0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I understood I am on wrong address to share alternative ideas about light kinematics.
Quote from: Kryptid on 10/10/2019 16:24:02 You already tried that argument and it didn't work. The equation you offered predicted a linear relationship between velocity and red shift, whereas relativity predicts an exponential one. Relativity's prediction is the one with experimental support. You tried to save the equation by claiming that you have to use "universal velocity" instead of relative velocity, but that makes the problem worse. If we did live in a world with an absolute reference frame and red shift was dependent upon absolute velocity, then the radar guns used by police officers would have to be continually calibrated throughout the day and year to reflect that change in velocity over time due to the Earth's rotation and orbit.If what you are claiming instead is that we have to measure the difference in the universal velocity of the car and the universal velocity of the radar gun, then that simplifies right back to relative velocity again. It doesn't matter if the Milky Way galaxy was sitting still or moving at 50% the speed of light in some absolute frame: the red shift detected by the radar gun would be the exact same because it's measuring relative velocity. That was known long before special relativity was even conceived of.Time dilation is also far from the only observable prediction of relativity.An illusion caused by the finite speed of light cannot explain the observation of quadrupolar gravitational waves.An illusion caused by the finite speed of light cannot explain the observation of mass-energy conversion.An illusion caused by the finite speed of light cannot explain the precession of mercury's orbit.An illusion caused by the finite speed of light cannot explain the decay rate of neutron star's orbits.
You already tried that argument and it didn't work. The equation you offered predicted a linear relationship between velocity and red shift, whereas relativity predicts an exponential one. Relativity's prediction is the one with experimental support. You tried to save the equation by claiming that you have to use "universal velocity" instead of relative velocity, but that makes the problem worse. If we did live in a world with an absolute reference frame and red shift was dependent upon absolute velocity, then the radar guns used by police officers would have to be continually calibrated throughout the day and year to reflect that change in velocity over time due to the Earth's rotation and orbit.If what you are claiming instead is that we have to measure the difference in the universal velocity of the car and the universal velocity of the radar gun, then that simplifies right back to relative velocity again. It doesn't matter if the Milky Way galaxy was sitting still or moving at 50% the speed of light in some absolute frame: the red shift detected by the radar gun would be the exact same because it's measuring relative velocity. That was known long before special relativity was even conceived of.Time dilation is also far from the only observable prediction of relativity.An illusion caused by the finite speed of light cannot explain the observation of quadrupolar gravitational waves.An illusion caused by the finite speed of light cannot explain the observation of mass-energy conversion.An illusion caused by the finite speed of light cannot explain the precession of mercury's orbit.An illusion caused by the finite speed of light cannot explain the decay rate of neutron star's orbits.
All I see is a quoting of my posts.
Quote from: xersanozgen on 12/10/2019 13:06:39Quote from: Kryptid on 10/10/2019 16:24:02 You already tried that argument and it didn't work. The equation you offered predicted a linear relationship between velocity and red shift, whereas relativity predicts an exponential one. Relativity's prediction is the one with experimental support. You tried to save the equation by claiming that you have to use "universal velocity" instead of relative velocity, but that makes the problem worse. If we did live in a world with an absolute reference frame and red shift was dependent upon absolute velocity, then the radar guns used by police officers would have to be continually calibrated throughout the day and year to reflect that change in velocity over time due to the Earth's rotation and orbit.If what you are claiming instead is that we have to measure the difference in the universal velocity of the car and the universal velocity of the radar gun, then that simplifies right back to relative velocity again. It doesn't matter if the Milky Way galaxy was sitting still or moving at 50% the speed of light in some absolute frame: the red shift detected by the radar gun would be the exact same because it's measuring relative velocity. That was known long before special relativity was even conceived of.Time dilation is also far from the only observable prediction of relativity.An illusion caused by the finite speed of light cannot explain the observation of quadrupolar gravitational waves.An illusion caused by the finite speed of light cannot explain the observation of mass-energy conversion.An illusion caused by the finite speed of light cannot explain the precession of mercury's orbit.An illusion caused by the finite speed of light cannot explain the decay rate of neutron star's orbits.All I see is a quoting of my posts.
