[Centra (OP)]

Here is my new and original theory, called The Illusion of Velocity Theory. One facet of the theory is that light in one inertial frame of reference cannot have true velocity in another inertial frame of reference in relative motion to it unless the source is located in one and the receptor in the other. The perception that light has velocity in the inertial frame of an observer if both the source and receptor are in another inertial frame which is in motion relative to it is an illusion, thus, the title "The Illusion of Velocity Theory". If the source is in one frame and the receptor in another in motion relative to it, velocity can only be measured if the person measuring it knows the distance and time between the two, which is rarely the case, since those parameters would be constantly changing and the observer would need to be in contact with observers in the other frame to have the information required to define the parameters, so generally any perception of velocity of light, or anything else, in one frame from another in relative motion to it is illusory.

 This postulate, or recognition of objective fact, happens to invalidate most, if not all, of Einstein's thought experiments involving inertial frames in motion relative to each other, because he doesn't appear to have taken those objective facts into account, they all seem to involve the perception of the velocity of light in one inertial frame from the viewpoint of another inertial frame which is in motion relative to it, as if the velocity exists in both frames, even though the source, receptor, and all parameters of velocity are located in only one of the two frames.

First I will give my definition of velocity: the quantification of motion based on the parameters of distance and time. Obviously I couldn't measure the velocity of a baseball being thrown from a pitcher to a catcher on a ball field from a moving car. How would I do that? I could obviously only do it on the ball field.

 A similar situation occurs when I try to measure the velocity of light from a laser to a target, both being mounted on posts on the ground a certain distance apart, from a rocket traveling past them at, let's say, 150,000 km/s, for instance. Neither the laser nor the target are on the moving rocket so they do not have a particular velocity in the inertial frame of the rocket. Were I to make a rough estimate of the velocity of the laser beam, based merely on visual observation, I might think that it was moving at a velocity of only 150,000 km/s, because I and the rocket were moving at 150,000 km/s in the same direction. I might make the mistake of subtracting the velocity of the beam from my own velocity. That would be an example of "the illusion of velocity".

If the rocket were traveling in a direction opposite to the direction of the laser beam, I might make the mistake of adding my own velocity to that of the laser beam, concluding that its velocity was 450,000 km/s. That would be another example of "the illusion of velocity".

The laser beam actually had no particular velocity relative to me or the rocket, because it neither originated nor terminated in the rocket, and traveled no distance therein over any period of time therein, therefore it had no velocity in the rocket which could be measured in any way, it was an "illusion of velocity", if you will.

That, my friends, is the Illusion of Velocity Theory, accept it as valid or not, as you choose. It is my original theory, much like Special Relativity was Einstein's original theory, and this forum states that members are free to post their own original theories here, which would be appropriate to a forum section entitled "New Theories". If you find a logical fallacy in the Illusion of Velocity Theory, feel free to describe it.

[Origin]

First I will give my definition of "velocity": the distance a thing travels in a certain time in a certain inertial frame. Obviously I couldn't measure the velocity of a baseball being thrown from a pitcher to a catcher on a ball field from a moving car. How would I do that? I could obviously only do it on the ball field.

Not a good start...  What you have described is speed, not velocity.  Velocity has direction too.
The speed can easily be measured from either frame, they just won't be the same.

A similar situation occurs when I try to measure the velocity of light from a laser to a target, both being mounted on posts on the ground a certain distance apart, from a rocket traveling past them at, let's say, 150,000 km/s, for instance. Neither the laser nor the target are on the moving rocket so they do not have a particular velocity in the inertial frame of the rocket. Were I to make a rough estimate of the velocity of the laser beam, based merely on visual observation, I might think that it was moving at a velocity of only 150,000 km/s, because I and the rocket were moving at 150,000 km/s in the same direction. I might make the mistake of subtracting the velocity of the beam from my own velocity. That would be an example of "the illusion of velocity".

If the rocket were traveling in a direction opposite to the direction of the laser beam, I might make the mistake of adding my own velocity to that of the laser beam, concluding that its velocity was 450,000 km/s. That would be another example of "the illusion of velocity".

The laser beam actually had no particular velocity relative to me or the rocket, because it neither originated nor terminated in the rocket, and traveled no distance therein over any period of time therein, therefore it had no velocity in the rocket which could be measured in any way, it was an "illusion of velocity", if you will.

There is no illusion, the speed of the light will be 'c' from all frames.  So sadly you are a relativity denier.  What a waste of time.

