# Naked Science Forum

## On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: xersanozgen on 21/07/2019 18:06:35

Title: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 21/07/2019 18:06:35
Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?

This is possible.

If you examine and internalize the types of relativity  and light's relativity type; you can distinguish first flaw of SR.

(a) Genuine relativity: A vehicle gets its speed by pushing the road. The speed of this vehicle is defined as “genuine relative” to the road. The contribution of the road is essential. The power is applied to the road continuously for genuine relativity. The upper limit of genuine relative speed is ‘c’ (the value of light’s velocity).

(b) Hypothetical(pseudo/nominal relativity: The changing speed of the distance between two vehicles which are moving on the same road. This speed is defined as “hypothetical relative.” The vehicles do not apply power to each other. The upper limit of hypothetical relative speed is 2c (discussion section3.2).

(c) Momentary/temporary relativity: When a player throws a ball, the ball’s speed according to the player is “momentary relative”. The power has been applied momentarily. After throwing, the motion of the ball is transferred to the type of hypothetical relativity; the player can go anywhere freely. However, it can be said that the ball’s speed is “genuine relative” according to the ground. The ground is the co-reference frame for the player and ball. For genuine relativity, the starting point of the ball is marked on the ground, not by the existence of player (or his/her following positions).

Which one is significant for light (an identified photon)? SR prefers to use merely the concept of “genuine relativity” for the motion of light according to its source and every frame [4]. However, requirements of genuine relativity are not realized for light; the source and photons never apply a power for the motion. Further, the source can go in any direction freely after the photon was emitted, like the player (the increasing/decreasing speed of intermediate distance is the vectorial total of their speeds, but if an observer is an actor in the experiment he never can perceive a larger value than c). Eventually the velocity of a photon according to its source is “momentary relative” and then“hypothetical relative” in the following time.

Note: Please don't be provoked  by the title that is to aruse interest like metaphor.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/07/2019 18:14:17
Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?

This is possible.
Being cleverer than a corpse is not a big challenge.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 21/07/2019 18:27:31
Being cleverer than a corpse is not a big challenge.

If Einstein would be alive, he could understand his mistake and accept this explanation.

Please, allow yourself for examining and understanding these arguments.

You must prefer to eat the things that are servised instead of beating the servant.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: alancalverd on 21/07/2019 18:30:53
Reading a bunch of irrelevant drivel does not make one clever. Understanding relativity might.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Halc on 21/07/2019 18:31:01
This is not a question of the week.  The topic will be moved probably to new theories as it definitely contradicts accepted definitions.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 22/07/2019 01:16:31
If Einstein would be alive, he could understand his mistake and accept this explanation.

What mistake? You haven't pointed out any mistakes that Einstein made. I have no doubt that he would have known about the things you mentioned in the OP. I can't figure out what it is that you are trying to argue.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/07/2019 02:48:00
If Einstein would be alive, he could understand his mistake and accept this explanation.
I suspect that, if he was still with us, he would be embarrassed for you.
He would be aware that every single test of his ideas had shown that he was right.
In some cases that means he's right to about a dozen significant figures.

What evidence do you have that he is anything other than "correct as far as we can tell"/
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 22/07/2019 09:47:13
If Einstein would be alive, he could understand his mistake and accept this explanation.

What mistake? You haven't pointed out any mistakes that Einstein made. I have no doubt that he would have known about the things you mentioned in the OP. I can't figure out what it is that you are trying to argue.

In special relativity, the concept of "genuine relativity" is considered for the motion of a photon according to its source.

Whereas the 'c' velocity of photon is universal speed of light according to space. The emitting point of a photon must be marked on space (or LCS), not the existence of its source. The source can go anywhere freely from this point after emitting. This is an understandable option and the reality is this. We can find similar phemenon in nature: If we drop a pebble to calm surface of a lake; a ring wave will be became. The expanding speed of ring wave is a value according to the surface of the lake; is not a relative speed according to us/experimentalist.

Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 22/07/2019 09:59:20
If Einstein would be alive, he could understand his mistake and accept this explanation.
I suspect that, if he was still with us, he would be embarrassed for you.
He would be aware that every single test of his ideas had shown that he was right.
In some cases that means he's right to about a dozen significant figures.

What evidence do you have that he is anything other than "correct as far as we can tell"/

I study your reactive attitude. Yes Einstein is my an idole too. Especially for the relation E = mc^2 and Bose-Einstein density. These concepts are usefull for defining our position in universe and life.