Therefore the root postulate of SR is not consistent.
As seen, visual perceiving does not need an exponential function of parameters.
The subject of Radar: We never see any think simultaneously because of the finite/limited value of light’s velocity theoretically. However we have not any problem for nearby objects. So, negligible effects are mentioned. You are right radar system never gives exact results; but it is functional for our local distances.
Your additional proofs are not my interest area.
I study astronomy, cosmology, light kinematics.
Quote from: xersanozgen on 12/10/2019 16:22:17Therefore the root postulate of SR is not consistent. "not consistent" with what?It agrees with every single experiment ever done.
you must in some way find him to be some sort of imminent threat towards science.
And besides , this forum is full of sh1t dick eds. Go fk yourselves , cya
If you could constantly accelerate at the rate of 1g
If you could constantly accelerate at the rate of 1g you would theoretically be travelling at the speed of light in about 1 year. Could you then just keep accelerating at that rate without ever cracking the speed of light?
One can accelerate at 1G indefinitely given a continuous force on an unchanging proper mass.
In this title, the error in the root postulate of the theory and the local flaws are shared ( http://vixra.org/abs/1903.0044 ). Once these are internalized, the theory and subsequent inferences, supporting interpretations of some experiments will transfer to position of ad-hoc. The theses (against the necessity of really occurring of theory's deformations) claim that the deformations are visual. If it is visual, the different time inference of the parallel and perpendicular lights cannot be explained (the clock can show a single time). It really stands naked that it doesn't really occur (like biological / metabolic / electrical resistance). Rationalisations (self deception, psychological resistances, stock answers, vulgar attacks instead of ideas, etc.; we can see all kinds of misinformation. In the end, all you have to trust is your personal cognitive capacity. If not, nobody gets upset. SR is not indispensable in our daily lives. It is not a medical treatment. This means that the test of life is strictly limited. What is the target of using the relativity method when there is an easy and consistent gold standard method, such as the common reference system method, and then ignoring / neglecting the checks / verifying with the common reference method? This should be considered.I'm not the only voice on this. You can find many other counterparts on Google (Prof. Lutz Kayser, millennium relativity etc.)http://vixra.org/abs/1503.0187http://vixra.org/abs/1501.0226http://www.mrelativity.net/You can find other objections on Google. However, these objections are generally partial. If you want a compact one: Essential Factors of Light Kinematics and Special Relativity http://vixra.org/abs/1903.0044 In the natural approach, it is more functional to use a common reference framework and this method is the gold standard. When the relativity method is used, the result obtained should be verified by this gold method. If a physicist knows the methodology of analyzing light kinematics, he should use a single, defined photon and prioritize space conditions / big picture (continuity of light is confusing). SR's main goal was to confirm the Fitzgerald contraction. Because of this motivation, the theory preferred to enter to light kinematics by using relativity method and local reference frame. The interestingness of the inferences dazzled the eye and the logic; and caused high admiration it as if it had revealed a difficult secret of nature.Of course, in this table there will be those who do not want to give up their idol. We have seen similar efforts in this topic. When it is said that the deformations should be real and not determined by experiment; they said deformations can be visually detected by an outer observer. When it was said that visual deformations was an illusion and lacked scientific meaning, this time, physical and biological changes were put forward again. To sum up, people have success about rationalisation (deceive oneself). Humanity has experienced about "big picture" before: the world is flat, the world is the center of the universe, the sun rotates around the world, and similar opinions. In all of them, it is wrong to accept/assign the local environment or object as a reference frame and to give a relative role to other major formations. The Special Theory of Relativity is also a candidate for being one of them. I think it's too late because of positive discrimination, and probably it will come to agenda of the questioning of those who cause this delay. Of course, natural realities, energy based physics and the concept of relational integrity will be force major instead of earthcentric paradigm.
Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?This is possible. .
The experimental results show that relativity is a valid theory. We have detected gravitational waves with the properties predicted by relativity. We have seen neutron star orbits decay at the rate predicted by relativity. We have measured E=mc2 to be correct to extremely high precision. Relativity successfully explains the anomalous precession of Mercury.
However, to use them as a proof to verify SR is an misinformation. They are not even secondary proofs.