative speeds according to each other are the same value; and the times on their monitor must to seem the same.
2- If we leave this SR's isolation, the relative speed of the train/source will get various values according to solar system, galaxy, cluster...etc.; and the train's clock will be confused about which percent of time dilations.
3- On your figure, relative speeds of the aircrafts has been given as Vearth +/- V aircraft. .the airplane's relative speeds (according to Earth) is not Vearth +/- Vairplane; If this is right, the time of west travels would be smaller (as half or quarter compare east travels). We have not a perception like this. The inverse status is right because of atmosphere's opposite speed. Atmosphere rotates slower and applies vacuum effect Please examine. If the Earth's clock is comparison/reference; already you have to consider the value of relative speeds according to the Earth; this is. only Vaircraft. Please consider fast trains instead of aircrafts in experiment.
-
1- In accordance with SR mentality, when we isolate the aircrafts (we consider that there are only these two aircraft in universe. SR had analyzed light's motion by isolating a photon and its source), their relative speeds according to each other are the same value; and the times on their monitor must to seem the same.
No, they aren't. I've already told you that acceleration is not relative. One plane would be experiencing a greater acceleration than the other because it is completing a circle of the same diameter in a shorter period of time. Why do you not understand that? General relativity affects time dilation as much as special relativity.
2- If we leave this SR's isolation, the relative speed of the train/source will get various values according to solar system, galaxy, cluster...etc.; and the train's clock will be confused about which percent of time dilations.
Again, acceleration is not relative.
3- On your figure, relative speeds of the aircrafts has been given as Vearth +/- V aircraft. .the airplane's relative speeds (according to Earth) is not Vearth +/- Vairplane; If this is right, the time of west travels would be smaller (as half or quarter compare east travels). We have not a perception like this. The inverse status is right because of atmosphere's opposite speed. Atmosphere rotates slower and applies vacuum effect Please examine. If the Earth's clock is comparison/reference; already you have to consider the value of relative speeds according to the Earth; this is. only Vaircraft. Please consider fast trains instead of aircrafts in experiment.
You sure like ignoring acceleration, don't you?
-
You sure like ignoring acceleration, don't you?
Why do you add the rotating speed of the Earth to the speed of the east aircraft?
our figure wants to verify SR although acceleration is present because of cosinus component of aircraft's speed vector.
I offered to overcome this problem: On the same line the aircrafts can go to opposite directions (we can see them on straight line for first 20 minute without rotating motion). If their flying speed are also the same, acceleration is not mentioned.
Yes, SR gets base Galilean relativity principle. But this principle is valid for the relativity of objects that have mass. Light has not a measured mass; so, photon never takes a first speed from its source. Bodies that have mass keep the speed of its first reference frame.
-
Why do you add the rotating speed of the Earth to the speed of the east aircraft?
Because that's how you will get the angular velocity.
I offered to overcome this problem: On the same line the aircrafts can go to opposite directions (we can see them on straight line for first 20 minute without rotating motion). If their flying speed are also the same, acceleration is not mentioned.
And that's where your error is. Their velocities relative to the ground are the same, but their angular velocities are not the same. The plane traveling in the direction of Earth's rotation has a higher angular velocity than the plane traveling against the Earth's rotation. Due to the equivalence principle, an acceleration has the same effect as gravity. Gravity causes time dilation. Greater acceleration causes time dilation. The plane with the greater acceleration therefore experiences greater time dilation.
Light has not a measured mass
They have a relativistic mass ala E=mc2.
-
Why do you add the rotating speed of the Earth to the speed of the east aircraft?
1- Because that's how you will get the angular velocity.
I offered to overcome this problem: On the same line the aircrafts can go to opposite directions (we can see them on straight line for first 20 minute without rotating motion). If their flying speed are also the same, acceleration is not mentioned.
2/3- And that's where your error is. Their velocities relative to the ground are the same, but their angular velocities are not the same. The plane traveling in the direction of Earth's rotation has a higher angular velocity than the plane traveling against the Earth's rotation. Due to the equivalence principle, an acceleration has the same effect as gravity. Gravity causes time dilation. Greater acceleration causes time dilation. The plane with the greater acceleration therefore experiences greater time dilation.
Light has not a measured mass
4- They have a relativistic mass ala E=mc2.
1- In SR, train/aircraft etc. must travel on straight path.
2- In SR, If a Earth's clock is comparison/reference frame, you have not to add the Earth's speed to speed of train/aircraft etc. If you consider two trains; confusing will be over.
3- Their velocities relative to the ground are the same. I agree. And your figure's analysis get base relative to ground; ground/earth is used as an inertial frame. Please don't upset SR.
4- A photon never get any additive speed from source's speed.
-
1- In SR, train/aircraft etc. must travel on straight path.
Which is why you must also take general relativity into account for the Hafele-Keating experiment, because the paths are not straight.
2- In SR, If a Earth's clock is comparison/reference frame, you have not to add the Earth's speed to speed of train/aircraft etc. If you consider two trains; confusing will be over.
Replacing the planes with trains wouldn't make any difference, because they are still following a circular path by going around the Earth. So the trains would be experiencing an angular acceleration just as the planes would.
3- Their velocities relative to the ground are the same. I agree. And your figure's analysis get base relative to ground; ground/earth is used as an inertial frame. Please don't upset SR.
The ground itself isn't in an inertial frame either, because the Earth spins. The ground thus has an angular acceleration just as the planes do.
- A photon never get any additive speed from source's speed.
Nor did I ever say that it did.
-
I had focused to SR mentality.
To suggest the GR as evidence for SR is interesting. As if, GR is correct. The flaw of GR had been explained by me (please look at the attach. figure). Natural reality is (interpretation of LCS) figure.
In ancient egypt, zdhoser multiple stage pyramid's third stage has been formerly built than 1 and 2 stages. Age detection experiments proved this.
The experiments that supports SR are similar this fiction. In technical essence of SR, there is a local postulate and this postulate is wrong at universal scale or for light kinematics: SR ignore the types of relativity, following analyses and inferences never be correct.
Your evidence figure looks like a tactic of misinformation: if you cannot convince, try confusing.
-
To suggest the GR as evidence for SR is interesting.
It isn't. You just need both to account for the Hafele-Keating experiment.
The experiments that supports SR are similar this fiction.
So then what did the experiments do wrong? What specific step in the process is incorrect?
Your evidence figure looks like a tactic of misinformation: if you cannot convince, try confusing.
Are you accusing me of lying now?
-
To suggest the GR as evidence for SR is interesting.
1- It isn't. You just need both to account for the Hafele-Keating experiment.
The experiments that supports SR are similar this fiction.
2- So then what did the experiments do wrong? What specific step in the process is incorrect?
Your evidence figure looks like a tactic of misinformation: if you cannot convince, try confusing.
3- Are you accusing me of lying now?
2- I'll repeat: Light kinematics must be analysed with eight essential factors. If some of them is neglected/ignored, conclusions don' t match with natural reality. As known, SR has two postulates and one of them is wrong and this is weakest point of SR: SR accepts that a photon's speed is "exact/genuine relative" (like the relationship of car and its road). Whereas there are the kinds of relativity; and for light "hypothetical/pseudo relativity" (like ball-player relationship: the distance between the ball and player increase/decrease with the speed V ball + / - V player for following times) is more feasible. To use common-reference frame (like the ground) is gold standard for mechanics and light kinematics. On your evidence experiment the east aircraft's relative speed according to the earth has been given as the value Vearth + Vaircraft. If comparison clock is on the earth; this value is clearly wrong (it is only Vaircraft). We don't need to mention the elementary physics again.
3- NO, I carried an opinion about the content of your figure or Hafele-Keating experiment like other tendential papers (e.g. muon lifetime).
Please examine that link:
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/gsjournal/einsteiniana-the-hafele-keating-hoax-t4411.html (https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/gsjournal/einsteiniana-the-hafele-keating-hoax-t4411.html)
-
As known, SR has two postulates and one of them is wrong
I haven't seen any postulate of special relativity demonstrated to be wrong yet.
We don't need to mention the elementary physics again.
As long as you keep ignoring the acceleration, I'm going to keep mentioning it.
3- NO, I said my opinion about the content of your figure or Hafele-Keating experiment like other tendential papers (e.g. muon lifetime).
Please examine that link:
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/gsjournal/einsteiniana-the-hafele-keating-hoax-t4411.html
Oh, so you're accusing the experimenters of lying instead. That's not any better.
-
Oh, so you're accusing the experimenters of lying instead. That's not any better.
No, I have not a luxury like accusing of lying. We can say that their analysis is wrong; they may convinced theirselves like Einstein; Lorentz, Poincare, and others; that is, the result is seemed as misinformation.
-
No, I have not a luxury like accusing of lying.
Then why did you link to a post that stated this?
Hafele and Keating must have fabricated their results
The title of that thread even calls it a hoax.
-
No, I have not a luxury like accusing of lying.
Then why did you link to a post that stated this?
Hafele and Keating must have fabricated their results
The title of that thread even calls it a hoax.
1- When you ask to google, some other objections can also be seen. I shared one of them randomly.
Perhaps, some followers may be feeled desire about using their cognitive performance for questioning SR.
Of course, first step must be the comprehending the types of relativity and their contents. Link: https://vixra.org/abs/1903.0044
2-Perhaps that phrase can define the status: reinforced/aimfully interpretation accompanied by intent to verify SR.
However, to add the earth' s rotating speed to the speed of aircraft is wrong (even, when we assign solar system as reference frame). Competent physicists do not accept this. The evidence is obvious: The airplane of Newyork-Tokyo (east travel) is not got smaller time than west travel. In addition, the atmosphere causes almost one hour delay compared distance. This subject can be used in physics exams.
-
Is It Really Faster to Fly East Than West?
https://www.travelandleisure.com/airlines-airports/why-is-it-faster-to-fly-east-than-west (https://www.travelandleisure.com/airlines-airports/why-is-it-faster-to-fly-east-than-west)
Here's where a lot of people start getting confused. Because we know the earth is rotating eastward, there is an assumption that this motion would also help hurl westward flights faster towards their destination. There's just one problem with that. Everything on earth, not just the ground, but also the water (and even the atmosphere), is rotating in the same direction, Forbes reported . Since planes in the sky are being pulled eastward with the earth, it takes more time to go west. Think of it kind of like walking against the wind.
-
That's not the same as how long it takes each plane to fly in a circle.
-
There is no manipulation. Time lost and time gained are relative to the clock left back on Earth. This video explains it:
All three clocks in the experiment would experience time dilation relative to a clock floating in free space. However, one of the planes experiences more time dilation than the clock on the ground and the other experiences less time dilation than the clock on the ground. This is why one plane is recorded as gaining time and the other as losing time (because it's relative to the clock on the ground). This is consistent with what relativity predicts, not inconsistent with it.
Let me try to think like you accompanied by empathy. If the reference clock is positioned as absolute constant in the outer space outside the world, we can consider the relative displacement of the hours as Vearth+/- Vaircraft [/sub.]But this is not the case in the experiment: the comparison clock rotates on Earth with the world. This explanation has technical significance .Therefore, for the kinematic effect, the speed difference between the clocks on the planes and the clock on the earth should be taken (that is Vaircraft) The kinematic effect cannot be explained by the special theory of relativity for this experiment.
In scientific analyses, every step must be questioned by stringent discipline. In interpretation of Hafele Keating experiment, relative atomic clocks' speeds (according to reference atomic clock) are only the speed values of aircrafts and they are almost equal. When even the Earth rotates, the distance between relative clocks and reference clock increases with only the speed of aircraft, not Vearth +/- Vaircraft.
-
When even the Earth rotates, the distance between relative clocks and reference clock increases with only the speed of aircraft, not Vearth +/- Vaircraft.
Yes, but the acceleration of each clock is different.
-
Let me try to think like you accompanied by empathy. If the reference clock is positioned as absolute constant in the outer space outside the world, we can consider the relative displacement of the hours as Vearth+/- Vaircraft [/sub.]But this is not the case in the experiment: the comparison clock rotates on Earth with the world. This explanation has technical significance .Therefore, for the kinematic effect, the speed difference between the clocks on the planes and the clock on the earth should be taken (that is Vaircraft) The kinematic effect cannot be explained by the special theory of relativity for this experiment.