Edited to add:

If you want to define a new term for:  "the distance a thing travels in a certain time in a certain inertial frame" that is fine, but don't use the term 'velocity'.  The term velocity has a specific meeting in physics so you need to make a new term for your idea.  In normal physics we would just use the term speed and specify which frame the speed is being measured in.

[Centra (OP)]

To further expound on the Illusion of Velocity Theory, one might make the naive assumption that the illusory perception of light moving faster or slower than 300,00 km/s should require some kind of manipulation of, say, time and/or distance in one or the other inertial frames of reference. For instance, in the case of a rocket moving along a path horizontal to an observer in another inertial frame of reference, they might reach the conclusion that a laser beam fired from the trailing end of said rocket to the leading end thereof while the rocket was traveling at a velocity of, say, 150.000 km/s, relative to that observer's inertial frame of reference, would mean that some kind of adjustment had to be made in order for the beam not to seem to the observer, using a flawed conception of velocity, to be moving at 450,000 km/s in his inertial frame of reference.

Obviously, no such adjustments would be required because that scenario was a classic example of "the illusion of velocity". The beam had not in reality had a velocity of 450,000 km/s, because the velocity of the beam could not even be measured by the observer because the necessary parameters to determine velocity did not exist in his inertial frame of reference.

 A naive person might even go so far as to formulate equations to try to make the velocity of the beam in the rocket's inertial frame of reference appear to have a velocity of 300,000 km/s in the observer's inertial frame of reference. Such an exercise would of course be folly, for the simple reason that the beam could not have a velocity in the observer's frame regardless of any kind of time/length/distance manipulations. The laser beam never did have velocity in the observer's frame, and it never could have velocity in the observer's frame, because no parameters of velocity were ever present in the observer's frame, so the manipulations were completely unnecessary and pointless, a "waste of time", one might say. Such are the consequences of "the Illusion of Velocity".

[Origin]

To further expound on the Illusion of Velocity Theory, one might make the naive assumption that the illusory perception of light moving faster or slower than 300,00 km/s should require some kind of manipulation of, say, time and/or distance in one or the other inertial frames of reference.

I see, you are not here it engage in a discussion you are just here to stand on your soap box and make unsubstantiated claims.  Well have fun, I guess....

[Centra (OP)]

To further expound on the Illusion of Velocity Theory, one might make the naive assumption that the illusory perception of light moving faster or slower than 300,00 km/s should require some kind of manipulation of, say, time and/or distance in one or the other inertial frames of reference.

I see, you are not here it engage in a discussion you are just here to stand on your soap box and make unsubstantiated claims.  Well have fun, I guess....

You haven't given me anything to discuss with you yet. You said something about me describing speed and not velocity, or something like that, I disagree. Then you said of my theory "what a waste of time". I don't see how that would be considered part of a discussion. What do you expect me to say as my side of a discussion when your side was a crude insult?

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

  I've scanned through the first few posts.

It seems that the essence of your (Centra) idea is that if something isn't in the rocket and it doesn't start or terminate in the rocket then it has no quantity that you can call velocity relative to the rocket.
   That's fine, it can have something else, or nothing or whatever.

   The main thing is that you are just categorising everything or restricting everything to very specific situations.  Your velocites are only defined when the thing is in the rocket, for example.   There is whole different class of quantities that are velcoties for things outside the rocket.   The two classes of velocities are just different, you can't mix the two and any attempt to measure one (let's say the outside velocities) while you are inside the rocket fails and you just have an illusion of a velocity that the thing would have had if it had been inside the rocket.

   Potentially you could develop a theory like this.  However let's just pause for a moment and ask some questions:
1.  Why would you do this?
2.  Would it be useful?

    We could categorize everything in science and have different descriptions for everything:   For example, instead of building theories that suggest wood behaves like a collection of atoms in a certain configuration,  we can just say - wood behaves like wood.  Similarly brick is brick and behaves like brick.  We can be even more specific:   Oak is different to just any old piece of wood...   Oak is Oak and behaves like Oak.   We can keep going,   this splinter of Oak is this splinter and behaves like this splinter      etc.  etc.
    Ultimately we can (or can try to) list all the things that exist in the universe and all the properties that each thing has.   What we've got is a complete description of everything in the universe, all of its properties and all of its behaviours.  It's just that it isn't all that useful for human beings.   A complete list of everything and its properties is not as useful as a small number of simple models.