Naked scientists have cognitive self confidence. However they can break prejudices and memorizations and they can empierce the secrets of nature.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/07/2019 12:25:23
However they can break prejudices and memorizations
And, if you give us some evidence, we might.
But, until then you are just wasting bandwidth.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Halc on 22/07/2019 12:26:58
We can find similar phemenon in nature: If we drop a pebble to calm surface of a lake; a ring wave will be became. The expanding speed of ring wave is a value according to the surface of the lake; is not a relative speed according to us/experimentalist.
Problem is that they did the same test with light, and unlike the waves on the lake (the speed of which is still unrelated to the speed of the pebble), the light waves move at constant speed relative to anything at all, including multiple observers not stationary relative to each other.  The SR theory follows from that observation.  Your idea does not.  If you disagree, suggest an experiment to demonstrate the difference, a falsification test if you will.
ago.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 22/07/2019 13:44:12
In this analogy; the ring wave represents the light; a point of the  ring represents a photon; the experimentalist represents the light source (please look at the att. fig. 3). The surface of the lake represents the space.

The source can go to anywhere, after flashing/emitting. It never follow the photon and genuine relativity is not mentioned.

Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/07/2019 16:07:00
Do you have any evidence that indicates that GR is actually wrong?
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 22/07/2019 16:32:29
Do you have any evidence that indicates that GR is actually wrong?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332902408_An_Experiment_for_Lorentz_-Fitzgerald_Contraction (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332902408_An_Experiment_for_Lorentz_-Fitzgerald_Contraction)
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/07/2019 17:16:30
Do you have any evidence that indicates that GR is actually wrong?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332902408_An_Experiment_for_Lorentz_-Fitzgerald_Contraction (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332902408_An_Experiment_for_Lorentz_-Fitzgerald_Contraction)
Well, OK, thanks for providing that.
It's evidence of a sort.
However, given that what they found was that the resistance of a length of wire didn't change by more than the resolution of their experiment (1 part in 250 or so) then they showed that the relativistic contraction was no more than 1 in 250.

The earth's orbital velocity round the galactic centre is about 230 km/s
And, if this online tool
https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059837
is right the expected contraction (and thus change in resistance) is about 0.3 parts in a million.

So, they did not see a contraction but the expected contraction is about 10,000 times  smaller than they could expect to measure.

So they have proved, at best, that GR is not wrong by a factor of more than ten thousand.

That's a pretty useless experiment.

do you have any meaningful evidence to show that GR is wrong?
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Halc on 22/07/2019 18:34:04
Do you have any evidence that indicates that GR is actually wrong?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332902408_An_Experiment_for_Lorentz_-Fitzgerald_Contraction (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332902408_An_Experiment_for_Lorentz_-Fitzgerald_Contraction)
Well, OK, thanks for providing that.
It's evidence of a sort.
It isn't since principle of relativity asserts that all local physics experiments work identically in one frame as the other.  Had the (admittedly local) experiment produced a frame dependent result as it suggests, then the theory would have been upended and a local method of demonstrating absolute position identified.

Quote
So, they did not see a contraction but the expected contraction is about 10,000 times  smaller than they could expect to measure.
They shouldn't expect any measured difference at all, per the premises of the theory.  The linked experiment verifies Einstein's view and yes, fails to falsify (due to precision limitations?) whatever view this Özgen Ersan guy holds, left unstated.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/07/2019 20:00:29
Good catch.
What I should have said  is that, if the ether existed, the experiment would still be ten thousand times too insensitive to detect it.
So, it's a rubbish experiment.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Halc on 22/07/2019 20:20:44
What I should have said  is that, if the ether existed, the experiment would still be ten thousand times too insensitive to detect it.
It was proposing detection of length contraction, not detection of ether.  Not even the etherist crowd denies length contraction, nor do they predict different results for the experiment, given perfect instruments.
Hence me not being able to tell what theory he's using that apparently predicts otherwise.
Quote
So, it's a rubbish experiment.
With that I agree.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 22/07/2019 20:55:08
Whereas the 'c' velocity of photon is universal speed of light according to space.

Its velocity in a vacuum is c according to any observer, not just "space" (whatever that means).

The source can go anywhere freely from this point after emitting.

So? What difference does that make? No matter how the source moves, the source will always observe that same photon as moving at c in a vacuum. Nothing has violated special relativity here.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 23/07/2019 12:32:35

do you have any meaningful evidence to show that GR is wrong?

My message was about SR. You suggest GR; I understand that you believe that GR indirectly supports SR.