You are not interpreting what is going on in the experiment correctly.
The rotational speed of the earth 1000 mph. The planes speed 500 mph.
Initially the planes and the earth are in the same reference frame. The plane that is going in the direction of the earth rotation accelerated to a new RF that is faster than the Earth's rotation, 1000 + 500 mph. The plane that is going in the opposite direction of the Earth's rotation decelerated to a RF that is slower than the Earth's rotation, 1000 - 500 mph.
It may help to look at the same scenario with linear movement. If a spaceship moving at 1000 mph sends a probe at 500 mph relative to the ship along the line of travel, an observer at rest relative to the spaceship will see the probe moving at 1500 mph. If the ship sends a probe at 500 mph relative to the ship, in the opposite direction of travel, an observer at rest will see the probe moving at 500 mph in the same direction as the ship.
-
You are not interpreting what is going on in the experiment correctly.
The rotational speed of the earth 1000 mph. The planes speed 500 mph.
Initially the planes and the earth are in the same reference frame. The plane that is going in the direction of the earth rotation accelerated to a new RF that is faster than the Earth's rotation, 1000 + 500 mph. The plane that is going in the opposite direction of the Earth's rotation decelerated to a RF that is slower than the Earth's rotation, 1000 - 500 mph.
looks like that in the first approach, right?
You say "Eastern aircraft travels around the world in 17 hours, and Western aircraft travels around the world in 51 hours".
The relationship of special relativity theory and humanity are the same: First approach.
The complex structure of nature facts and events and human intellectual performance are not at the same level. When we analyze the movement of light without considering the types of relativity, we can find fantasy results. and that's exactly how it happened.
-
When we analyze the movement of light without considering the types of relativity, we can find fantasy results. and that's exactly how it happened.
You have yet to make that case.
-
When even the Earth rotates, the distance between relative clocks and reference clock increases with only the speed of aircraft, not Vearth +/- Vaircraft.
Yes, but the acceleration of each clock is different.
Acceleration: I think, you mean the projection of the aircrafts' speed vector on a straigth line. Yes acceleration will be realized and SR does not want acceleration. However GR says that acceleration causes to bend of the light's path.
What is the conclusion? Does this acceleration effect verify the SR?
-
looks like that in the first approach, right?
Yes, and on the second and third too.
You say "Eastern aircraft travels around the world in 17 hours, and Western aircraft travels around the world in 51 hours".
Now you are going to tell lies, to support you position? Never a good debating tactic.The relationship of special relativity theory and humanity are the same: First approach.
The complex structure of nature facts and events and human intellectual performance are not at the same level. When we analyze the movement of light without considering the types of relativity, we can find fantasy results. and that's exactly how it happened.
Apparently English is not your first language, I think you need a better translating program.
-
SR declares that it considers Maxwell's definition about light's propagation; but its analysis verifies fitzgerald contraction of aether hypothesis. This is interesting.
I gave some clues for the flaws of SR. You have to trust only your own cognitive performance to analyse them.
You may see some other complex texts (that are strangled with formulas) against SR.
My studies are simplier (at least without formulas): Please google
Essential factors for light kinematics and special relativity
Weakest point of special relativity
An experiment for Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction
The Light as a Super Reference Frame
Methodological Defects in Relativity Theories and Primary Principles of Light Kinematics
The Path of Light on a Moving Body
Note. I'll answer technical questions.
-
There has been a lot of discussion on this topic about acceleration and gravity.
Last time I checked, SR didn't handle gravity; that's what GR is for.
So, is a large part of the discussion here irrelevant?
-
I found a person who agreed with me.
Falsification of Einstein Theories of Relativity Prof. Lutz Kayser
Abstract:The Einstein Postulates of Special Relativity (SR), namely the invariance of the speed of light c relative to the observer, the symmetry of relative velocities, and the Galilean Principle independent of velocity and gravitational potential are falsified. The replacement Law is: There exists an absolute universal velocity reference (Cosmic Velocity Reference, CVR). The velocity of light c is invariant and isotropic only relative to absolute universal space CVR.......
Link: https://vixra.org/abs/1503.0187 (https://vixra.org/abs/1503.0187)
-
Link: https://vixra.org/abs/1503.0187
Of course it's ViXra: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ViXra
Physicist Gerard 't Hooft writes, "When a paper is published in viXra, it is usually a sign that it is not likely to contain acceptable results. It may, but the odds against that are considerable"
-
Link: https://vixra.org/abs/1503.0187
Of course it's ViXra: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ViXra
Physicist Gerard 't Hooft writes, "When a paper is published in viXra, it is usually a sign that it is not likely to contain acceptable results. It may, but the odds against that are considerable"
Scientific studies were previously published with peer-reviewed journals or books. The author needed a notary public record that the study was his own. Arxiv provided this need.
On the other hand, copyright restrictions of some refereed journals prevented these studies from being announced to the general public. This was a flaw for the information age.
My most important work (light kinematics to analyze space time) was published in a refereed journal. But I regret; I wish I would only posted on the Internet. Because, still 1 / Ho based age account articles are produced;.although this study reveals the more effective age calculation for universe,
Of course, these internet resources (even forums) may not be suitable for amateur scientists who need referees. Those who are competent, who can use their own cognitive performance should read them.
So, you and other readers (forum followers) are a referee.
-
I had focused on the flaws of the special theory of relativity (GR). I reviewed the general relativity theory* because of presenting the GR as an evidence.
I see the following:
1- Einstein emphasized that both are the same:
a) the wagon moves relative to the ground.
b) the floor moves according to the wagon.
(My note: This finding disrupts the twins paradox.)
2- If special relativity is correct, it should be also true for objects that do not move properly. (Some one said that if GR is right; SR is also right)
3- He concludes that the acceleration with gravity is identical / equivalent and concludes that light rays spread curvilinearly in the shooting areas. He says that this warp can be tried during solar eclipse.
4- It says that the clock on the edge of a rotating disc will run slower than the clock in the center and Lorentz transformations must be valid.
5- Thus, he says that the SR will gain generality.
I had indicated that light's path will be diagonal without accelerating (a = 0) in accordance with GR mentality (Please look at the figure). I agree the gravity bends the path of the light; but I know the acceleration is not effective for gravitational lens.
(*) http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5001
-
The author needed a notary public record that the study was his own.
No.
-
(My note: This finding disrupts the twins paradox.)
No, it doesn't.
-
On the other hand, copyright restrictions of some refereed journals prevented these studies from being announced to the general public.
Printing in a journal- which you could get your local library to borrow for you was THE WAY IN WHICH STUDIES WERE ANNOUNCED TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
It can not, therefor have been a way to prevent it.
-
I had indicated that light's path will be diagonal without accelerating (a = 0) in accordance with GR mentality (Please look at the figure).
That isn't correct. If an astronaut holds a flashlight on a spaceship, the beam will be straight regardless of whether the spaceship is standing still or moving at a constant speed. Conservation of momentum guarantees this. If an excited atom is moving upward at constant velocity, then emits a photon, then the photon must also have an upward component to its momentum in order to satisfy conservation of momentum. Relative to the observer that sees the atom moving upward, the photon will follow a diagonal path. Relative to the atom itself, the photon will appear to travel in a straight line (not diagonally).
-
I had indicated that light's path will be diagonal without accelerating (a = 0) in accordance with GR mentality (Please look at the figure).
That isn't correct. If an astronaut holds a flashlight on a spaceship, the beam will be straight regardless of whether the spaceship is standing still or moving at a constant speed. Conservation of momentum guarantees this. If an excited atom is moving upward at constant velocity, then emits a photon, then the photon must also have an upward component to its momentum in order to satisfy conservation of momentum. Relative to the observer that sees the atom moving upward, the photon will follow a diagonal path. Relative to the atom itself, the photon will appear to travel in a straight line (not diagonally).
Einstein say that:"For example, we learn that a body which is in a state of uniform rectilinear motion with respect to K (in accordance with the law of Galilei) is executing an accelerated and in general curvilinear motion with respect to the accelerated reference-body K′ (chest). This acceleration or curvature corresponds to the influence on the moving body of the gravitational field prevailing relatively to K." (section 22 paragraf 2 http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5001 (http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5001) )
Attention please; you have found Eintein's a flaw.
Also, I had said according to GR mentality. Because Einstein connects the points where the source and the photon are located at the moment T2. And he says, if the cabinet has an acceleration the light's path will be curved. With the same mentality, if acceleration is not mentioned, light's path will be diagonal.
Note: In order to avoid confusion, it should be considered that the orientation is given to the light with a perforated plate filter.
However, according to the LCS method, the correct light path is the S'P1 horizontal line (both status with and without acceleration).
Please look at the new figure. The test photon is on the point S' for the T1 moment. It goes horizontal and arrives the point P1 at the moment T2. Is this transparent sufficiently?
-
With the same mentality, if acceleration is not mentioned, light's path will be diagonal.
No it won't, for the reason I stated.
-
Attention please; you have found Eintein's a flaw.
Your misunderstanding is not a flaw in General Relativity.
-
With the same mentality, if acceleration is not mentioned, light's path will be diagonal.
No it won't, for the reason I stated.
What would it take to make light's path diagonal?
-
What would it take to make light's path diagonal?
Point the light source in that direction.
-
Of course, It is difficult to think a technical analysis in four dimensions. Even Einstein was not skilled for this.
So I prepared sequential movie frames. In this figure, while the photons is emitted every consecutive atto second in the elevator car, the elevator cabinet goes up a little for every atto second.
As can be seen, the P1 photon moves completely horizontally. This is a natural truth.
In the case of fixed elevator speed, the trace formed by the photons P1,P2, P3, P4,P 5... is the diagonal (curve in acceleration) line.
When we remember that the experimental photon is unique, to consider the sequential photons' trace is a result of our poor cognitive ability.
LCS (Light coordinate system) method determines that a photon always goes on a straight line. Gravity can bend this path. The accelerating of an object is not effective. Because The mentality of GR works at the case of fixed speeds (diagonal path). Look at the figure (attach) this figure clearly tells the event. Followers please register to see this figure.
-
Because The mentality of GR works at the case of fixed speeds (diagonal path).
Please stop repeating this incorrect statement.
-
If you ask with google, you may find many text about flaws of SR.
Currently / anymore, it is significant who can analyze and explaine the weakest point of special relativity. There is a contest about this.
-
Gravity can bend this path. The accelerating of an object is not effective. Because The mentality of GR works at the case of fixed speeds (diagonal path). Look at the figure (attach) this figure clearly tells the event.
The figure you drew was in perfect agreement with GR because the light source is in a different reference frame. According to GR a person in a rocket flying away from earth at a constant .5c who shined a laser perpendicular to the direction of travel would see the laser light in a straight line. It would look the same as someone with 0 velocity.
-
If you ask with google, you may find many text about flaws of SR.
I can find many texts about the benefits of homeopathy on Google, too.
-
Because The mentality of GR works at the case of fixed speeds (diagonal path).
Please stop repeating this incorrect statement.
I share new explanation for question. Please stop/leave similar warnings. :)
-
Gravity can bend this path. The accelerating of an object is not effective. Because The mentality of GR works at the case of fixed speeds (diagonal path). Look at the figure (attach) this figure clearly tells the event.
The figure you drew was in perfect agreement with GR because the light source is in a different reference frame. According to GR a person in a rocket flying away from earth at a constant .5c who shined a laser perpendicular to the direction of travel would see the laser light in a straight line. It would look the same as someone with 0 velocity.
You are right about different reference frames. We see that the Sun turns around the Earth. Whereas this is wrong perception.
I remembered a play with my cat and laser. I used the laser but I was seeing a red point not a straigt line.
My figure explaines the event -step by step- for every atto second like a film. Identified photon always goes on a straight line due to perforated plate filter. We are not allowed to draw a line between the points of source S and the photon Pı.
-
If you ask with google, you may find many text about flaws of SR.