    It has been useful to have an idea of velocity that applies to things in the rocket and also outside of the rocket and special relativity has been a reasonable method to combine velocities (we've got an addition formula for relativistic velocities etc).  So why would you want to separate the velocities into different classes like you are suggesting?

Would it be useful?
    In the case of your theory, somehere and at some time people will want to consider how the movement of things outside the rocket might interact or influence things that are inside the rocket.  So sooner or later there needs to be some way of fittiing together velocities for things outside the rocket with velocities inside the rocket, or some method of determining how, why or if   stuff out there affects suff in here.    That cross-over might very well end up looking a lot like the velocity addition formula of special relativity.  If that is what you have in mind then all you will have done is change some vocabulary (the underlying results will remain the same).
   Otherwise, if you are just going to avoid discussing or developing any ideas of how velocities out there might compare, influence or interact with things in the rocket,   then you've got to question if your theory would be useful.

   However, on the face of it, you can consider the velocities of everything outside the rocket to be a completely different type of thing to velocities inside the rocket if you want.  It seems harmless but just not useful. 

   It might also interest you (Centra) to know that your idea isn't silly.  It has a lot in common with something that has already been done.  However, by the same token, there is no need to re-invent the wheel and it would be worth looking at what has already been done first.
    In General Relativity there can be an extremely complicated non-Euclidean geometry in space.    Now we can always identify a velocity for an object in space at any position.   However, we cannot easily translate that into a velocity that the object would have if it was just picked up and put somewhere else.   There is an entire procedure and a chapter in most textbooks that discuss the ideas we require to do something called the parallel transport of a vector through curved space.   I'm going to paraphrase this:  An object can have a velocity that describes motion in a particular direction (let's say along the x-axis) but space is so distorted (non-Euclidean) that no x-axis direction can be identified at some other point in the space.  So no object can move in the x-axis direction at that other point in space, that direction simply does not exist there.   So in General relativity, velocities are vectors that are tied down to the position in space where the object is located.  Only in certain geometries (for example in flat space) can you directly compare (add and subtract) velocities that belong to objects from different locations in the manifold.
   Anyway, it's not exactly the same as the ideas you are presenting but you can see that there is a massive overlap.  Someone has already considered the possibility that velocities are tied down to the observers location and you cannot reliably measure the velocity of a more distant object and express that as a vector that exists at the observers location.

   This post is already too long.  I'm just hoping that you (Centra) will recognise that your ideas aren't completely silly, they're OK and could quite possibly be developed into a good theory.  However, it's not useful and something like this has already been done.  It's always worth looking to see what has already been done before trying to present a new theory and it is always worth asking if the new theory will actually be useful.

Best Wishes.

[Centra (OP)]

I'm just hoping that you (Centra) will recognise that your ideas aren't completely silly, they're OK and could quite possibly be developed into a good theory.  However, it's not useful and something like this has already been done.  It's always worth looking to see what has already been done before trying to present a new theory and it is always worth asking if the new theory will actually be useful.

Best Wishes.

I don't expect my theory to be useful for anything, it's just for contemplating how things work, there's no commercial application, it's simply my way to look at situations like those that I've seen in Einstein thought experiments. He called his view a theory so I call my alternative view of similar situations a theory.

One way to look at it is that if light has a constant velocity which is independent of the emitter's motion then couldn't you use that to determine whether or not you were in uniform motion in a straight line, which is supposed to be impossible? Say you fire a light beam and it has to stay at a certain velocity even though you and the emitter move forward in the same direction, essentially catching up with it to some slight degree, couldn't you just have a detector at a certain constant distance in front of the emitter and see how much longer it takes for the light to reach the detector than the constant velocity of light would take in a true stationary reference frame, if that existed? Wouldn't it take longer for the light to reach the detector the faster your motion was, because the detector is getting farther ahead of it than it was when the light was emitted, making the light have to try to catch up with it, making its path longer than the normal distance between the emitter and detector when stationary? In reality, we know that no matter how much you accelerate a rocket, for instance, once you stop accelerating and are in a uniform motion at the greater velocity than when you started accelerating, it still takes exactly the same amount of time for a light beam to travel between two points in that same direction as before you accelerated.

That proves that in a frame which is in uniform motion, light behaves exactly the same as if the frame was considered stationary, therefore, isn't it logical that if you view that rocket from, say, the ground, that it would look exactly the same as if it were stationary? You wouldn't see two beams which were fired in opposite directions at the same time with one fire button looking like they were fired at two different times, or one appearing to travel faster or slower than the other. Isn't it logical that you should not be able to tell the difference between whether or not it was moving or stationary relative to your frame by the appearance of the two beams?