As known, SR is subject to a special condition (uniform motion; Galilei relativity principle); so, if the source goes linear and at fixed speed, the equations are valid.

GR has been proposed to disable this condition. Einstein identified the acceleration with gravity and used its effects on the movement of light (bending) and gained repution by proving the gravitational lens during the eclipse.

Gravitational lens are a reality.

However, in my opinion, if there is no acceleration, the light bends again with the same logic; please see the attached figure.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 23/07/2019 13:08:30
In the history of science, some of the new definitions have encountered reactions. The best known of them is the Copernicus / Galilei event. Galilei had tried to tell the orbital and axial rotation of the earth. Another is the phologiston event. The definition of phlogiston made without considering oxidation which is the main factor, had to take refuge in a peculiar inference as negative weight against natural reality.

Karl Popper said that, if d number of factors can not be obtained a rational result in the analysis;  the analysis must be repeated  by d  + 1 number of factors should be repeated. It can be expressed as follows: If a nature event contains n major factors, but if the analysis is considered with n - 4 factors, this analysis can give fantastic inferences.

Light kinematics includes 6 main factors; theory SR considers only two factors, and one of them is wrong (Light's velocity is a relative value according to space; not according to its source).

The attitudes of the interlocutors against new definitions can generally be related to their cognition, goals and cognitive self-confidence:

- He/she examines the arguments, evaluates with active learning and starts to produce innovative ideas based on this new axis.
- Takes note of the new definition, decides whether or not to remember in subsequent cases.
- Takes note; although he does not confirm the new definition.
- Does not interest with the new definition conflicting with existing memorization information.
- He has prejudice; he never leave negative attitude; tries to refute/devalue arguments.
- He never examine new ideas; tries to devalue the person instead of the new definition.
- He directly rejects the new definition with scrutiny and superficial and stereotypical words.
- He may has loyalty for his opinions, by his chauvinist / fanatic  attitude.

Which of them would be a scientific approach, and which of them is preferred by Naked scientist forum Kings and Gods?
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/07/2019 13:27:05
OK, do you have any evidence that SR is wrong, other than the  known issues with SR to which GR is the solution?

i.e. do you know of any evidence that SR fails when considering zero-gravity, non-accelerated systems?
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Halc on 23/07/2019 15:07:15
Gravitational lens are a reality.

However, in my opinion, if there is no acceleration, the light bends again with the same logic; please see the attached figure.
For the second time you put out an example that suggests a violation of Galilean principle of relativity.  You have two 'cabinets' (the ones on the left and right), neither accelerating, and being considered in a frame where V is 0 on the left one and V is nonzero on the right, and they get a different result.
If the same boxes were to be considered in a frame where the one on the right is the stationary one, then the different result means there is an experiment that can be done to determine which of the two boxes is actually moving, which violates principle of relativity.

So your assertion is once again falsified, and you're not being anywhere near as clever as Einstein.  Neither am I, but I'm at least clever enough to see the flaw in your drawing.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 23/07/2019 17:27:07
Gravitational lens are a reality.

However, in my opinion, if there is no acceleration, the light bends again with the same logic; please see the attached figure.
For the second time you put out an example that suggests a violation of Galilean principle of relativity.  You have two 'cabinets' (the ones on the left and right), neither accelerating, and being considered in a frame where V is 0 on the left one and V is nonzero on the right, and they get a different result.
If the same boxes were to be considered in a frame where the one on the right is the stationary one, then the different result means there is an experiment that can be done to determine which of the two boxes is actually moving, which violates principle of relativity.

So your assertion is once again falsified, and you're not being anywhere near as clever as Einstein.  Neither am I, but I'm at least clever enough to see the flaw in your drawing.

If you read GR (https://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Einstein/Einstein_Relativity.pdf (https://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Einstein/Einstein_Relativity.pdf)) Page 88.

"However, we obtain a new result of fundamental importance when we carry out the analogous consideration for a ray of light. With respect to the Galileian reference-body K, such a ray of light is transmitted rectilinearly with the velocityc. It can easily be shown that the path of thesame ray of light is no longer a straight line whenwe consider it with reference to the acceleratedchest (reference-body K'). "

Two elevator cabinet at left on figure represents Einstein's idea. The figure at right indicates that the light's path becames inclined thougt zero acceleration; even in accordance with Einstein's idea again.