I can find many texts about the benefits of homeopathy on Google, too.
;D :( :-\
Yes you are right. To distinguish serious texts is a problem.
However we are not desperate. If they present arguments and technical analyses and we can use our own cognitive performance, we can advance our vision and wisdom.
If you cannot activate your own reconsidering performance you are in need third person's reference.
This forum is not a place for persons who has an opinion without his own technical analyzing. Probably they will be upset and express their emotional reactions.
For example, in future, you will perhaps remember that there was a person who objected the theory Special relativity.
What can I say else? I only share my arguments and their technical details. You may note/take or not.
-
Yes you are right. To distinguish serious texts is a problem.
You can go to the sites of colleges and universities to get credible information, of course they will disagree with your pseudoscience.
However we are not desperate. If they present arguments and technical analyses and we can use our own cognitive performance, we can advance our vision and wisdom.
If you cannot activate your own reconsidering performance you are in need third person's reference.
You have not demonstrated this ability.
For example, in future, you will perhaps remember that there was a person who objected the theory Special relativity.
I doubt it, there are lots of ignorant cranks who object to SR, they're a dime a dozen.
What can I say else? I only share my arguments and their technical details. You may note/take or not.
Since your arguments amount to misunderstanding and pseudoscience, I will have to go with, not.
-
The essence of "Weakest point of Special Relativity"
1- Present measuring experiment can measure only the universal value of light's velocity. The value c is relative speed according to outer space.
2- The theory of special relativity considers this value c as relative speed according to its source or local and every frame.
If we human initially intent to measure the universal velocity of light; we would have to use this present method (mirrored two path, continious photon flowing etc.). Persons who wants to find local relative speed (because of aether paradigm) labeled the result as relative value according to light source; and realized the analysis of SR.
That is all.
-
Present measuring experiment can measure only the universal value of light's velocity.
Right we always the speed of light as c.
The value c is relative speed according to outer space.
Do you have evidence for this or is it just a feeling?
The theory of special relativity considers this value c as relative speed according to its source or local and every frame.
In SR the speed of light is invariant.
Persons who wants to find local relative speed
What evidence do you have that the speed of light is not invariant?
-
Present measuring experiment can measure only the universal value of light's velocity.
1- Right we always the speed of light as c.
The value c is relative speed according to outer space.
2-Do you have evidence for this or is it just a feeling?
The theory of special relativity considers this value c as relative speed according to its source or local and every frame.
3-In SR the speed of light is invariant.
Persons who wants to find local relative speed
4-What evidence do you have that the speed of light is not invariant?
1- SR has not questioned which speed did we measure; it directly consider the result as local relative speed in accordance with mechanical habit. In addition the measurement experiment is specific for only the light.
2- You have not read all messages of this topic. Moderator Krypid upsets and warns me for repeating. But I will repeat for new guests like you:
2.1- The measurement experiment gives the same result for every directions.That is, "isotropic.
2.2- SR indirectly accepts this; because light's velocity is the same for every frame.
2.3- The light or a photon (from celestial objects) comes to our eye by the speed c (M-M exp.)
3- Yes it is invariant in vacuum. And it is not necessary; because a photon and its source freely moves in space vacuum/common reference frame (like the player and the ball on the ground). The distance between the photon and its source increases or decreases by the speed c +/- VU. But when we measure the photon's speed, we will find the value c always. (the distance between the player and the ball changes by the speed Vball +/- Vplayer; these speeds are values according to ground/common reference frame).
4- Light's velocity is invariant in vacuum/space/LCS.
-
1- SR has not questioned which speed did we measure;
What do you mean which speed? Distance over time.
it directly consider the result as local relative speed in accordance with mechanical habit.
The sentence doesn't make much sense to me. The speed of light isn't relative, it is invariant. What is a mechanical habit?
The measurement experiment gives the same result for every directions.That is, "isotropic.
If you mean that the speed of light is c regardless of the speed of the source or the receiver, I agree. I would not define that as isotropic.
2.2- SR indirectly accepts this; because light's velocity is the same for every frame.
2.3- The light or a photon (from celestial objects) comes to our eye by the speed c
OK
3- Yes it is invariant in vacuum. And it is not necessary; because a photon and its source freely moves in space vacuum/common reference frame (like the player and the ball on the ground).
That makes no sense. I can measure the speed of light from a star and that is clearly a different reference frame.
The distance between the photon and its source increases or decreases by the speed c +/- VU.
No. The distance between a photon and it's source only increases. The distance can be found by c/t.
But when we measure the photon's speed, we will find the value c always.
Of course.
(the distance between the player and the ball changes by the speed Vball +/- Vplayer; these speeds are values according to ground/common reference frame).
Of course, the speed of a baseball is not invariant.
4- Light's velocity is invariant in vacuum/space/LCS.
I don't know what LCS is, but the speed of light is invariant, do we really need to keep saying that?
-
1- SR has not questioned which speed did we measure;
What do you mean which speed? Distance over time.
If your initial aim is to measure the relative speed according to local place (that is a mechanical habit) you label the result as local relative; if you want to measure universal speed and if you set the experiment for this, you label the result as universal speed.
it directly consider the result as local relative speed in accordance with mechanical habit.
The sentence doesn't make much sense to me. The speed of light isn't relative, it is invariant. What is a mechanical habit?
Yes, it is invariant. And SR accepts that the distance between a photon and its source increases with the value c of light's speed.
The measurement experiment gives the same result for every directions.That is, "isotropic.
If you mean that the speed of light is c regardless of the speed of the source or the receiver, I agree. I would not define that as isotropic.
The light velocity measurements give the same value for every directions; that is isotropic. So, we can measure universal speed not local speed (or the increasing speed of the distance).
2.2- SR indirectly accepts this; because light's velocity is the same for every frame.
2.3- The light or a photon (from celestial objects) comes to our eye by the speed c
OK
3- Yes it is invariant in vacuum. And it is not necessary; because a photon and its source freely moves in space vacuum/common reference frame (like the player and the ball on the ground).
That makes no sense. I can measure the speed of light from a star and that is clearly a different reference frame.
The distance between the photon and its source increases or decreases by the speed c +/- VU.
No. The distance between a photon and it's source only increases. The distance can be found by c/t.
It is SR's claim. I will offer an experiment to measure for this speed c +/- VU on my new paper.
But when we measure the photon's speed, we will find the value c always.
Of course.
(the distance between the player and the ball changes by the speed Vball +/- Vplayer; these speeds are values according to ground/common reference frame).
Of course, the speed of a baseball is not invariant.
4- Light's velocity is invariant in vacuum/space/LCS.
I don't know what LCS is, but the speed of light is invariant, do we really need to keep saying that?
LCS: Light Coordinate System. Outer space. Most external frame that contains the universe.
[/quote]
-
If your initial aim is to measure the relative speed according to local place (that is a mechanical habit) you label the result as local relative; if you want to measure universal speed and if you set the experiment for this, you label the result as universal speed.
I don't know what you are talking about. The speed of light is always c.The light velocity measurements give the same value for every directions; that is isotropic. So, we can measure universal speed not local speed (or the increasing speed of the distance).
If you want to call isotopic , that's up to you. I don't know what the 'increasing speed of distance' is.I
It is SR's claim.
It is more than a claim, it is part of a robust theory.
I will offer an experiment to measure for this speed c +/- VU on my new paper.
Then you have your work cut out for you, good luck.
-
I don't know what the 'increasing speed of distance' is
let's remember lycee physics:
A car accelerates by applying force to the road. The distance between the starting point and the car always increases with the car speed. This speed of the car is called "exact/genuine relative".
The distance between two moving cars on the same road changes with the speed of VR = Va +/- Vb. If one of the cars is given a reference role, the relative speed of the other is considered VR. These two cars do not apply force to each other for this speed. This kind of relativity is called "hypothetical / so-called /pseudo relativity".
The light/photon does not apply a power to its source. It travels on electro-magnetic cycle bed.
Which one is the relativity type of the photon ?
-
This speed of the car is called "exact/genuine relative".
This kind of relativity is called "hypothetical / so-called /pseudo relativity"
Those sound like terms you made up. Can you provide us with a link to a reputable source that speaks of them (in other words, a source other than yourself or a crank source?).
In reality, there is no difference between those two "types" of relativity that you mention. Relative speed is relative speed. Whether those velocities are caused by a force or not is irrelevant. A car travelling at 60 kilometers per hour is the same as an asteroid floating through space at 60 kilometers per hour. Just because the car has to expend energy to produce that motion doesn't somehow change how relativity affects it.
It travels on electro-magnetic cycle bed.
This also sounds like a term you made up.
Which one is the relativity type of the photon ?
They are the same, so it's a pointless question.
-
A car accelerates by applying force to the road.
Correct.
The distance between the starting point and the car always increases with the car speed.
Correct, v/t = d.
This speed of the car is called "exact/genuine relative".
That's what you call it for some reason. I would just call that speed, it is implicit that the speed is relative to the ground.
The distance between two moving cars on the same road changes with the speed of VR = Va +/- Vb.
So the relative velocity between the 2 cars can be found by subtracting the speed of one cars velocity relative to the road from the other. Seems reasonable.
If one of the cars is given a reference role, the relative speed of the other is considered VR.
There are 3 reference frames you have identified. They are car1, car2 and the road.
Like you said previously the relative velocity is Vr.
These two cars do not apply force to each other for this speed.
Of course not, why do you feel that needed to be specified?
This kind of relativity is called "hypothetical / so-called /pseudo relativity".
You may call it that, though I have no idea why.
subtracting velocities from 2 reference frames like this is classical relativity. To be more accurate you could have used special relativity but the difference in the answers would be miniscule.
The light/photon does not apply a power to its source.
Of course not. I don't even know how such a thing would be possible.
It travels on electro-magnetic cycle bed.
I do not know what that means. A photons is an oscillating electromagnetic wave.
Which one is the relativity type of the photon ?
I do not understand the question. A photon is not a valid reference frame.
Edited to correct 'adding velocities' to 'subtracting velocities'
-
This speed of the car is called "exact/genuine relative".
This kind of relativity is called "hypothetical / so-called /pseudo relativity"
1-Those sound like terms you made up. Can you provide us with a link to a reputable source that speaks of them (in other words, a source other than yourself or a crank source?).
2- In reality, there is no difference between those two "types" of relativity that you mention. Relative speed is relative speed. Whether those velocities are caused by a force or not is irrelevant. A car travelling at 60 kilometers per hour is the same as an asteroid floating through space at 60 kilometers per hour. Just because the car has to expend energy to produce that motion doesn't somehow change how relativity affects it.
It travels on electro-magnetic cycle bed.
3- also sounds like a term you made up.
Which one is the relativity type of the photon ?
They are the same, so it's a pointless question.
[/quote
1- The source :SCIENCE 8)
"If everything was as it seemed, science would not be necessary. Isaac Asimov"
For example, do you think that medical science can proceed with first approaches or shallow analysis?
2- Don't w/s-orry; Lorentz, Poincaré and majority think like you.
I guess the reason of this case that latin languages has coded with a single word (relativity) about this subject. Perhaps we must use to distinguish the nuance the word "relation/nexus/relevance".
Distinguishing feature is how does the object obtain its speed. If a car obtains its speed due to the road; its speed is exact/genuine relative value according to this road. A relation/nexus is mentioned for the car and the road.
But if two moving cars are mentioned on the same road and if we give reference role one of them; other one's speed is the value Va +/- Vb according to reference role (each one of these cars does not obtain its speed due to other car; the cars have freedom; there is not any relation, applying power, etc). This type of relativity is hypothetical or pseudo relativity.
There is reciprocity principle In relativity method. We may choise any one of the cars for reference or relative roles (essence of the flaw of twin paradoks).
3- Are you kidding?
This is Maxwell' definition for the propagation of light.
Please, at first learn ! Isn't here a science forum?
-
A car accelerates by applying force to the road.
Correct.
The distance between the starting point and the car always increases with the car speed.
Correct, v/t = d.
This speed of the car is called "exact/genuine relative".
