0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: xersanozgen on 29/04/2020 16:41:48Gravity 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.
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.
Quote from: xersanozgen on 29/04/2020 18:35:34If 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.
If you ask with google, you may find many text about flaws of SR.
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.
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.
Present measuring experiment can measure only the universal value of light's velocity.
The value c is relative speed according to outer space.
The theory of special relativity considers this value c as relative speed according to its source or local and every frame.
Persons who wants to find local relative speed
Quote from: xersanozgen on 03/05/2020 12:42:06Present measuring experiment can measure only the universal value of light's velocity.1- Right we always the speed of light as c.Quote from: xersanozgen on 03/05/2020 12:42:06The value c is relative speed according to outer space.2-Do you have evidence for this or is it just a feeling?Quote from: xersanozgen on 03/05/2020 12:42:06The 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.Quote from: xersanozgen on 03/05/2020 12:42:06Persons who wants to find local relative speed4-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.
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
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.
Quote from: xersanozgen on 03/05/2020 20:32:251- 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.Quote from: xersanozgen on 03/05/2020 20:32:25it 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.Quote from: xersanozgen on 03/05/2020 20:32:25The 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.
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.
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).
It is SR's claim.
I will offer an experiment to measure for this speed c +/- VU on my new paper.
I don't know what the 'increasing speed of distance' is
This speed of the car is called "exact/genuine relative".This kind of relativity is called "hypothetical / so-called /pseudo relativity"
It travels on electro-magnetic cycle bed.
Which one is the relativity type of the photon ?
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.
Quote from: xersanozgen on 05/05/2020 15:08:23 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.Quote from: xersanozgen on 05/05/2020 15:08:23It travels on electro-magnetic cycle bed.3- also sounds like a term you made up.Quote from: xersanozgen on 05/05/2020 15:08:23Which one is the relativity type of the photon ?They are the same, so it's a pointless question.[/quote1- The source :SCIENCE "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?
Quote from: xersanozgen on 05/05/2020 15:08:23A car accelerates by applying force to the road.Correct.Quote from: xersanozgen on 05/05/2020 15:08:23The distance between the starting point and the car always increases with the car speed.Correct, v/t = d.Quote from: xersanozgen on 05/05/2020 15:08:23This 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.Quote from: xersanozgen on 05/05/2020 15:08:23The 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.Quote from: xersanozgen on 05/05/2020 15:08:23If 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.Quote from: xersanozgen on 05/05/2020 15:08:23These two cars do not apply force to each other for this speed.Of course not, why do you feel that needed to be specified?Quote from: xersanozgen on 05/05/2020 15:08:23This 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. Quote from: xersanozgen on 05/05/2020 15:08:23The 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.Quote from: xersanozgen on 05/05/2020 15:08:23It travels on electro-magnetic cycle bed.I do not know what that means. A photons is an oscillating electromagnetic wave.Quote from: xersanozgen on 05/05/2020 15:08:23Which 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'
1- The source :SCIENCE
Distinguishing feature is how does the object obtain its speed.
3- Are you kidding?This is Maxwell' definition for the propagation of light.
Quote from: xersanozgen on 05/05/2020 21:36:221- The source :SCIENCESo then give me a link to reputable source where science says this.Quote from: xersanozgen on 05/05/2020 21:36:22Distinguishing 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.Quote from: xersanozgen on 05/05/2020 21:36:223- 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".
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
However, are you sure for your nature science or technical education? Because you ask a source or a third person' reference for everything.
And I want to repeat: Is this section NEW THEORIES?
Quote from: xersanozgen on 05/05/2020 21:39:20Never mind. Lorentz and Poincare had not known this nuance too.You are trying to discredit me by lumping me in with Lorentz and poincare?