However I can understand the possibility about confusing; because, in my opinion the light keeps its horizontal path in elevator cabinet. If you have interest for this:

Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 23/07/2019 17:45:34
OK, do you have any evidence that SR is wrong, other than the  known issues with SR to which GR is the solution?

i.e. do you know of any evidence that SR fails when considering zero-gravity, non-accelerated systems?

The explanation about "types of relativity" is sufficient evidence. Einstein had considered the concept of "genuine relativity" for light's motion. Yes, he thought that measurement results  of light's velocity is a powerfull knowledge. In mechanics, speed measuring results give genuine relative value according to local frame. But this habitual opinion is not valid for light. We can measure the value of universal velocity for light. We can not measure local relative speed of light. Yes our intution was local speed; but, the measuring experiment  always gives universal velocity of light. The evidence: the measurement results are isotropic. To understand/interpret the inference of measurement experiments is possible.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/07/2019 18:11:01
The explanation about "types of relativity" is sufficient evidence.

No more so that teaching schoolchildren to do simple division before teaching them to do long division is evidence that division does not work.

You can use SR in the special cases where there is no acceleration and no gravity but if either or both of those are present you need to use GR.
But this habitual opinion is not valid for light.
That's the point of relativity. Light is weird. It always has the same speed in vacuo.

We can make measurements and do calculations using SR or GR as appropriate; and they agree.

So, once again, what evidence do you have that either SR or GR is wrong (in their field of application)?
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Halc on 23/07/2019 18:35:19
For the second time you put out an example that suggests a violation of Galilean principle of relativity.  You have two 'cabinets' (the ones on the left and right), neither accelerating, and being considered in a frame where V is 0 on the left one and V is nonzero on the right, and they get a different result.
If the same boxes were to be considered in a frame where the one on the right is the stationary one, then the different result means there is an experiment that can be done to determine which of the two boxes is actually moving, which violates principle of relativity.

If you read GR (https://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Einstein/Einstein_Relativity.pdf (https://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Einstein/Einstein_Relativity.pdf)) Page 88.

"However, we obtain a new result of fundamental importance when we carry out the analogous consideration for a ray of light. With respect to the Galileian reference-body K, such a ray of light is transmitted rectilinearly with the velocityc. It can easily be shown that the path of thesame ray of light is no longer a straight line whenwe consider it with reference to the acceleratedchest (reference-body K'). "
I was talking about the left and right figure, not the middle figure, which attempts to depict the affects of acceleration.  You quote above concerns only that case.

Quote
Two elevator cabinet at left on figure represents Einstein's idea. The figure at right indicates that the light's path becames inclined thougt zero acceleration; even in accordance with Einstein's idea again.
That's where you're wrong.  Such an inclination would violate the principle of relativity.  Read what I wrote above, which explains why it cannot be inclined like that, at least not without discarding that principle.

Quote
However I can understand the possibility about confusing; because, in my opinion the light keeps its horizontal path in elevator cabinet. If you have interest for this:

The article speaks of a different case where the light source is moving relative to the cabinet.  In that case, the dot on the far wall moves upward steadily, not remaining fixed in place.  This is not surprising.  Yes, you can tell that a light source is moving relative to you by looking out the window.  Your depiction of the light being inclined like that simply chooses a moment when the moving beam angle is not perpendicular.
The experiment does not detect a stationary cabinet, it merely detects the cabinet being relatively stationary with the light source, not because the dot is directly across, but because the dot isn't moving.

The case I'm talking about (and which seems equivalent to your pictures) is a pair of ships side by side (not particularly close, but neither ahead of the other) moving really fast, and communicating by light signals aimed perpendicular to each ship.  Those signals pass through a little window in the near wall and hit the detector directly across on the far wall, not a ways down like your diagram depicts.  Given no deflection angle, the ships have no local evidence that they're actually moving fast.

Yes, if they were both accelerating in sync, the light would not land directly acrosss, but would bend down like the middle diagram depicts.  A laser aimed directly across would in fact miss the light-window-hole in the other ship.  They'd have to adjust their aim according to the distance separating them.  All this would be the same whether they were moving significantly or not, or even if their velocity was negative.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 24/07/2019 09:24:45

So, once again, what evidence do you have that either SR or GR is wrong (in their field of application)?

In their field of app? Are there?

Some academician claims the "life time of muon" experiment to defence SR. Analyzing and conclusion of this experiment relates the result with SR.

But attention please: they considered the relative speed of natural muons according to Earth. Whereas they must consider the difference of the speeds (natural muons with laboratuar muons). Because the lifetime comparison is set with laboratuar muon. The difference of these speeds is nearly zero.