That's what you call it for some reason. I would just call that speed, it is implicit that the speed is relative to the ground.
The distance between two moving cars on the same road changes with the speed of VR = Va +/- Vb.
So the relative velocity between the 2 cars can be found by subtracting the speed of one cars velocity relative to the road from the other. Seems reasonable.
If one of the cars is given a reference role, the relative speed of the other is considered VR.
There are 3 reference frames you have identified. They are car1, car2 and the road.
Like you said previously the relative velocity is Vr.
These two cars do not apply force to each other for this speed.
Of course not, why do you feel that needed to be specified?
This kind of relativity is called "hypothetical / so-called /pseudo relativity".
You may call it that, though I have no idea why.
subtracting velocities from 2 reference frames like this is classical relativity. To be more accurate you could have used special relativity but the difference in the answers would be miniscule.
The light/photon does not apply a power to its source.
Of course not. I don't even know how such a thing would be possible.
It travels on electro-magnetic cycle bed.
I do not know what that means. A photons is an oscillating electromagnetic wave.
Which one is the relativity type of the photon ?
I do not understand the question. A photon is not a valid reference frame.
Edited to correct 'adding velocities' to 'subtracting velocities'
:) Never mind. Lorentz and poincare had not known this nuance too. :)
The distance between two moving cars on the same road increases/decreases with the speed Va +/- Vb. This knowledge is clearly forcemajor; any discussion is never necessary.
The relation between a photon and its source is like the relationship of these cars. The reason of photon's speed is not its source. The distance of the photon and its source increases with the speed c +/-Vu; however when we measure the speed of the light; we will find the value c always by the present measurement experiment (double path, etc..)
-
1- The source :SCIENCE
So then give me a link to reputable source where science says this.
Distinguishing feature is how does the object obtain its speed.
That's irrelevant. Like I said before, relativity works the same for an asteroid as it does for a car.
3- Are you kidding?
This is Maxwell' definition for the propagation of light.
All right then, let me see you support that claim by linking me to a reputable source that uses the term "electro-magnetic cycle bed".
-
1- The source :SCIENCE
So then give me a link to reputable source where science says this.
Distinguishing feature is how does the object obtain its speed.
That's irrelevant. Like I said before, relativity works the same for an asteroid as it does for a car.
3- Are you kidding?
This is Maxwell' definition for the propagation of light.
All right then, let me see you support that claim by linking me to a reputable source that uses the term "electro-magnetic cycle bed".
I prefer to answer the questions for other followers or guests although even the questions are elementary/simply.
However, are you sure for your nature science or technical education? Because you ask a source or a third person' reference for everything.
Besides this section is NEW THEORIES. The types of relativity is mine inferences; they are not dry claims; they have transparent arguments; all of them are explained clearly and with different examples. If you cannot analyze and internalize them by your cognitive performance; never mind, please don't worry; even if the science society accepts the flaws of SR, majority keeps to adopt this theory because of its brillant inferences and time travel.
Karl Popper likens the science to a fish net that its meshes get smaller. Shallow approaches are not science any more.
And I want to repeat: Is this section NEW THEORIES?
-
Never mind. Lorentz and Poincare had not known this nuance too.
You are trying to discredit me by lumping me in with Lorentz and poincare?
The distance between two moving cars on the same road increases/decreases with the speed Va +/- Vb. This knowledge is clearly forcemajor; any discussion is never necessary.
I know, I agreed, remember?
The relation between a photon and its source is like the relationship of these cars.
No, the speed of light is invariant. You agreed the speed of light is invariant, why are you now saying it isn't?
The reason of photon's speed is not its source.
How could it ever be possible that a photon's speed was it's source?
The distance of the photon and its source increases with the speed c +/-Vu; however when we measure the speed of the light; we will find the value c always by the present measurement experiment
Please show the math that could make such a thing possible. Why/how is a photon moving at 1.5c (for instance) measured as moving at c?
So obviously you do not believe that Special and General Relativity are valid. You are going to need some pretty amazing experimental evidence to sell this whole idea!
-
However, are you sure for your nature science or technical education? Because you ask a source or a third person' reference for everything.
I ask that for anyone who makes a suspicious claim.
And I want to repeat: Is this section NEW THEORIES?
Yes, but that doesn't give your ideas a free pass from criticism.
-
Never mind. Lorentz and Poincare had not known this nuance too.
You are trying to discredit me by lumping me in with Lorentz and poincare?
I would take it as an accolade. Both Lorentz and Poincare were great thinkers and did accept relativity in the end, they understood more nuances than the OP.
Nuff said.
-
And I want to repeat: Is this section NEW THEORIES?
Yes. Now you need to find out what a theory is. It's not "some daft ideas I stuck together."
"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results."
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
If your ideas don't pass the test of agreement with observation, they are not a theory.
To come up with a "new theory of relativity", the first thing you need to do is show that the old theory does not meet experiment and observation.
Until then you do not have a theory.
You have hogwash.
-
In reality, there is no difference between those two "types" of relativity that you mention. Relative speed is relative speed. Whether those velocities are caused by a force or not is irrelevant. A car travelling at 60 kilometers per hour is the same as an asteroid floating through space at 60 kilometers per hour. Just because the car has to expend energy to produce that motion doesn't somehow change how relativity affects it.
I understood that you are unaware of classical/Galilean relativity from your this phrase. Galilean relativity is a method for materials. Where is the SR? :)Have you a technical education really? :)
Please ask an physicist's/academician's interpretation for this topic; especially for the types of relativity.
-
You may call it that, though I have no idea why.
subtracting velocities from 2 reference frames like this is classical relativity. To be more accurate you could have used special relativity but the difference in the answers would be miniscule.
A single car obtains its speed by the essential help of the road. This speed is exact/genuine relative according to the road. The effect of the reference frame is a distinguishing feature. On the exact/genuine relativity, the car moves away from starting point with its this relative speed; or its distance increases with its own speed.
The distance between two moving cars increases or decreases with the speed value VR = Va +/- Vb; hence, if we consider Galilean relativity method, we have to choice any one of the cars for reference role; and if we isolate the cars, the relative speed of other car is VR.
These cars obtain their speeds without the effect of other one. Resultant speedis hypothetical value; any one of the cars never goes with this speed value. Therefore this type relationship is "hypothetical relativity". Distinguishing feature is clearly understandable.
The light source only leaves the photon; does not push/throw the photon; and the photon does not apply to its source for its motion. And the source can go to anywhere freely after leaving the photon. The distance between the photon and its source increases/decreases with the speed c +/- Vu value like two cars case. But if we measure the velocity of light we will find the value c (constant) again.
-
I understood that you are unaware of classical/Galilean relativity from your this phrase.
I know what Galilean relativity is. That does not contradict what I said.
Galilean relativity is a method for materials.
And special relativity isn't a method for materials?
Where is the SR?
I don't know what you mean by this question.
-
I understood that you are unaware of classical/Galilean relativity from your this phrase. Galilean relativity is a method for materials. Where is the SR? :)
That makes no sense. It may be a language issue but I suspect it is due to a lack of understanding.
If you have a material traveling at relativistic speeds (let's say .5c) you have to use SR transforms, not Galilean transforms to get the correct answers.
-
A single car obtains its speed by the essential help of the road.
That has nothing to do with discussion.
This speed is exact/genuine relative according to the road. The effect of the reference frame is a distinguishing feature. On the exact/genuine relativity, the car moves away from starting point with its this relative speed; or its distance increases with its own speed.
The speed of the car is relative to the road.
The distance between two moving cars increases or decreases with the speed value VR = Va +/- Vb; hence, if we consider Galilean relativity method, we have to choice any one of the cars for reference role; and if we isolate the cars, the relative speed of other car is VR.
The speed of one cars is relative to the other car. This relative motion is the exact same concept as the relative motion between the car and the road.
These cars obtain their speeds without the effect of other one.
That has nothing to do with the discussion.
Resultant speedis hypothetical value; any one of the cars never goes with this speed value. Therefore this type relationship is "hypothetical relativity". Distinguishing feature is clearly understandable.
So if I am driving at 50 mph and another car passes me at 200 mph and I stick my arm out the window so the other car hits my arm, is my arm only hypothetically ripped off?
Your big misunderstanding seem to be that you have a belief that there is a preferred frame. This is a basic error.
You are saying relative velocity between the road and the car is the real velocity, but the relative velocity between 2 cars is not the real velocity. That is completely wrong.
The light source only leaves the photon; does not push/throw the photon; and the photon does not apply to its source for its motion. And the source can go to anywhere freely after leaving the photon.
Completely irrelevant to relativity.
The distance between the photon and its source increases/decreases with the speed c +/- Vu value like two cars case.
Absolutely wrong.
Please show mathematically how a photon can move at 1.5c and move at c simultaneously. Or just show the math that allows a photon to move >c!
-
So if I am driving at 50 mph and another car passes me at 200 mph and I stick my arm out the window so the other car hits my arm, is my arm only hypothetically ripped off?
Your big misunderstanding seem to be that you have a belief that there is a preferred frame. This is a basic error.
You are saying relative velocity between the road and the car is the real velocity, but the relative velocity between 2 cars is not the real velocity. That is completely wrong.
As if the science forum turned into a political arena. I am perceiving/intuiting political maneuvers (demagogy, consolidation phrases, irrelevant examples, prejudices, etc.). There is no democracy in science and conservatism is antipathic. The misconception that the majority approves approaches to natural reality at the end of the process. Remember the dogmas of majority: the sun revolves around the earth; the world is the center of the universe. etc.
You seem more technical and objectively. Please clearly define your problem about 1.5 c (?); Let me answer you by LCS method.
LCS method: As it is known, special relativity has a starting condition: Uniform moving object can be assigned for the role of inertial frame (Galilei relativity principle). Here, the light provides exactly this definition: the light goes straight and its speed is always constant (even it never need to accelerate). In other words, light deserves the role of reference. On the other hand, the analyses on common frame is the gold standard. The combination of these two concepts is the LCS method. So, assigning most external frame (Light coordinate system) as a common reference frame and realizing the light kinematics's and cosmological analysis accordingly.
-
There is no democracy in science
Quite right.
The only arbiter is experiment.
Every aspect of general relativity has been tested in every way we can think of, to all the precision we can manage, and it has passed every test.
So, how could your ideas be better?
-
As if the science forum turned into a political arena. I am perceiving/intuiting political maneuvers (demagogy, consolidation phrases, irrelevant examples, prejudices, etc.). There is no democracy in science and conservatism is antipathic. The misconception that the majority approves approaches to natural reality at the end of the process. Remember the dogmas of majority: the sun revolves around the earth; the world is the center of the universe. etc
There is no politics or dogma just evidence based science.
You seem more technical and objectively. Please clearly define your problem about 1.5 c (
My problem is that it violates Special Relativity with no explanation of how that could possibly happen.
In other words, light deserves the role of reference.
That would be a terrible reference! Think about it. How fast are you going relative to light? The answer is zero for all inertial frames.
-
Quote from: xersanozgen on Yesterday at 18:31:22
In other words, light deserves the role of reference.
That would be a terrible reference! Think about it. How fast are you going relative to light? The answer is zero for all inertial frames.
Quite the contrary.
SR also allows this method. Because the speed of light is the same value according to each frame, hence the outermost / space vacuum / LCS. We have to consider / use universal value (e.g. Vu) of other actor's parameter for scientific integrity.
In the traditional flow, humanity is in the habit of giving to local objects a role of reference. SR could not overcome this habit, and also applied the definition/treatment of local value to the measured speed of light. However, the measured value is more likely to be the universal speed of light, and if we used in this definition, there will be no hesitation about the accuracy of the process.
Yes we may not know the numerical value of the source's universal speed. However, this case is not a difficulty for theoretical analysis.
LCS method has not a inconsistency/opposition for SR mentality.
And an advantage of LCS method that the cosmological analysis is possible (as known, SR never allow this because of non - simultaneity of parameters.):
(https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhyEs..26...49E/abstract (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhyEs..26...49E/abstract))
-
SR also allows this method. Because the speed of light is the same value according to each frame, hence the outermost / space vacuum / LCS. We have to consider / use universal value (e.g. Vu) of other actor's parameter for scientific integrity.