Thanks for saying "best wishes" at the end of your post, that was nice of you, best wishes to you as well, Eternal Student.

[Centra (OP)]

A theory makes predictions, and lacking the mathematics, this presumably seems to make no different predictions as Newton's falsified model. Lacking those predictions, it isn't a theory, just a soapbox blog.

No, it's am Illusion of Velocity Theory forum thread, you just misinterpret it as something else, but it's an "illusion". You not believing that my theory is a theory does not make it a non-theory. Here's the definition: "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained." My theory intends to explain why people may perceive their observation of light travel to be at a greater velocity than it actually is. It is based on the general principles of measuring velocity and how they can be misinterpreted. I also don't know what you're talking about in regard to a "soapbox". Apparently you're more familiar with soapboxes than I am.

Here's my prediction, I predict that a person in one frame will misinterpret a light beam moving horizontally along a path in front of them as part of another frame which is in relative motion to his as having a velocity in his own frame when, in reality, it doesn't. That velocity can be referred to as an "illusion of velocity".

Here's the real velocity of light, not the time it takes to travel in a straight line between two points, but the time it takes in a series of straight lines at angles to each other to circumscribe a certain area. This is confirmed by the "Sagnac effect". What I mean is that if you fire a light beam at a mirror which is angled at 120 degrees to the beam, and then have it reflect off another mirror the same distance from the first one as the first mirror was from the light source at 120 again and then at the same distance from that mirror you place a light detector, the perceived velocity of the light beam will be based not on the total length of the path but on the area contained within that half hexagon shape. If you  add another such mirror you will have added another 120 degree angle to the light path, increasing the total area contained by 33%, and so on until a full hexagonal path is formed. Every time you added another section to the hexagon you increased the area circumscribed by the light beam at the same rate as you increased the length of the path.

Now if you arranged numerous mirrors in such a way that the path zig-zagged in numerous directions within the same hexagonal shape, the total area circumscribed still could not total more than that of the hexagon, in fact it would be less, because in order to stay within the hexagon some corners would have to be cut, otherwise the shape would be the exact same hexagon, but the total length of the path would be longer. Would the time taken for the light to complete its course back to its source in a loop be more or less than the time it took in the hexagon shaped path? If it was not subjected to rotation, presumably yes, but what about if the whole thing was rotated? Which path would show the greatest shift? Maybe the shorter path of the hexagon with its greater circumscribed area, which seems contradictory.

 If you say the correct answer is more then you may be contradicting the actual experimental results of the Sagnac effect. At least that's my interpretation based on what I've read about the Sagnac effect. They didn't actually do the thought experiment I just described but they do say that the results are based on the total area that the light path contained, the more area, the greater the offset between to opposite direction beams when the apparatus is rotated. It didn't say the greater the length of the light path, just the greater the area contained within the loop, which did not need to be circular, any random shape will work, from my understanding of it, which could very well be wrong. I'm not trying to state definitively how the Sagnac effect works, just my current understanding of it, which is very limited, but my current understanding of it leads me to believe that the result I predicted would be the real result if the experiment were carried out. It seems that increasing the area has more effect than increasing the path length, which you could easily do by making it more convoluted.

So this may be another form of illusion of velocity, believing that the velocity of light is based on its path length rather than the area that its path circumscribes. It may very well be the same as with planetary orbit. With an elliptical orbit, the velocity of the planet increases at certain parts of the ellipse and reduces at other parts, but it takes the same amount of time to cover the same area contained within that orbital section with the sun as the central point of that area, or maybe the center of the total area within the ellipse, I'm not sure at the moment, but I saw a video of an old black and white science education film and it said that the speed was based on the area, I'll have to try to find it again. But point being, from my current understanding, it's not based on the length of the path section between the two lines. For the Sagnac effect to work as it does, wouldn't the velocity of light have to change along its path in exactly the same manner as the planet's velocity changed in its path? Maybe I'm wrong but maybe I'm right, hard to say at the moment. Granted the Sagnac effect is probably not exactly the same as the orbit effect I described, because there's no perceived force acting on the light beam as with a planet in orbit, but it may be something along similar lines.

