0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: xersanozgen on 31/10/2019 11:08:50Probably, you claims that the tests of GR verifies/protects the SR.Special relativity has passed all of its tests as well, even without general relativity needing to be considered. The speed of light in a vacuum has been measured as being invariant in all reference frames, which is exactly what special relativity predicts. E=mc2 is a direct consequence of special relativity and has been measured to be correct to extreme precision: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW7DW9NIO9MBoth E=mc2 and speed of light invariance are good evidence for the accuracy of special relativity. Time dilation and length contraction follow inevitably from speed of light invariance. The only way that the speed of light can be invariant in all reference frames is if space and time change in such a way that any attempt to measure the speed of light will come up with the same value.Quote from: xersanozgen on 31/10/2019 11:08:50In my opinion, naked scientists must not confine himself to this "yes".They don't. If sufficient experimental evidence against the accuracy of special relativity was acquired some day, then it would be falsified and we could discard it. However, no such thing has happened yet.Quote from: xersanozgen on 31/10/2019 11:08:50A comparing material for Muon lifetime is inevitable. If not, you cannot know/detect the increasing of natural muons' lifetime; and attetion for that point: the speeds of natural muons and lab. mouns (comparison material) are a big fraction of c; as if, they are equal. So this reality cannot explain the effect of SR. Sometimes, scientific articles may include similar wrong interpretation ( e.g. please remember the Cold fusion case in Nature Journals) . No problem for people who convinced.You keep talking about the muon thing and seem to forget that is far from the only evidence for special relativity. Even if we never knew anything about muons at all, we would still have more than sufficient evidence in favor special relativity's accuracy.Quote from: xersanozgen on 31/10/2019 11:08:50The forum policy may forbid to discuss SR and GR like a religion or basic law. And I'll be enlightened that the date is early yet for new alternative theories, advanced horizontals about light kinematics and cosmology.Your light kinematics model has been falsified because it predicts results that are at odds with experimental data.
Probably, you claims that the tests of GR verifies/protects the SR.
In my opinion, naked scientists must not confine himself to this "yes".
A comparing material for Muon lifetime is inevitable. If not, you cannot know/detect the increasing of natural muons' lifetime; and attetion for that point: the speeds of natural muons and lab. mouns (comparison material) are a big fraction of c; as if, they are equal. So this reality cannot explain the effect of SR. Sometimes, scientific articles may include similar wrong interpretation ( e.g. please remember the Cold fusion case in Nature Journals) . No problem for people who convinced.
The forum policy may forbid to discuss SR and GR like a religion or basic law. And I'll be enlightened that the date is early yet for new alternative theories, advanced horizontals about light kinematics and cosmology.
Quote from: xersanozgen on 31/10/2019 11:08:50In my opinion, naked scientists must not confine himself to this "yes".So, in your opinion we should get it wrong.Why is that?Quote from: xersanozgen on 31/10/2019 11:08:50 please remember the Cold fusion case in Nature JournalsYes, I remember. They published it with a huge disclaimer effectively saying "we don't really trust this".And they were right to do so, because it turned out that one bad experiment wasn't enough to overturn science.It doesn't seem relevant to the current discussion.Quote from: xersanozgen on 31/10/2019 11:08:50The forum policy may forbid to discuss SR and GR like a religion or basic law.It does nothing of the sort.It does ask anyone trying to say GR doesn't work to provide evidence.You didn't
please remember the Cold fusion case in Nature Journals
The forum policy may forbid to discuss SR and GR like a religion or basic law.
Quote from: xersanozgen on 31/10/2019 11:08:50However, publicated articles are sufficient for people who wants to believe. Nobody gets upset. SR is already a publicated article. Why do we discuss?In your case, you do not discuss.You just bleat that it's wrong, without giving us any reason to believe you.
However, publicated articles are sufficient for people who wants to believe. Nobody gets upset. SR is already a publicated article. Why do we discuss?
FINAL
If you are so sure about SR and GR; in this case you do not need to worry.
And the source has to follow its photon for SR’s inferences.
SUMMARY AND FINAL1- SR prefers the “genuine relativity (at the meaning of The value ' c ' is the speed of moving away from its source; also after releasing f moment for the photon)” for the motion relation of a photon and its source. LCS (Light coordinate system) concept uses the kind of “hypothetical relativity” for this relation. After releasing moment, the source can go to different directions according to its photon. 2- SR prefers “relativity method” and assigns local objects (source/train/peron) for the role of reference frame. And the source has to follow its photon for SR’s inferences. LCS concept uses outmost/external frame (outer space/LCS) for common reference frame. After emitting, the source can go to anywhere freely. 3-SR considers that the K’ person will measure the velocity of light by the value ‘c’ and the photon will move away with this speed from its source. LCS concept sees the natural reality (continuousness of the event as a film) clearly: The photon and its source travels on parallel ways and K’ person never aware that he always measure the universal velocity of light (according to space not its source; because the measured values are isotropic). 4- SR predicts that the way ( in figure: distance AB)of the photon will contract because of the relative speed of moving body ( v ). LCS concept absolutely sees the serious problem that the moving body has not yet travelled the way AB. The moving body performs a success in shortening the path it has not yet gone. (*) 5-SR prioritize to verify Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction. LCS method prioritize Light Kinematics and cosmology 6-SR never allow cosmological analysis because of non-simultaneity of astronomical parameters. LCS method provides a possibility for cosmological analysis; and it can calculated the current age of universe quite elaborately than 1/ Ho. 7- SR is an inference of earth-centric paradigm.LCS concepts uses universal scale and it considers that to assign local objects as reference frame can cause wrong perception like our humanity lesson about “Sun rotates around the Earth”.FinallyIt seems that the theory of special relativity will live for 2-3 centuries although these arguments and alternative functional LCS method; because, the people has already infected by SR. And some ones like me will be exposed to the mobbing by polemics, empty rhetoric etc.(*) incredible miracleFor enthusiasts : Unsolved Problems in Special and General Relativity : Florentin Smarandachehttps://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgxwDrvJCgdTLPvxbSMzFHvHtwVSD
Someone (who claimed to know the theory well) would catch my mistake.
You keep posting nonsense.
Please wait.(I want to give a key clue: shortening of the photon's way.)