In the traditional flow, humanity is in the habit of giving to local objects a role of reference. SR could not overcome this habit, and also applied the definition/treatment of local value to the measured speed of light. However, the measured value is more likely to be the universal speed of light, and if we used in this definition, there will be no hesitation about the accuracy of the process.
Yes we may not know the numerical value of the source's universal speed. However, this case is not a difficulty for theoretical analysis.
LCS method has not a inconsistency/opposition for SR mentality.
And an advantage of LCS method that the cosmological analysis is possible (as known, SR never allow this because of non - simultaneity of parameters.):
Word salad.
Do the math that shows relativity is wrong and stop the word salad and arm waving.
-
Word salad.
Troll's phrase
-
Let's just concentrate on one idea. Let's look at you idea that the speed of light and the speed of the source is additive.
Assume a space ship is traveling towards earth and when it is 10 light seconds from earth it shoots a laser at earth. You say the laser light is traveling at 1.5c. That of course means that it will only take 6.666 sec to reach earth. You also say that this light when measured on earth will be measured as c, not 1.5c. You have not given any sort of reasonable explanation of why or how this could be possible.
Please explain how that is possible.
-
Troll's phrase
Then stop trolling and answer the question.
Do the math that shows relativity is wrong and stop the word salad and arm waving.
-
Let's just concentrate on one idea. Let's look at you idea that the speed of light and the speed of the source is additive.
Assume a space ship is traveling towards earth and when it is 10 light seconds from earth it shoots a laser at earth. You say the laser light is traveling at 1.5c. That of course means that it will only take 6.666 sec to reach earth. You also say that this light when measured on earth will be measured as c, not 1.5c. You have not given any sort of reasonable explanation of why or how this could be possible.
Please explain how that is possible.
Let me explain it very simply/transparently:
The surface of our paper or monitor screen is LCS (Fig. 1). At the moment of Tı (when the intermediate distance is 10 c, the photon will arrive to the observer on the world after 6.66 seconds, because when the photon is approaching to the world, the world is also approaching the photon with a speed of 0.5 c according to LCS. The eye contact with the photon will realize at 6.66666 seconds.
Although the light source goes to the opposite direction (- x) of the photo (Fig. 2), the distance between the photon released from the light source on the earth and its source increases with the speed of c + Vu; However the photon velocity will always be found as c by the present measurement method/experiment. The path that the photon scans personally (through every point) is AB. The photon never scans the AD pathway. Naturally, path / duration = c. The emitting point of the photon is marked on LCS.
If you cannot distinguish and understand technical explanations by these figures, you are as clever as Einstein.
If you can understand and confirm these explanations, you are more clever than Einstein.
If these explanations make you angry and upset, it means you are a chauvinist or militant / troll for SR.
I lost my motivation to share in this forum. I am not sure of the technical training of some of my interlocutors; because we had understanding crises on elementary issues. They also could not manage the crisis and exhibited troll behavior becouse of prioritizing their own catharsis. As a result, this asymmetrical attitudes cannot be maintained. It is enough for me that they get the note that there are those who object to SR.
Followers/guests have to register to see/download the figures
-
because we had understanding crises on elementary issues.
Yes, that's because you don't understand the basics.
There is no democracy in science
Quite right.
The only arbiter is experiment.
Every aspect of general relativity has been tested in every way we can think of, to all the precision we can manage, and it has passed every test.
So, how could your ideas be better?
-
The surface of our paper or monitor screen is LCS (Fig. 1). At the moment of Tı (when the intermediate distance is 10 c, the photon will arrive to the observer on the world after 6.66 seconds, because when the photon is approaching to the world, the world is also approaching the photon with a speed of 0.5 c according to LCS. The eye contact with the photon will realize at 6.66666 seconds.
I had said the rocket was going .5c, but you prefer to use the frame of the rocket and say the earth is moving towards a motionless rocket at .5c that is fine. Either way you agree that the photon takes 6.6666 sec to travel 10 light sec between the earth and the rocket so the speed is 1.5c. On earth I would measure light at a speed of 1.5c, which is something that has never been seen and completely violates relativity. You state we would measure the speed at c, but that makes no sense and I don't see any explanation of why we would measure the speed at c.
In figure 1 for picture T2 you have the photon speed of c. Underneath that you written 2/3c, what is that there for?
Although the light source goes to the opposite direction (- x) of the photo (Fig. 2), the distance between the photon released from the light source on the earth and its source increases with the speed of c + Vu;
I think you made an error, you said, "distance between the photon released from the light source on the earth and its source" the distance between the source and the source is 0, isn't it?
I do not really understand fig. 2. Is the light source moving away from the earth at c?
However the photon velocity will always be found as c by the present measurement method/experiment.
You keep saying that but you don't say why you think that. You clearly state the speed of the photon relative to earth is 1.5c but when we measure that speed, for some reason it is 1c! Why?
I lost my motivation to share in this forum. I am not sure of the technical training of some of my interlocutors; because we had understanding crises on elementary issues. They also could not manage the crisis and exhibited troll behavior becouse of prioritizing their own catharsis. As a result, this asymmetrical attitudes cannot be maintained. It is enough for me that they get the note that there are those who object to SR.
I am an engineer, I took 3 semesters of calculus based physics, I am not even remotely as smart as Einstein. I am not angry, I'm not even annoyed, I just don't see where you have explained why a photon traveling at 1.5c relative to the earth would be measured at only 1c on earth.
-
Assume a space ship is traveling towards earth and when it is 10 light seconds from earth it shoots a laser at earth. You say the laser light is traveling at 1.5c. That of course means that it will only take 6.666 sec to reach earth. You also say that this light when measured on earth will be measured as c, not 1.5c. You have not given any sort of reasonable explanation of why or how this could be possible.
Please explain how that is possible.
You say the laser light is traveling at 1.5c. This claim never be mine. Light or a photon always travel with the value c on LCS/space. According to LCS mentality the emitting point of a photon is marked on LCS/space.
However SR has a similar claim as yours. You can see in Lorentz transformations:
If the speed of rocket is 0.5 c; the travelling time of the photon for the distance 10c :
to be continued : SR mentality claims that the photon always moves away from its source by the speed c. Thus:
Time dilation: t' = 10 / ( 1- v2/c2)-1/2 = 8.66 second.
The SR says the photon uses 8.66 rocketsecond for 10 c way.
-
You say the laser light is traveling at 1.5c. This claim never be mine.
Yes, you did claim that!
You said:
At the moment of Tı (when the intermediate distance is 10 [light sec], the photon will arrive to the observer on the world after 6.66 seconds, because when the photon is approaching to the world, the world is also approaching the photon with a speed of 0.5 c according to LCS.
10 light sec/6.666 sec = 1.5c. That is what you are saying whether you know it or not.
-
You say the laser light is traveling at 1.5c. This claim never be mine.
Yes, you did claim that!
You said:
At the moment of Tı (when the intermediate distance is 10 [light sec], the photon will arrive to the observer on the world after 6.66 seconds, because when the photon is approaching to the world, the world is also approaching the photon with a speed of 0.5 c according to LCS.
10 light sec/6.666 sec = 1.5c. That is what you are saying whether you knew it or not.
We may think that: The 33.3 % of the distance is traveled by the Earth/observer. While the photon comes toward to the Earth, the Earth also approaches to the photon. The photon that 6.6666 c of the way with its constant velocity c. Please think the process on four dimensions. The Earth is not motionless. While the actors travels the intermediate distance decreasing and the meeting is realized at 6.6666 second. It does not mean that the photon scans the way of 10 c for the time 6.666 second. All of the event and math is logic.
But SR claims that the photon uses 8.66 rocketsecond for the 10 c way (please look at my former message for math.
-
But SR claims that the photon uses 8.66 rocketsecond for the 10 c way
In every test, relativity (SR or GR as appropriate) gets the right answer.
So if you are saying your idea gives a different answer, then you are saying your idea is wrong
-
SR mentality claims that the photon always moves away from its source by the speed c.
Only in the reference frame of the source. Since light in a vacuum always travels at c in all reference frames, then an outside observer will see the photon moving away from the source at a velocity of c minus the velocity of the source.
8.66 rocketsecond
What is a "rocketsecond"?
-
We may think that: The 33.3 % of the distance is traveled by the Earth/observer. While the photon comes toward to the Earth, the Earth also approaches to the photon. The photon that 6.6666 c of the way with its constant velocity c. Please think the process on four dimensions. The Earth is not motionless. While the actors travels the intermediate distance decreasing and the meeting is realized at 6.6666 second. It does not mean that the photon scans the way of 10 c for the time 6.666 second. All of the event and math is logic.
But SR claims that the photon uses 8.66 rocketsecond for the 10 c way (please look at my former message for math.
I really do not understand your ideas. I thought you said that the speed of light and the speed of the source was a straight addition, now it seems like it isn't, so I am confused.
I think it would be best for me to tell you how I see this scenario occurs and then you can tell me how you see it.
So the scenario is a rocket is moving relative to earth at .5 c in the direction of earth and it shoots a laser towards earth when it is 10 Ls from earth.
From the earths frame the rocket would be moving at .5c towards earth and the laser would be shot at 10 Ls from earth. The light would take 10 seconds to reach earth and the speed of light would be measured as c by both the earth and the rocket. The rocket would take 20 seconds to reach earth.
From the rockets frame the earth would be moving at .5 c towards the rocket and the rocket would shoot the laser when the earth was at a distance of 10 Ls from the rocket. The light would take 6.6666 sec to reach the earth because the earth would have moved 3.333 Ls closer to the rocket. The speed of light as measured by both the rocket and the earth would be c. The earth would reach the rocket after 20 seconds.
Would your idea have a different answer than this?
-
I really do not understand your ideas. I thought you said that the speed of light and the speed of the source was a straight addition, now it seems like it isn't, so I am confused.
I think it would be best for me to tell you how I see this scenario occurs and then you can tell me how you see it.
So the scenario is a rocket is moving relative to earth at .5 c in the direction of earth and it shoots a laser towards earth when it is 10 Ls from earth.
From the earths frame the rocket would be moving at .5c towards earth and the laser would be shot at 10 Ls from earth. The light would take 10 seconds to reach earth and the speed of light would be measured as c by both the earth and the rocket. The rocket would take 20 seconds to reach earth.
From the rockets frame the earth would be moving at .5 c towards the rocket and the rocket would shoot the laser when the earth was at a distance of 10 Ls from the rocket. The light would take 6.6666 sec to reach the earth because the earth would have moved 3.333 Ls closer to the rocket. The speed of light as measured by both the rocket and the earth would be c. The earth would reach the rocket after 20 seconds.
Would your idea have a different answer than this?
The reason of confusing may be to choise as the reference frame either the Earth or the rocket in the same analysis. We are allowed for one of them (for relativity method). On the other hand you think still by using relativity method and I use LCS method.
Let's solve like that:
1- According to SR mentality: the photon which emitted from rocket travels the distance(L = 10 proper/inert second x c) for 8.66 rocketsecond.
2- According to LCS mentality:
2.1- Classical / Galilean relativity rules is valid ( like in elementary or medium school).
2.2- We have to use a common reference frame. This frame must be most external frame in universe for light actor. So, it is space or LCS.
The all speeds (light's, Earth's, rocket's) must be adapted according to this outer space.
2.3 The emitting/leaving point of the photon is marked on LCS (rocket has passed on this point at emitting moment).
2.4 By these conditions, my figures 1 clearly explaines the light kinematics event for your example. Contact time : t = L / (Vu (earth) + c) = 6.666 LCS second.
3- On my figure 2: Another option of 1.5 c velocity event is exhibited. If the Earth goes to opposite direction (toward -x ) of the photon (the earth's speed 0.5 c) ; intermediate distance between the photon and its source will increase with 1.5 c although the photon has the speed c. This relative speed can be called as "hypothetical/pseudo relative speed".
-
The reason of confusing may be to choise as the reference frame either the Earth or the rocket in the same analysis. We are allowed for one of them (for relativity method).