SR has many contradictions. I explained them in my book " Pseudo Science".  Simpliest one: Einstein said that "perpendicular light does not cause time dilation because of zero projection to source's way. Alright, How does the clock (on K') simultaneously indicate the proper time and slowing time ? And, in deed; different dilation ratios of on other angles.

GPS corrections (SR reasoned) is fully maniplation. Because the tolerance of GPS ~70 cm > 0.012 cm (GPS correction).
Please calculate and examine the results.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/07/2019 12:10:56
In their field of app? Are there?
The field of application of SR is the set of cases where there is no gravitational field and also no acceleration
The field of application of GR  is the entire set of cases.

So, once again I am asking you to tell me what evidence you have that SR and GR do not work.

GPS corrections (SR reasoned) is fully maniplation. Because the tolerance of GPS ~70 cm > 0.012 cm (GPS correction).
Please calculate and examine the results.
OK, I will do the calculation.
The relativistic correction to the rates of the GPS clocks is about 39 microseconds per day.
It's composed of about 7 microseconds from SR and about 46 microseconds from GR.

The speed of light is about 1 foot per nanosecond, so an error of 39 microseconds is equivalent to about 39000 feet.
That's about 12 kilometers per day.
The accuracy of GPS in the best resolution is about 0.3 metres

So, you seem to have got some made-up numbers there.

Please try to provide real evidence rather than rubbish you made up.

Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/07/2019 12:12:42
I explained them in my book " Pseudo Science".  Simpliest one: Einstein said that "perpendicular light does not cause time dilation because of zero projection to source's way. Alright, How does the clock (on K') simultaneously indicate the proper time and slowing time ? And, in deed; different dilation ratios of on other angles.
I am not going to get a copy of your book, so you need to explain what you mean here.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Halc on 24/07/2019 12:30:45
But attention please: they considered the relative speed of natural muons according to Earth.
It can also be considered in the frame of the muon, in which case the speed of Earth relative to the muon is (by definition) the same as the speed of the muon relative to Earth.  With a stationary muon that exists for such a short time, how does Earth get to it before it dies?  The answer is length contraction, not time dilation.  The distance Earth has to travel is significantly contracted, allowing Earth to get there in less time than the half life of the stationary muon.

Quote
SR has many contradictions. I explained them in my book " Pseudo Science".  Simpliest one: Einstein said that "perpendicular light does not cause time dilation because of zero projection to source's way."
I don't think Einstein used those words since it seems to make little syntactic sense.  Maybe if more context was given. So if you're going to claim a contradiction, use the actual quote, or give enough context to give meaning to the quote.
You seem to be referencing the accelerated chest example again (the only place where K' was mentioned in this topic) but I don't remember there being a clock (or any mention of dilation) in that example.  It's just an accelerating box with a dot of light on the far wall.

Quote
Alright, How does the clock (on K') simultaneously indicate the proper time and slowing time ?
Any clock always indicates its own proper time, by definition.  It means the time relative to itself.  This 'slowing time' seems to be your term for the time relative to something else, like a different frame or device or something. Your watch does not measure my proper time, but it measures yours.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Halc on 24/07/2019 12:36:04
The field of application of SR is the set of cases where there is no gravitational field and also no acceleration
Just so you know, SR indeed assumes the special case of flat space, so no gravity, but it handles acceleration just fine.  It just requires integration over time and the changing inertial reference frames.  If acceleration is instant or trivially short, even that integration isn't necessary.

Quote
The speed of light is about 1 foot per nanosecond, so an error of 39 microseconds is equivalent to about 39000 feet.
That's about 12 kilometers per day.
Mixing metric with feet?  Painful, but not inaccurate.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/07/2019 12:52:46
Mixing metric with feet?
"One foot per nanosecond" is too useful and too memorable not to use.
It's within 2% which is good enough for this sort of thing
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/07/2019 12:54:14
Just so you know, SR indeed assumes the special case of flat space, so no gravity, but it handles acceleration just fine.  It just requires integration over time and the changing inertial reference frames.  If acceleration is instant or trivially short, even that integration isn't necessary.
Thanks for the clarification.
Since the OP has failed to evince anything at all, it hardly matters here.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 24/07/2019 14:06:42
I explained them in my book " Pseudo Science".  Simpliest one: Einstein said that "perpendicular light does not cause time dilation because of zero projection to source's way. Alright, How does the clock (on K') simultaneously indicate the proper time and slowing time ? And, in deed; different dilation ratios of on other angles.
I am not going to get a copy of your book, so you need to explain what you mean here.