In a straight path the velocity apparently would be constant, because it's not circumscribing an area, or the area is unlimited, but what if the path bounces in such a way that it does circumscribe an area? Would that effect the velocity along the path? You wouldn't think, being just a series of straight paths, I don't know, I think it's a possibility that should be considered though. It would think would be the same UNTIL you subjected the whole thing to rotation, so how is rotation affecting the velocity of light in that same series of straight paths? What is rotating it doing to make the light behave differently from when the apparatus is not rotated? The path is exactly the same, light can't be affected by centrifugal force, so what's actually happening? The mystery is why can you measure rotational motion with light using a series of straight paths at angles to each other, but you can't measure the motion of the same series of straight paths connected together without any angles? It doesn't even have to be sudden rotation, which would involve acceleration, you can use a Sagnac apparatus to measure the rotation of the earth itself, which is obviously constant.

Writing this part later, I did find the old film about orbit being related to area. If you view this video starting at 11:20 you'll see what I was referring to.

[Colin2B]

I'm sure at the moment, but I saw a video of an old black and white science education film and it said that the speed was based on the area, I'll have to try to find it again.

You are probably thinking of Kepler’s 2nd law “A line joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time”

[Centra (OP)]

You are probably thinking of Kepler’s 2nd law “A line joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time”

Thanks for that, I didn't know it had a name. But how else could you explain the light beam return times being dependent on the total area rather than the total path length? At least that's my current understanding of it, the subject is rather complicated.

 What if you had separate paths for the two beams, two different loops, and they both had equal area but different lengths? If, when rotated, the difference in return times were the same as when both paths were equal length and the area the same, that would mean that the velocity of light was faster in the longer path than the shorter path would it not? It would have sped up to cover the same area using a longer path. I don't know if that's what would actually happen, someone would have to conduct the experiment.

[Centra (OP)]

As a followup to the line of thought in my previous post, I found an article where they used a conveyor type fiber optic apparatus and found that the Sagnac effect didn't depend on the area after all, just the length of the path and the speed of movement, and that it was the same for uniform motion as for rotational, which was the purpose for using a conveyor type arrangement having straight paths. By varying only the lengths of the straight parts they were able to show that the same effect occurred in non-rotating paths, the results changing with different lengths of those straight paths.

What this means in regard to the velocity of light I'm not sure. It appears that light velocity may not be independent of the motion of the source and detector, which were in motion with the fiber, unlike in experiments such as Fizeau and Michelson-Morley, where they were stationary. Here are two quotes from the article, the second one being the conclusion:

While the phase shift in the Sagnac effect is often expressed using the enclosed area as a factor, our results indicate that the length and speed of the moving fiber are the fundamental factors, rather than the enclosed area...

The travel-time difference of two counter-propagating light beams in moving fiber is proportional to both the total length and the speed of the fiber, regardless of whether the motion is circular or uniform. In a segment of uniformly moving fiber with a speed of v and a length of Δl, the travel-time difference is 2vΔl/c2.

Modified Sagnac experiment for measuring travel-time difference
between counter-propagating light beams in a uniformly moving fiber

Ruyong Wang, Zi Zhengb, Aiping Yaob, Dean Langley

.

[Centra (OP)]

Take your 300,000 km object, moving along its length as you describe.  There is one observer at one end with both an emitter and detector, and just a mirror at the other end. No different clocks to worry about synchronizing. If the object (rocket) is stationary, it takes light one second to go each way, so a 2-second round trip.  If it is moving at half light speed, it takes 2 seconds to get to the mirror and 2/3 seconds to get back for an elapsed time of not 2, but 2.66 seconds. By noting the different time it takes for light to make the round trip, one can detect absolute motion.

So you claim that, in an inertial frame in uniform motion, it's possible to detect that you're moving? Interesting, since it contradicts Einstein's postulates and I took you for a member of the Einstein Fan Club, but I guess not.

But you gave it one in your description above, so you contradict yourself. You said it was 150,000 one way and 450,000 the other way.

Looks to me like I said:

"based merely on visual observation, I might think that it was moving at a velocity of only 150,000 km/s

and

I might make the mistake of adding my own velocity to that of the laser beam, concluding that its velocity was 450,000 km/s.

That does not seem to me to be the same as:

You said it was 150,000 one way and 450,000 the other way.

I guess I shouldn't be too hard on you though, you seem like an alright guy compared to some I've dealt with in forums. You're making a sincere effort anyway.

[Bored chemist]

I don't expect my theory to be useful for anything

It's not a theory, but you are right about it not being useful.

[Centra (OP)]

It's not a theory, but you are right about it not being useful.

Good of you to acknowledge I was right. But didn't you see the word "theory" in the title? That's your clue that it's a theory. You sound like you just might be a victim of the illusion of velocity. Came here for treatment huh? Okay, lay down on the coach. Now when did you first think you saw some velocity? Tell me all about it.