That part was not confusing at all. Both frames of reference are equally valid.1- According to SR mentality: the photon which emitted from rocket travels the distance(L = 10 proper/inert second x c) for 8.66 rocketsecond.
That is not correct. From the earth frame the photon takes 10 seconds to reach earth and from the rockets frame the photon takes 6.666 seconds to reach earth. Neither frame thinks it takes 8.66 seconds.
2- According to LCS mentality:
2.1- Classical / Galilean relativity rules is valid ( like in elementary or medium school).
This is where your ideas start to become garbled. In Galilean relativity the speed of light would be added to the velocity of the source, but you said it wasn't, so that is not Galilean relativity. That is one point of confusion.
2.2- We have to use a common reference frame. This frame must be most external frame in universe for light actor. So, it is space or LCS.
The all speeds (light's, Earth's, rocket's) must be adapted according to this outer space.
How does picking a 3rd frame of reference change anything? Now you have the earth frame with a relative velocity to the rocket, a rocket frame with a velocity relative to the earth and a space frame with a relative velocity to the rocket and a relative velocity to the earth.
2.3 The emitting/leaving point of the photon is marked on LCS (rocket has passed on this point at emitting moment).
2.4 By these conditions, my figures 1 clearly explaines the light kinematics event for your example. Contact time : t = L / (Vu (earth) + c) = 6.666 LCS second.
It looks like you are adding source velocity to the speed of light which you said you don't do?
So for your example you picked a 'space frame' that had relative velocity of zero to the rocket. You could have just as easily picked a space frame that had zero velocity to the earth and the answer would have been 10 LCS second assuming you don't exceed c.
3- On my figure 2: Another option of 1.5 c velocity event is exhibited. If the Earth goes to opposite direction (toward -x ) of the photon (the earth's speed 0.5 c) ; intermediate distance between the photon and its source will increase with 1.5 c although the photon has the speed c. This relative speed can be called as "hypothetical/pseudo relative speed".
Let's just finish exploring option 2.4 before moving on.
-
Never mind moving on from 2.4
xersanozgen
Every 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.
-
That is not correct. From the earth frame the photon takes 10 seconds to reach earth and from the rockets frame the photon takes 6.666 seconds to reach earth. Neither frame thinks it takes 8.66 seconds.
Are you sure that you know the theory of special relativity?
Before, you have to confirm 8.66 rocketsecond for rocket's speed 0.5 c according to 10 inertsecond; then we may continue to discuss more advanced options.
-
...rocketsecond ...inertsecond...
It might be better if you stopped making up names for things (without explaining them) and answered my question.
Never mind moving on from 2.4
xersanozgen
Every 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.
-
Are you sure that you know the theory of special relativity?
Before, you have to confirm 8.66 rocketsecond for rocket's speed 0.5 c according to 10 inertsecond; then we may continue to discuss more advanced options.
I did not mean side track this. This is supposed to be about your idea not relativity.
I am ok with 8.66 rocketsecond.
Could you respond to my question and comments now?
Here are the questions again:
2- According to LCS mentality:
2.1- Classical / Galilean relativity rules is valid ( like in elementary or medium school).
This is where your ideas start to become garbled. In Galilean relativity the speed of light would be added to the velocity of the source, but you said it wasn't, so that is not Galilean relativity. That is one point of confusion.
2.2- We have to use a common reference frame. This frame must be most external frame in universe for light actor. So, it is space or LCS.
The all speeds (light's, Earth's, rocket's) must be adapted according to this outer space.
How does picking a 3rd frame of reference change anything? Now you have the earth frame with a relative velocity to the rocket, a rocket frame with a velocity relative to the earth and a space frame with a relative velocity to the rocket and a relative velocity to the earth.
2.3 The emitting/leaving point of the photon is marked on LCS (rocket has passed on this point at emitting moment).
2.4 By these conditions, my figures 1 clearly explaines the light kinematics event for your example. Contact time : t = L / (Vu (earth) + c) = 6.666 LCS second.
It looks like you are adding source velocity to the speed of light which you said you don't do?
So for your example you picked a 'space frame' that had relative velocity of zero to the rocket. You could have just as easily picked a space frame that had zero velocity to the earth.
-
I have only been occasionally peeking at this troll topic, but post 203 seems to be in question.
So the scenario is a rocket is moving relative to earth at .5 c in the direction of earth and it shoots a laser towards earth when it is 10 Ls from earth.
Ambiguous. 10 LS from Earth in which frame? In Earth frame it says below, but it also says the same figure in the rocket frame, and it cannot be both.
From the earths frame the rocket would be moving at .5c towards earth and the laser would be shot at 10 Ls from earth. The light would take 10 seconds to reach earth and the speed of light would be measured as c by both the earth and the rocket. The rocket would take 20 seconds to reach earth.
OK, I'm assuming the above bit is the scenario. Earth clock reads '-10' when the light is detected, and it reads '0' when the rocket gets there. These are a couple of frame independent facts.
From the rockets frame the earth would be moving at .5 c towards the rocket and the rocket would shoot the laser when the earth was at a distance of 10 Ls from the rocket.
Oopsie
The light would take 6.6666 sec to reach the earth because the earth would have moved 3.333 Ls closer to the rocket. The speed of light as measured by both the rocket and the earth would be c. The earth would reach the rocket after 20 seconds.
So at time -10 on Earth clock, it sees the light, and it is 6.666 Ls away from the stationary rocket. In the remaining 13.3333 seconds, 10 more seconds tick away on the Earth clock, which is a dilation factor (gamma) of 4/3. The actual dilation is 1.1547 at that speed.
Would your idea have a different answer than this?
SR has a different answer. The distance between Earth and the light emission event is length contracted to 8.66 Ls in the rocket frame:
From the rockets frame the earth would be moving at .5 c towards the rocket and the rocket would shoot the laser at time -17.32 when the earth was at a distance of 8.66 Ls from the rocket.
The light would take 5.773 sec to reach Earth because Earth would have moved 2.887 Ls closer to the rocket during that time. The earth would reach the rocket 11.546 seconds later at rocket time 0 seconds on both clocks.
xersanozgen seems to realize something is amiss (but of course is blind to the errors in his own postings), but doesn't understand relativity enough to actually figure out what's wrong.
-
Yeah I really am screwing this up. I will drop out of the conversation.
-
SR has a different answer. The distance between Earth and the light emission event is length contracted to 8.66 Ls in the rocket frame:
Yes, the theory of special relativity predicts this.
Here, we can see a serious flaw/illusion of SR:
SR says that the tall of an object decreasing because of its relative speed : L' = L (1 - v2/c2)1/2 .
For v = 0.5 c ===> L' = 0.866 L .
Do you distinguish this irrational inference?
It is necessary that the length of object (rocket's tall) would must be decreased smaller, not the travelling way of the photon.
The train-perron mental experiment hides this nuance. Because our brain may tolerate/rationalize this due to train's long length. whereas, that is never logic why the photon's next way can be decreased by rocket's relative speed.
After I share the link of my new paper (An experiment for special relativity), I will end my messages on this topic.
-
After I share the link of my new paper (An experiment for special relativity), I will end my messages on this topic.
Could you answer this first please?
Every 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.
-
I want to share a new study about special relativity: One way speed of light
Abstract: The velocity of light is measured by a light-specific method (mirrored double paths, uninterrupted photons, etc.). In this study an experiment is presented with a single photon and one way path. Thus, the increasing speed of the distance between the photon and its source can be measured and the essence of special relativity theory can be questioned. If this experiment can be realized, Earth’s momentary universal speed can be detected. The measurement direction which gives maximum and minimum values will be interpreted about current expanding speed of universe and expanding direction.
Link: https://vixra.org/abs/2006.0224
-
I want to share a new study about special relativity: One way speed of light
Abstract: The velocity of light is measured by a light-specific method (mirrored double paths, uninterrupted photons, etc.). In this study an experiment is presented with a single photon and one way path. Thus, the increasing speed of the distance between the photon and its source can be measured and the essence of special relativity theory can be questioned. If this experiment can be realized, Earth’s momentary universal speed can be detected. The measurement direction which gives maximum and minimum values will be interpreted about current expanding speed of universe and expanding direction.
Link: https://vixra.org/abs/2006.0224
It's not a measure of the one way speed of light.
-
It's not a measure of the one way speed of light.
The speed of light has been measured on single path with atomic clock and the value c never be provided.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light
-
It's not a measure of the one way speed of light.
The speed of light has been measured on single path with atomic clock and the value c never be provided.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light
Did you read the wiki page you cited?
It says
"The "one-way" speed of light, from a source to a detector, cannot be measured "
And it's right.
-
It says
"The "one-way" speed of light, from a source to a detector, cannot be measured "
And it's right.
That is correct: The measurements of one way does not give the value ' c '. They find different values.
Please read this paper:
https://www.intechopen.com/books/new-approach-of-indoor-and-outdoor-localization-systems/gps-and-the-one-way-speed-of-light
8. Conclusion
Measuring the speed of light has for many years been a major activity in science. Following the introduction of special relativity theory in 1905 in which light speed invariance was postulated, light speed tests assumed even greater significance. Numerous experiments have been conducted over the past century the vast majority of which appear to confirm the postulate. A careful examination by Zhang [3] however revealed that while two-way light speed constancy has been confirmed, one-way light speed constancy has not.
-
Why did you post a paper that talks about measuring the one way speed of light, when you know it is impossible?
-
This is what the article says.
Using the system, Marmet [18] observed that GPS measurements show that a light signal takes about 28 nanoseconds longer traveling eastward from San Francisco to New York as compared with the signal traveling westward from New York to San Francisco. Kelly [19] also noted that measurements using the GPS reveal that a light signal takes 414.8 nanoseconds longer to circumnavigate the Earth eastward at the equator than a light signal travelling westward around the same path. Marmet and Kelly both concluded that these observed travel time differences in the synchronized clock measurements in each direction occur because light travels at speed c−v
eastward and c+v
westward relative to the surface of the earth. Herev
is the speed of rotation of the Earth’s surface at the particular latitude. This research by Marmet and Kelley was the precursor to a series of papers by this author on the use of GPS technology in the unambiguous demonstration of one-way light speed anisotropy.
-
That's the Sagnac effect being demonstrated, using Earth as a giant optical gyroscope measuring absolute rotation.
Light moves at exactly c in both directions in the inertial frame of Earth (which is what GPS uses).
The article says: "Marmet and Kelly both concluded that these observed travel time differences in the synchronized clock measurements in each direction occur because light travels at speed c−v eastward and c+v westward relative to the surface of the earth."
Problem is, those clocks were not synchronized in the (approximate) inertial frame of the USA, a different frame (by over 1000 km/hr) that the GPS one they used to do the timing, so M&K are wrong in making that conclusion.
-
Problem is, those clocks were not synchronized in the (approximate) inertial frame of the USA, a different frame (by over 1000 km/hr) that the GPS one they used to do the timing, so M&K are wrong in making that conclusion.
How can synchonizing the clock eliminates the difference in time measurements of the experiment?
-
How can synchonizing the clock eliminates the difference in time measurements of the experiment?
If clocks A and B are stationary relative to each other (they're not in this case), then by definition, the clocks are synchronized in their own inertial frame if a signal sent in each direction takes the same time.
Marmet and Kelly seem either to be uneducated in the concept of relativity of simultaneity, or they're speaking down to an audience that they think knows nothing, not an uncommon occurrence in press releases. Their statement that light moves locally at some speed other than c violates the premises on which relativity theory rests.
The people announcing the breaking of the speed record for cause/effect in the dual entanglement experiment commit the same offense: either being uneducated in the concept of relativity of simultaneity, or speaking down to an audience that they think knows nothing, which is usually true.
-
. A careful examination by Zhang [3] however revealed that while two-way light speed constancy has been confirmed, one-way light speed constancy has not.
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."
-
Why did you post a paper that talks about measuring the one way speed of light, when you know it is impossible?
Your phrases seems as demagogy.
It can be measured and the results don't confirm the first postulate of SR.