Thanks for this. Please examine the figure at attachment:

The frames K and K’ are on the beginning point O at the moment T. The photons of a light (like flashing) are emitted on the moment T. These photons will form a spherical surfaceon the moment T’. The source or moving body (the centre of K’) passes over the point A on the moment T’. STR and Lorentz take a photo on the moment T’ and analyze new position
(this is another facilitator attitude). Results give always the value ‘c’ for the velocities the photons P1, P2, P3,….Pi according to points K and K’. Already the aim of STR was this result.

But, there is a serious result which may be overlooked: While the velocity of light is fixed, time values change.    When the parameter is applied with negative sign ( - c ) for the point P3 in Lorentz equation; the result [ t’ (P3) > t’ (P1)] indicates clearly. Similarly, will get ( - v) for inverse option. This condition is valid for that points: K’Pi > R.

The time T' is a unique moment; but according to SR mentality, the clock of K' is required to indicate  T' for the point P1; T'' for P2; T''' for P3; T i for P i simultaneously.

A clock (which is taken place in K’ frame) never work by these different tempos simultaneously.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 24/07/2019 15:14:46
In general,

Light kinematics includes multidisciplinary, multidimensional factors (perhaps 11 dimensions). When we omit/neglect some of them,   some hypotheses that have fantastic inferences can be produced like SR.

There have been similar events in history. For example, when Darwin published the origin of species, newspapers were filled with counter-articles. they descended to Darwin for evolution concept; even, they wanted to provide catharsis themselves by saying  "rubbish".
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/07/2019 16:06:59
There have been similar events in history. For example, when Darwin published the origin of species, ...

Darwin presented evidence.
You should try it some time.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 25/07/2019 14:36:59
I don't want to expand since this topic is back to the deaf dialogue (except for new participants)

For those skilled in basic physics, the clues and arguments in this topic will be valuable. The requirements for the analysis of light kinematics are presented in the following article (the essential factors for light kinematics and special relativity: http://vixra.org/abs/1903.0044 (http://vixra.org/abs/1903.0044)) as compact and transparent. Some people who internalized this submission  will be witness "the second Galilei event" firsthand.

When light kinematics is considered with current knowledge and methodological requirements, LCS (light coordinate system)× concept is produced and a method that allows cosmological analysis is obtained (Light kinematics to analyze space time: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhyEs..26...49E (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhyEs..26...49E)). With this method, the age of the universe can be calculated more consistently; the subtleties of the uniform expansion theory and some amazing geometric situations emerge (such that the same formation of different ages can be seen in the same frame).

I have learned that the reader must be neutral in order to properly evaluate this study through those who object to me. In my opinion, proposing early the theory of special relativity without sufficient knowledge and competence and due to bribery of mystery favors has led to a paradigmatic infection and delayed the perfect definition of light kinematics and the possibility of cosmological analysis for more than 100 years (Asknown the SR does not allow cosmological analyses).  In cognitive adventures of humanity, this infection is expected to continue another 3-5 centuries (good news for those who admire the special theory of relativity).

Those who have previously detected / caught some of the contradictory clues of SR in their own analysis will obtain the most catharsis from these studies. They will find peace because a file in their mind has resulted.

× I performed a cosmological analysis by LCS concept. This study indicated the flaws of SR. So, suggesting a new/alternative theory instead of confuting a theory is more significant.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/07/2019 14:46:33
I have learned that the reader must be neutral in order to properly evaluate this study
You have not provided anything to evaluate.
Are you ever going to provide actual evidence.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 27/07/2019 09:51:20
Universe and life includes relational integrity. Even, the butterfly effect is mentioned.

Major/essential factors of an event must be considered in definition efforts. You cannot properly  analyze "the burning event"  without oxidation.

Similarly, you cannot properly analyze "Light kinematics" without the types of relativity, multi-sequential reference systems (galaxies, clusters etc)*, the option of co-reference frame, identicalness of parameters,

*  The Galaxies were not known at 1905 yet.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/07/2019 12:43:55
The Galaxies were not known at 1905 yet.
Andromeda was recorded by ancient astronomers.

The rest of you post made no sense.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 03/08/2019 11:40:48
THE MANAGEMENT OF MENTAL REFERENCES  1

During my nostalgic visit to the house which I spent my childhood, I saw the rooms small and  I amazed. When I examine this event, I understood that I have got an opinion/prejudice  about the size of the rooms by comparing according to my childhood size.