[Centra (OP)]

Something occurred to me about the article I quoted earlier.

While the phase shift in the Sagnac effect is often expressed using the enclosed area as a factor, our results indicate that the length and speed of the moving fiber are the fundamental factors, rather than the enclosed area...

The travel-time difference of two counter-propagating light beams in moving fiber is proportional to both the total length and the speed of the fiber, regardless of whether the motion is circular or uniform. In a segment of uniformly moving fiber with a speed of v and a length of Δl, the travel-time difference is 2vΔl/c2.

Modified Sagnac experiment for measuring travel-time difference
between counter-propagating light beams in a uniformly moving fiber

Ruyong Wang, Zi Zhengb, Aiping Yaob, Dean Langley

Why would the length of the fiber matter? Both beams would still be traveling equal distances regardless of the length of the fiber, so how could the length make the fringe shift differ? I could see the contained area possibly making a difference but how could the length? The article said the area didn't make a difference but the length did. Wouldn't that indicate a drag/counter-drag effect by the fiber material on the light?

It also occurred to me that it's not really a case of uniform motion in a straight line just because parts of the fiber are straight, they're still parts of a rotating fiber because they're connected to the parts that go around the rotors.

[Bored chemist]

But didn't you see the word "theory" in the title?

Good point.
"The Illusion of Velocity Theory"
You do not have a theory.

That's your clue that it's a theory.

No.
It is proof that you do not know what the word means.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results."

What you have is hogwash.

Okay, lay down on the coach.

LOL

[Centra (OP)]

"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results."

Under that definition, Einstein's "theories" would not be theories. Case in point, the Sagnac effect, as was experimented with in the article "On a Fringe Movement Registered on a Platform in Uniform Motion (1942)", by A. Dufour and F. Prunier   J. de Physique. Radium 3 , 9 (1942) 153-162. In that article, Einstein's "theory" of Special Relativity was tested and found invalid. So do you now consider Special Relativity not to be a theory? You would have to, if you judge it by the definition you quoted. Does that mean that nobody can refer to it as a theory in this forum?

In that experiment, the actual observed fringe shift was 0.56 um, the predicted shift according to classical theory was 0.053 um and the prediction according to the relativistic theory was 0.005 um. The authors said of the results, later mentioning the attempted rationalizations of the contradiction by Paul Languevin, an Einstein fan, and also showing them invalid:

...that is to say a value that is approximately ten times smaller, according to this last theory than according to the preceding one. The relativistic theory thus seems to be in complete dissention with the classical theory and also with the result provided by this experiment.

Thus, the relativistic theory has not, in fact, been "repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method". There have been a few clearly flawed tests, but this non-flawed one clearly proved the "theory" fallacious, by a factor of 10, which, I presume, would be sufficient in any reasonable person's eyes to be conclusive.

[Centra (OP)]

Further on the subject of the illusion of velocity, you'll find that in Einstein's thought experiments he always excludes the time taken for the light in the observed moving frame, containing the light and parameters of velocity associated with it, to travel from it to the observer's eyes in order for them to see it. That is ironic, considering that was the only velocity of light that involved the observer, whose eyes were the receptor of light whose source was in the moving frame. The velocity couldn't have been measured, without knowing the distance and time, but it did at least involve both frames. Einstein didn't examine, or construct equations relating to, that instance of actual velocity, instead, he tried to have us believe that the light that he did relate his comments and equations to had velocity in both frames, which it did not.

 Thus, Einstein's "theory" of relativity was based an the illusion of velocity, rather than actual velocity. He tried to mathematically shoehorn real velocity in one frame into matching illusory velocity in another frame by manipulating time and length to suit his purposes. I'm afraid it's not scientifically acceptable to manipulate time and length at your whim to prop up a flawed theory.

[Bored chemist]

Under that definition, Einstein's "theories" would not be theories.

Einstein's works have been tested extensively, and found to be correct within the limits of experimental error.
They meet the definition as given in the wiki article.

Why say things like that?
Why be so obviously wrong?

[Centra (OP)]

Not a good start...  What you have described is speed, not velocity.  Velocity has direction too.
The speed can easily be measured from either frame, they just won't be the same.

Actually you're correct, I defined velocity incorrectly, thanks for bringing that to my attention. I have modified that par of the post to read "First I will give my definition of velocity: the quantification of motion based on the parameters of distance and time.