Some scientists had studied this subject and they had worked about some speculation.
The experiments give different values than c. This is an experimental reality.
The results of one way light speed don't confirm the first postulate of SR. Its second postula is already valid for bodies not the light.
Yes we have to thank for first approach of light kinematics to Lorentz and Poincaré.
We have the LCS method anymore.
My LCS (light coordinate system) method predicted these different results and it can explaine this case transparently.
-
It can be measured
No, it can't- what you "measure" is what decision you made about the definition of simultaneous.
Do you understand that?
-
Please stop understanding as it comes to your own business.
...what does that even mean?
Also, Halc already explained the problem.
-
Problem is, those clocks were not synchronized in the (approximate) inertial frame of the USA, a different frame (by over 1000 km/hr) that the GPS one they used to do the timing, so M&K are wrong in making that conclusion.
How can synchonizing the clock eliminates the difference in time measurements of the experiment?
My LCS method for light kinematics can explaine these different results; in addition it predicted them. I repeated the essence of theoretical approach in my paper ( https://vixra.org/abs/2006.0224 (https://vixra.org/abs/2006.0224))
-
The weakest point of special relativity; SR, is not the theory, but it is the standard applications of the theory. Einstein created SR with three equations, one each for mass, distance and time. However, almost all the applications ignore mass and relativistic mass. In fact, relativistic mass is often reasoned away, so it can be ignored in peace.
The consensus in physics uses only two of the three equations of Einsteins original SR; distance and time, and ignore the third; mass. The problem this creates is one cannot do a proper energy balance without the mass equations. This lack of energy balance allows affects that can defy an energy balance. Therefore, confusion is created. The effect created in the brain, is what I call a spatial illusion. It take mind skills to see through this.
There was an artist called Escher, who did a work of art in 1953, that he called Relativity. Escher, knowingly or unknowingly, points out the spatial illusion problem. This is shown below by his art.
A real 3-D object requires three physical dimensions; x.y.z or in the case of SR; M, D, and T. The work of art looks 3-D to the eyes, but it is drawn using a 2-D canvas. It is not 3-D, but an illusion of 3-D, that is drawn, in 2-D. You can touch the computer screen to prove to yourself the image is 2-D, even if it fools the eyes into thinking 3-D. This is the nature of the spatial illusion.
The work of art; Relativity, below, shows a number of relative references, where any reference of a man walking or sitting, appears reasonable, by itself. Reference is relative. But if we look at all these references together, they cannot all be proper at the same time. Some appear to defy gravity; mass related problem. We are told ignore the mass and you will be fine.
After physics perfected this illusion, politics and now fake news have learn how to do it. Now political references and even the truth, are assumed to relative to any arbitrary political reference. In all cases, all you need to do is use 2 out of 3 variables, to create a spatial illusion. Fake news will ignore data so 2-D look more 3-D. Revisionist history works the same way. And we can judge the past data by our modern relative reference, since all is relative.
Physics says this is OK since the third variable is nothing but a spin off from the other 2. Or 3-D from 2-D, equals the spatial illusion. Physics should have corrected this problem almost 70 years ago, but decided to maintain the status quo.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/BbMvM.lJNo0bX.6oibChFg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTk2MDtoPTkxNi41/https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/lAfemC9MzLhnaT9CQLmqfA--~B/aD0xMjIyO3c9MTI4MDthcHBpZD15dGFjaHlvbg--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/homerun/feed_manager_auto_publish_494/773bc89f91f78b84bf8183de59685414)
-
In fact, relativistic mass is often reasoned away, so it can be ignored in peace.
The man in the street knows one, and only one, equation related to relativity
E= MC2
where the M stands for mass.
and yet you are trying to tell us that mass is abandoned.
What planet are you on?
-
After physics perfected this illusion, politics and now fake news have learn how to do it. Now political references and even the truth, are assumed to relative to any arbitrary political reference.
That escalated quickly.
-
In my opinion, the experiments (that are offered by me) will solve syncronization problems.
-
My LCS method for light kinematics can explaine these different results
So can relativity.
-
In my opinion, the experiments (that are offered by me) will solve syncronization problems.
What problems?
What experiments have you done?
-
In my opinion, the experiments (that are offered by me) will solve syncronization problems.
What problems?
What experiments have you done?
If you don't read/know the essence of the case, you may ask similar shallow questions and your position becomes off-side.
In all measurement of light's speed the primary difficulty is to detect time.
In one way measurements the primary difficulty is to provide syncronisation of atomic clocks. The setups of my experiments are generared to solve this problem.
Note: 1- I only offer these experiment. I did not applied any one (I would want to practice the one of them especially with ossiloscope)
2- I personally performed an experiment about fitzgerald- Lorentz contraction and any contraction does not happened. (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332902408_An_Experiment_for_Lorentz_-Fitzgerald_Contraction)
-
In one way measurements the primary difficulty is to provide syncronisation of atomic clocks.
No the primary difficulty is to say what synchronisation means.
Once you have that, you can calculate the "1 way speed" from the 2 way speed.
If you don't read/know the essence of the case, you may ask similar shallow questions and your position becomes off-side.
Fortunately, I do know the essence of it so, when I ask questions they are on topic.
Congratulations on nearly answering one of them. I remember now; you did a pointless experiment which was never going to show anything, because it was not sensitive enough
Now, please focus on the more interesting one.
What problems?
-
In fact, relativistic mass is often reasoned away, so it can be ignored in peace.
The man in the street knows one, and only one, equation related to relativity
E= MC2
where the M stands for mass.
and yet you are trying to tell us that mass is abandoned.
What planet are you on?
That is not the formula for relativistic mass in Special Relativity. The equation for relativistic mass is shown below. The m0 is the rest mass, which is a measure of physical substance and does not change. Relativistic mass is connected to velocity and is part of an energy balance.
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/mOCZI.jpg)
Distance, time and mass all change with velocity. When textbooks give the example of the relativistic train moving or resting at the station, you will never hear the examples mention the masses of the train and/or stationary person and the energy or fuel used. Those things are connected to relativistic mass. This is where E-MC2 could be used to convert the relativistic mass into an energy total. The examples taught only use time and distance to create a spatial illusion. If you use all three, the analysis will be different, since reference now has to become absolute based on energy conservation.
In defense of Physics, when we look out into space, we get most of the data from energy based signals; light, x-rays, radio waves, etc. Light energy is wavelength and frequency, or distance and time but no mass. Mass cannot move at the speed of light so there is zero rest mass and no relativistic mass in these signals.
The n mass of the signals is not true of planets and stars which do have mass. The data we can get is provides with two of the three variables The universe becomes a spatial illusion of relative references by the nature of the evidence. This is nobody's fault but a statement of fact. We would need a way to measure relativistic mass of planets, stars and galaxies, directly, apart from light. Or we need another approach to the universe.
Let me give an example, say we are in space running an experiment, We use two rocket ships one with mass=k and the other with maas=2k. We are moving in empty space, relative to each other with velocity V. It is space and we have no fixed reference point to know who is moving at what speed, so we both see the same relative motion. This is distance and time; velocity is d/t.
The second part of the experiment will be head on collision, so we can include mass via inertia affects we will induce. If reference is relative the heavier hitting the lighter will have the same recoil as the lighter hitting the heavier. If reference is absolute, based on mass and inertia, each collusion will be different and based on what we see, we can tell the speeds of both.
If the heavy hits a stationary light, itiwll launch it and slow down. If the light hits the heavy, the heavy will move forward slowly and the light will recoil. If each have some of the velocity we will see something in the middle. The mass and inertia give up extra information that visual conformation of distance and time will lack.
Physics had 70 years to fix this or at least make it right in terms of three equation SR.
-
you 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.
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,
So, which is it?
-
LCS method predicts that the results of one way will be different than c. In this method the current expanding speed of universe can be calculated. The formula has been given for Vu in my paper.
A person (who can perform one of my experiments) can be candidate for NOBEL prize.
-
LCS method predicts that the results of one way will be different than c
Gosh!
-
LCS method predicts that the results of one way will be different than c
Gosh!
You generally say only "NO".
If you can allow yourself; please pass over the first step of denial/ignoring (1- denial; 2- anger; 3- bargaining, 4- depression; 5- acceptting)
All of them are emotional steps, not scientific. Here is a science forum; do you know?
Fanatic adolescent attitudes are seemed asymmetric in a scientific platform. You have to present serious/technical arguments.
Are you sure that you aim any efficasy for science ? If you have not any technical arguments. you never be usefull for the subject. Your position becomes off-side (like singing from a distance).
-
You generally say only "NO".
Because you are generally wrong.
Here 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?Your position becomes off-side (like singing from a distance).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offside_(association_football)
Not very much like singing.
If you have not any technical arguments. you never be usefull for the subject.
If I raise technical points like this one
No, 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?
-
You generally say only "NO".
Because you are generally wrong.
Here 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?Your position becomes off-side (like singing from a distance).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offside_(association_football)
Not very much like singing.
If you have not any technical arguments. you never be usefull for the subject.
If I raise technical points like this one
No, 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?
You can negative with arguments. It is a shame to say "you are wrong" directly; like declaring yourself a god (Can you distinguish and internalize this?). Einstein would not fall into similar error.
A new theory for light kinematics has been shared by me in scientific papers. LCS method analyzes the motions of light and light source (celestial objects) according to a common reference frame (that is most external frame: space vacuum or LCS). This method allows cosmological analyses (Light Kinematics to analyse space-time:
1- Those who have an idea without reading and learning like you will get the note "There are those who object to SR".
2- Some one can object for some points and discuss.
Other reactions refer to chauvinism or psychological problems (please don't understand wrong; like intolerance to new ideas) and they are ignored.
I will not answer without technical questions.
-
Einstein would not fall into similar error.
No, He's dead.
You can negative with arguments.
Negative is not a verb.
. It is a shame to say "you are wrong" directly
It is more of a shame to let others suffer from the delusion that you might be right.
I accept that it might be thought lazy of me not to go to the trouble of pointing out, in detail, why you are wrong.
But really, finding out why you are wrong is your job, not mine.
Why don't you do it?
Why don't you check what you have said, and find the errors?
A new theory for light kinematics has been shared by me in scientific papers.
No, because scientific papers have evidence.
Some one can object for some points and discuss.
No
They can't discuss.
You refuse to enter into a discussion.
You just accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being closed minded.
I will not answer without technical questions.
The evidence, and thus the science, shows that you don't answer at all.
You haven't answered lots of things.
You repeatedly fail to do so. (You just complain that people ask the same question)
I think it's because you know that you are talking nonsense.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 12/05/2020 18:24:26
Never mind moving on from 2.4
xersanozgen
Every 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.
-
Oh look!
A question that he refused to answer.
To what level of accuracy do you think relativity has been tested?
How many significant figures?
Oh look!
another
In my opinion, the experiments (that are offered by me) will solve syncronization problems.
What problems?
and...
They did.
Like me they have found your ideas unclear or counter-factual.
Did you not notice?
and
quote author=Bored chemist link=topic=78751.msg596235#msg596235 date=1584388296]You may have read it and thought it is clear.
But the important thing is that nobody else did.
Do you not see how that is a problem?[/quote]
and
Why did you post a paper that talks about measuring the one way speed of light, when you know it is impossible?
And
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".
There are those who object to the Earth being round as well.
-
you 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.
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,
So, which is it?
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.
-
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.
It seems you are still too confused to explain what you are on about.
Essentially, you have overlooked the fact that position and velocity are relative, but acceleration is not.
The toy they have at CERN is an accelerator so- you can imagine- it accelerates things.
That's why the protons on the table are different from those in the accelerator.
It's a bit like the "twins paradox; it's not a paradox.
-
In mechanics, the speed of moving away is measured by an experiment in one way ( length / time). And this speed is a relative value according to first reference frame.
We have to measure the relative speed of a photon according to its source with similar method That is, one way measuring. And we can define this value is the increasing speed of the distance between the photon and its source. İf this one way speed is the value c; SR will be correct.