In the methodology, the rules for management of mental references has not yet been decided.  The precision is left to personal performance.

The orbit of the moon is a circle based on the earth; but if the sun is taken, the main axis is the elliptical helical spring. According to the more outer frames, it becomes like a twisted rope. Which one is right? They are all true accompanied by its references.

When expressing the speed of our car we do not need to specify what it is based on. Because we know that the measured speed value is based on the current environment*.

The special theory of relativity also applied this habitual  presupposition for the speed of light without questioning.

(*) However, it must be important to question what we measure,  especially for objects that are not objects.

To be continued.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/08/2019 12:31:37
To be continued.
Why?
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Halc on 03/08/2019 12:57:05
The special theory of relativity also applied this habitual  presupposition for the speed of light without questioning.
What presupposition?  The speed of light measured relative to Earth is the same as the speed of light measured relative to the sun, or relative to any other frame.  That's not true of anything else.

It is not a presupposition of relativity, it was an empirical observation.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 09/08/2019 13:03:27
What presupposition?  The speed of light measured relative to Earth is the same as the speed of light measured relative to the sun, or relative to any other frame.  That's not true of anything else.

It is not a presupposition of relativity, it was an empirical observation.

Well, that's right. Yes, wherever (and in all directions) we measure, we find the same value, and this is an experimental result.

This result supports two hypotheses:

1- Light always moves away from the measurement site / source with c speed.
2- With the current experiment we can measure the universal speed of light; We cannot measure the local relative speed.

SR considered the first option without questioning.

The second option is also possible.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Halc on 09/08/2019 14:57:41
Well, that's right. Yes, wherever (and in all directions) we measure, we find the same value, and this is an experimental result.

This result supports two hypotheses:

1- Light always moves away from the measurement site / source with c speed.
2- With the current experiment we can measure the universal speed of light; We cannot measure the local relative speed.

SR considered the first option without questioning.
Neither of the hypotheses of SR is one of the statements listed above.
The first is a metaphysical assertion, and is something that cannot be measured, so there is no point in positing it since it has no falsification test.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 12/08/2019 10:22:56
THE MANAGEMENT OF MENTAL REFERENCES  2

During scientific studies, each step requires interrogation and assurance within the framework of the discipline and methodology system. This interrogation was neglected for the speed of light  measurements (which speed are we measuring?); eventually, it has been directly adopted according to the local environment, according to the source. However, the measuring device is completely light-specific. It cannot measure the speed of something else and is different from other speed meters. At least because of this difference, " which type of speed can this experiment measure? ”should be questioned. But the intention was c +/- v; we used the result in the same definition. Well, can we do this interrogation now? Naked scientists can do;  romantic scientists never want to do.

According to the special theory of relativity, the speed of light is the same in every inertial frame. That is, when outer space is used as a reference frame, the speed of light is c. In fact, the measurement test only measures this speed. We find the same value everywhere and in every direction. This result is an empirical evidence that we only measure velocity in the void medium.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 29/08/2019 12:16:14
On the forums, participants are generally stuck to the measurements of light speed: Any object must move away with its measured speed. This is an  our inured opinion.

Of course, this point is an usual attitude for all people.

In our local experiences, we label the measured value of speeds as the amount of the way from the current environment per unit time; and we do not have any problems; we generally use the measured value without questioning (we skip this step); because we already know our intention. We  do not question the definition step and we use the value as relative speed according to object's first reference frame. it may not seem strange  to us to define the measured speed of light as the rate of moving away directly from its source.

Einstein and others exactly consider like this.

NOBODY needed to question which type of light’s velocity can be measured (in addition, measurement system/experiment was specific for the light : mirrored double path, uninterrupted photons, etc). The measured value has been directly accepted at the meaning of relative speed according to its source/local place.

Light is a universal phenomenon like energy and we can/must consider universal scale. We may understand to need for defining thr speed of objects (that we send into outer space) according to common reference frame with other celestial bodies instead of defining them according to the Earth.

We should be able to question which speed of light (local or universal) we measure.

On the other hand, There are also local events and phenomena for  the question "what speed?  For example, in a football game, when a player shoots, we know that the speed of the ball is relative to the ground. We know that for a moment after the shot, the distance (between the new positions of the player and the ball) cannot be calculated only by the speed of the ball; because the player moves to the new position freely after hitting the ball. However, the special theory of relativity is based on the fact that the photon is always moving away from its source with the speed c, ignoring this football sampling. Wrong assumption, that's it.

