0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: xersanozgen on 02/09/2019 12:13:49If we can measure only/just universal velocity of light (that, isotropic quality of measurement experiments indicates this); the theory of SR is wrong.Don't understand what you mean by 'universal velocity of light' that 'isotropic quality of measurement experiments indicate'.You're saying that if measurements are confined to whatever it is you are indicating, SR predicts a different result for these measurements? If not, in what way is it wrong?
If we can measure only/just universal velocity of light (that, isotropic quality of measurement experiments indicates this); the theory of SR is wrong.
The universal velocity of light is the value according to THE OUTMOST FRAME / LCS.
Our present experiment can measure just the light's velocity that is at this meaning. we don't measure local relative speed of light; although our intent.
If we adapt the value of source speed according to same frame we can realize a cosmolgical analysis. We don't need relativity method.
Anyway, please ignore multiverse. The velocity of light is 'c' according to outmost reference frame (SR does not object this).
Quote from: HalcVelocity of a given photon is different relative to Earth than it is relative to the sun. I could not understand this. SR says that a photon moves away by the speed value 'c' from every frame. Please explain different speeds.
Velocity of a given photon is different relative to Earth than it is relative to the sun.
QuoteIf we adapt the value of source speed according to same frame we can realize a cosmolgical analysis. We don't need relativity method.No frame was specified. Sure, you called it an outermost frame, but without a specification of what frame this is, or what kind of frame (inertial, something else), it isn't a frame. I cannot determine the velocity of a random object.
- To determine the universal speed (Vu) of the source or the Earth is difficult; but, in analysis we can use it like parametric term.
The defect of SR and Lorentz is to to use the terms 'c' and 'v' in the same equation/formula. the 'c' is a value according to LCS and the the 'v' is a value according to local place (train or earth).
The values of parameters must be decided/calibrated according to same reference frame (this is a requirement in accordance with methodology).
Universal speed of light is a constant, so it isn't according to anything. It just is.There is no universal velocity of light since velocity differs from one photon to the next, and from one frame to the next for the same photon.
Your statement says that if we can only take a subset of measurements, SR would be wrong. What in SR requires the ability to take these additional measurements?
1-Yes, the essential condition of SR is inertial frame (uniform motion).
for example, if a player has uniform motion and when he throw a ball, the distance between the player and the ball does not change by the ball's speed.
2- Light coordinat system (LCS) is a virtual/hypotetical frame. For analyses the surface of a page can be used as LCS and we have a possibility cosmological analysis.
4- SR claims to advance the physics for universal scale.
5- Nature never care our possibilities. Yes we cannot know universal speed of local things /train/ earth.
6- We human have a habit to consider tangible things for reference frame.
Light is a universal reality. We may/must consider the light itself for competent reference frame.
6- Lake surface is an analogical experiment for the relation of a photon and its source. It indicates the advantage of a common reference frame. And it easily explains that the velocity of light is independent from the speed of its source.
By definition, the rate of change of distance between the player and the ball is the ball's speed relative to the player. If you get a different speed, you're specifying against a different frame than the one in which the player is stationary. How can you not know these simple things?
Sounds to me like specification of a frame in which the surface of a page is stationary, which seems to have nothing to do with something related to a coordinate system based on light. Why surface? Does the page define a different frame than does the surface of a page?
But the inferences of this opinion include mystical/fantatic results.
Yes the resultant speed of the ball is vectorial total of the speeds of the player and the ball according to ground. We use two speeds. SR uses only one of speeds by considering Galilean relativity principle. Whereas, even if the source (the player) has uniform motion; we cannot use the player as an inertial frame.
I take this back. You seem to not know the definitions of the most simple terms and your description of physics is a couple centuries out of date. Take a middle school physics class which may not cover the differences between Newton and Einstein, but it at least gets you a glossary of the terms.
Quote from: xersanozgen on 02/09/2019 12:13:49But the inferences of this opinion include mystical/fantatic results.Like what?
Like "time dilation", "FitzGerald contraction", time travel, "twin paradox", etc.
Im not sure how J.K.R would put it in the story though. F&G just come up, Oy, Harry We have these special sweets that will put you back in time? She needs the trio to find them probably.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/09/2019 13:41:01Quote from: xersanozgen on 02/09/2019 12:13:49But the inferences of this opinion include mystical/fantatic results.Like what?Like "time dilation", "FitzGerald contraction", time travel, "twin paradox", etc.
Quote from: xersanozgen on 08/09/2019 20:49:43Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/09/2019 13:41:01Quote from: xersanozgen on 02/09/2019 12:13:49But the inferences of this opinion include mystical/fantatic results.Like what?Like "time dilation", "FitzGerald contraction", time travel, "twin paradox", etc.Those are real.Just because you don't understand them doesn't mean they don't exist.Do you realise that you are arguing against reality?
I interested light kinematics and realized a cosmological analysis (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhyEs..26...49E). The defects of SR was emerged like a byproduct of this study.I wanted to share this new ideas/arguments/clues* on this topic for naked scientists. Naked scientists may examine them; they may want to discuss or ignore. Other messages (by not internalizing and not aiming the arguments) are like polemic and they are not useful.A new idea can be significant; if it explained with arguments and reasons. You may interest or not. No problem for me.* They have technical analysis. So, the claims are not just claims.
So are you arguing that time dilation is not an observable phenomenon or what?