The theory of special relativity considers the measured value ( c ) of light's speed as the photon's speed of moving away from its source. Whereas known mirrored double paths method always the universal speed of the light according to space vacuum (Not its source).
Note: One way measurings never give a value as c. Because they measures the value c +/- Vu
Vu : the universal speed of the place of experiment according to space vacuum.
-
And we can define this value is the increasing speed of the distance between the photon and its source.
From whose point of view?
One way measurings never give a value as c.
https://xkcd.com/285/
One way measurements of the speed of light are, at best, ill defined.
Do you understand that?
-
More support for special relativity in recent experiment: https://scitechdaily.com/cosmic-cataclysm-allows-precise-test-of-einsteins-theory-of-general-relativity/
-
More support for special relativity in recent experiment: https://scitechdaily.com/cosmic-cataclysm-allows-precise-test-of-einsteins-theory-of-general-relativity/
I am following publications about relativity. They usually advocate theory. But a little of them are concerned with the essence. Inferences and derivative attractions are preferred. The ones that are most successful in defense add complexity (e.g. Optical density) to the event; Confusing is an effective way for anybody who is close to distinguish the postulate error.
The text you propose is not aggressive; it prefers the soft method and is not insistent for the result.
However, the inaccuracy of the theory is very simple (any complexity is not mentioned for the first approach): SR accepts/claims the value c is always increasing speed of the distance between the photon and its source. However, the changing speed of the intermediate distance is c +/ - Vu; but you find c when you measure it with a mirrored experiment. Because the mirrored device can only measure the universal speed of light; not the speed of moving away from its source.
I designed experiments for the speed of moving away from the source of the photon. The person who performed one of these can be a NOBEL candidate. Because he will can find the expanding speed of universe.
-
I designed experiments for the speed of moving away from the source of the photon.
Show us the designs.
-
I designed experiments for the speed of moving away from the source of the photon.
Show us the designs.
(https://i.hizliresim.com/GoOBt4.png) (https://hizliresim.com/GoOBt4)
1- White box is a remote control unit buttons. Connections are obtained with cables (lengths must be equal).
2- Led/light markers are on the monitors of atomic clocks.
3- Atomic clocks are on the same altitude and temperature and isolated from magnetism. (It can be used the corner points of a stadium)
4- Button 1 begins the video cameras.
5- Button 2 shots led/light markers.
6- Button 3 ends the experiment.
7- The moments T i are read on video films for first or last moments of light markers.
8- The difference of syncronisation can be interpreted.
9- The image of left clock on right top camera is the moment Tı and the image of right clock on right lower camera is the moment T2.
10- İnverse readings are for confirmation.
Note top cameras are televideocameras (e.g. 150x - 500x).
Vi
-
This has been discussed at tedious length before.
Here's one where I was playing Devil's advocate.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70902.msg519296#msg519296
-
My experiment solves all problems.
The atomic clocks are placed on the corners of a stadium ( L = 100 meters).
led markers flash at a same moment due to cables (their lengths are equal).
Even if the atomic clocks are not syncronized, left and right videos provide correcting possibility.
-
(their lengths are equal).
From what point of view?
Do you not realise that length is dependent on the observer?My experiment solves all problems.
No, it just doesn't understand them.
-
Another experiment:
(https://i.hizliresim.com/7PxGQf.jpg) (https://hizliresim.com/7PxGQf)
This experiment is easier, cheaper and it can be generated with smaller distance.
However, a measurement (that is mirrored and double paths) must be realized for universal speed of light c (top figure).
And the one way experiment at second figure may be performed. You may prefer 20 - 30 meters for L.
-
That's an interesting, perhaps even an amusing coincidence.
As an exercise during the covid lockdown, I'm thinking of doing that experiment (well, one very much like it) .
I'm thinking about measuring the speed of light by timing it as it bounces across the room a couple of times.
I was planning to do something very much like the first experiment you have there with one inconsequential difference, I was going to use a 2 channel oscilloscope and two detectors connected to the 'scope with identical amplifiers and cables. (I wanted to avoid long cables- they are "lossy" and so they distort the signal)
I will drive the laser from a signal generator, for simplicity lets say I can drive the laser to emit a square wave light amplitude with a frequency of 10 MHz.
I bounce the light round the room a bit, to get a longer time interval to measure- something like 10 metres will give me a delay of about 30 nanoseconds.
So I will get two traces on my oscilloscope screen In principle they will be the same except that one will be delayed by 30 nS.
Do you agree that's what we expect to happen (if I ever set it up)?
It's not something that I'm going to get a Nobel prize for.
-
That's an interesting, perhaps even an amusing coincidence.
As an exercise during the covid lockdown, I'm thinking of doing that experiment (well, one very much like it) .
I'm thinking about measuring the speed of light by timing it as it bounces across the room a couple of times.
I was planning to do something very much like the first experiment you have there with one inconsequential difference, I was going to use a 2 channel oscilloscope and two detectors connected to the 'scope with identical amplifiers and cables. (I wanted to avoid long cables- they are "lossy" and so they distort the signal)
I will drive the laser from a signal generator, for simplicity lets say I can drive the laser to emit a square wave light amplitude with a frequency of 10 MHz.
I bounce the light round the room a bit, to get a longer time interval to measure- something like 10 metres will give me a delay of about 30 nanoseconds.
So I will get two traces on my oscilloscope screen In principle they will be the same except that one will be delayed by 30 nS.
Do you agree that's what we expect to happen (if I ever set it up)?
It's not something that I'm going to get a Nobel prize for.
Congratulations...
Perform the mirrored experiment first and determine the c value in the atmosphere. It is both an exercise and you determine the margin of error based on 299 792 458 km / sec.
This experiment never gives c value. However, diagram evaluation among the values obtained in different directions will help interpret the gross value of the universe expansion rate (about 60% c).
Good luck.
General formula for different directions: I [(T2 - T1) c - L] I = VU (T2 - T1) I cosØ I
Vu : The relative speed of laboratory according to LCS.
You and me may write an academical paper about this.
-
If this (very similar) experiment didn't give the speed of light (in optical fibre) then people would have noticed.
https://www.picotech.com/library/experiment/speed-of-light
-
The speed of light can be determined with marshmallows and a microwave.
https://wonders.physics.wisc.edu/measure-the-speed-of-light/
This is technically neither a two-way measurement nor a one-way measurement but a zero-way since it is measuring the (half) wavelength of a standing wave. The speed of light (EM radiation, which includes microwaves) is calculated by wavelength times frequency of the microwave oven.
-
If this (very similar) experiment didn't give the speed of light (in optical fibre) then people would have noticed.
https://www.picotech.com/library/experiment/speed-of-light
People could assume that the refractive index of the optical fibre deviates from what is stated by its manufacturer.
-
The speed of light can be determined with marshmallows and a microwave.
https://wonders.physics.wisc.edu/measure-the-speed-of-light/
This is technically neither a two-way measurement nor a one-way measurement but a zero-way since it is measuring the (half) wavelength of a standing wave. The speed of light (EM radiation, which includes microwaves) is calculated by wavelength times frequency of the microwave oven.
We still have to measure the actual frequency instead of taking the value on the nameplate for granted.
-
The speed of light can be determined with marshmallows and a microwave.
https://wonders.physics.wisc.edu/measure-the-speed-of-light/
This is technically neither a two-way measurement nor a one-way measurement but a zero-way since it is measuring the (half) wavelength of a standing wave. The speed of light (EM radiation, which includes microwaves) is calculated by wavelength times frequency of the microwave oven.
We still have to measure the actual frequency instead of taking the value on the nameplate for granted.
I can buy a frequency counter on eBay that will do that.
If this (very similar) experiment didn't give the speed of light (in optical fibre) then people would have noticed.
https://www.picotech.com/library/experiment/speed-of-light
People could assume that the refractive index of the optical fibre deviates from what is stated by its manufacturer.
I could measure the refractive index or, I could use a free air path and say the index is near enough to 1.
The speed of light can be determined with marshmallows and a microwave.
https://wonders.physics.wisc.edu/measure-the-speed-of-light/
This is technically neither a two-way measurement nor a one-way measurement but a zero-way since it is measuring the (half) wavelength of a standing wave. The speed of light (EM radiation, which includes microwaves) is calculated by wavelength times frequency of the microwave oven.
Since the standing waves are caused by reflection, it's a two way experiment
-
The speed of light can be determined with marshmallows and a microwave.
https://wonders.physics.wisc.edu/measure-the-speed-of-light/
This is technically neither a two-way measurement nor a one-way measurement but a zero-way since it is measuring the (half) wavelength of a standing wave. The speed of light (EM radiation, which includes microwaves) is calculated by wavelength times frequency of the microwave oven.
Yes, we know this.
Humanity has successfully measured the speed of light. There is no problem about this subject.
We are now looking for the increasing speed of the distance between a single/identified photon and its source; so, our problem is this.
-
We are now looking for the increasing speed of the distance between a single/identified photon and its source; so, our problem is this.
Not quite.
If I send a brief flash of light consisting of many photons through empty space, they all arrive at the same time.
So there is no difference between timing a single photon (which is exceptionally difficult) and timing a group of photons.They all travel at the same speed anyway.
-
We are now looking for the increasing speed of the distance between a single/identified photon and its source; so, our problem is this.
Not quite.
If I send a brief flash of light consisting of many photons through empty space, they all arrive at the same time.
So there is no difference between timing a single photon (which is exceptionally difficult) and timing a group of photons.They all travel at the same speed anyway.
Yes photon packet. However, if we use an analog cinema film the photon packet will draw a line on film strip. The first and last point of this line represent a single or identified photon.
For video film, we can use a led marker for this.
-
In order to label the measured speed as a relative value, it is necessary to measure the speed in one direction as in mechanical.
When the speed of light is measured as bidirectional (roundtrip) and the measured value is defined as the speed of moving away from the laboratory environment (i.e. fully relative), the analysis results in the special relativity theory.
The speed of moving away from the source of a photon can only be determined by one-way speed measurement.
However, unidirectional measurements do not give the c value.
Somebodies think they are doing SR defense by claiming that one-way measurement cannot give the speed of light. Because they hope the value c again.
However, one-way measurements give a different speed value: c +/- Vu
This result clearly reveals the basic mistake of SR.
-
Well, I'm still thinking of doing the experiment. Driving a laser with a 10 MHz square wave isn't trivial.
What do you think I will get if I do the experiment as I suggested.
I will have with 2 sensors - one feeding each of the 2 channels on my 'scope.
One sensor sampling the light before it's sent across the room and back (about 10 metres round trip) , and the other sampling it after it has made the trip.
Do you agree that what I should expect to get is a pair of signals, one of which is delayed WRT the other by about 30nS?
-
Well, I'm still thinking of doing the experiment. Driving a laser with a 10 MHz square wave isn't trivial.
What do you think I will get if I do the experiment as I suggested.
I will have with 2 sensors - one feeding each of the 2 channels on my 'scope.
One sensor sampling the light before it's sent across the room and back (about 10 metres round trip) , and the other sampling it after it has made the trip.
Do you agree that what I should expect to get is a pair of signals, one of which is delayed WRT the other by about 30nS?
Vu = ~60 % c (according to my first study: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258810900_Light_kinematics_to_analyze_space-time )
Thereby the results of one way measuring the speed of light will be found interval 0.40 c - 1.60 c
In my opinion the distance must be 20 meters in accordance with the precision of ossiloscope.
https://www.picotech.com/library/experiment/speed-of-light (https://www.picotech.com/library/experiment/speed-of-light)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kQdJ-XJt98 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kQdJ-XJt98)
-
In my opinion the distance must be 20 meters in accordance with the precision of ossiloscope.
I have a rather better 'scope.
100MHz b/w 1 Gs/sec
And, at least to start with, I plan to measure the 2 way path- bounced off a mirror.
-
"A purely logical approach to Special Relativity" by mauro marchionni
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332863521_A_purely_logical_approach_to_Special_Relativity
Measuring the absolute speed of the Earth by mauro marchionni
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332798220_Measuring_the_speed_of_the_Earth
-
The experiment was performed.
-
The experiment was performed.
What experiment?