The photon relationship with the light source is like the player and ball relationship; the speed of the ball relative to the ground (Ground is the common frame; the player is not an analyzing frame). Similarly the source is not an effective reference frame for light kinematics. LCS (light Coordinate System) or outer space is a perfect operation/analyze frame for light kinematics and LCS concept allows the cosmological analyses.

Relativity method causes confusing for light kinematics.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 29/08/2019 16:54:01
However, the special theory of relativity is based on the fact that the photon is always moving away from its source with the speed c

In the reference frame of the source, it is.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 02/09/2019 12:13:49
However, the special theory of relativity is based on THE FACT / THE SPECULATION  that the photon is always moving away from its source with the speed c.

In the reference frame of the source, it is.

Yes, you are right; we can say that the measured value of  a speed is velocity of maving away. But the inferences of this opinion include mystical/fantatic results.

When the light is mentioned; we may consider/question which type of velocity (local or universal) can measured.

If we can measure only/just universal velocity of light (that, isotropic quality of measurement experiments indicates this); the theory of SR is wrong.

Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Halc on 02/09/2019 13:33:46
If 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?
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 03/09/2019 13:29:39
If 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 rank the celestial formations in accordance with their including capacity:

(Einstein's train)

Moon
Earth
Solar system
Galaxy
Galaxies cluster
Süper cluster
...
Visible universe
Multiverse
Outmost/external frame (outer space; vacuum; Light coordinate system: LCS)

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.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Halc on 03/09/2019 16:37:44
Quote from: Halc
Quote from: xersanozgen
If we can measure only/just universal velocity of light (that, isotropic quality of measurement experiments indicates this); the theory of SR is wrong.
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 rank the celestial formations in accordance with their including capacity:

Train
Earth
Solar system
Galaxy
Galaxies cluster
Süper cluster
...
Visible universe
Multiverse
Outmost/external frame (outer space; vacuum; Light coordinate system: LCS)
By 'Multiverse', you seem to refer to distant locations beyond that which is visible.  This excludes other definitions of multiverse such as other inflation bubbles (eternal inflation theory), alternate states (MWI), and alternate structures (universes with completely different physics).

The items above the line are specific objects which can be used as a reference for position or velocity.  The ones below not so.  The first of these (visible universe) is indeed something with a defined volume (or capacity as you put it).  The others not so.  Given a reference, I can superimpose a coordinate system on 'visible universe and multiverse' as you seem to use them, but not on this outermost external frame Light-coordinate-system since a coordinate system based on light lacks a reference.  To say I am moving at c relative to light does not distinguish my speed from any other object, nor does it way which light is the reference (since most light travels at different velocities).

Quote
The universal velocity of light is the value according to  THE OUTMOST FRAME / LCS.
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.

Quote
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.
Velocity (and speed for that matter), by definition, are a relations, not a properties.  So your comment makes no sense.  Velocity of a given photon is different relative to Earth than it is relative to the sun. The photon in question doesn't seem to have a meaningful velocity that is not relative to something else.

I know there are interpretations that posit an undetectable reference like the aether against which 'actual' velocity is measured, but that's still a relation then.

Quote
If 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.

Anyway, assuming such a frame can be defined (and not saying it can't), how is SR wrong?  You didn't touch on that at all.

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?
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 04/09/2019 10:38:42

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.

In my opinion and according to an inference of my first study (Light kinematics to analyze space time) big picture may be like multi cellular foam. Anyway, please ignore multiverse. The velocity of light is 'c' according to outmost reference frame (SR does not object this).We human interpret and label the results of experiments in accordance our beginning intentions. I say that, we would intent to measure the speed value according to outmost frame, we would consider by labelling "universal velocity of light".

Quote

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.
Velocity (and speed for that matter), by definition, are a relations, not a properties.  So your comment makes no sense.  Velocity of a given photon is different relative to Earth than it is relative to the sun. The photon in question doesn't seem to have a meaningful velocity that is not relative to something else.

I know there are interpretations that posit an undetectable reference like the aether against which 'actual' velocity is measured, but that's still a relation then.[/quote]

- I could not understand this. SR says that a photon moves away by the speed value 'c' from every frame. Please explain different speeds.

Quote

If 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.

Anyway, assuming such a frame can be defined (and not saying it can't), how is SR wrong?  You didn't touch on that at all.[/quote]

- In forums, I don't like to say “you are wrong” or ”are you kidding?”. However, SR and Lorentz insist that the velocity of a photon is the same value according to moving train and Peron/ all sequential frames.

Quote

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?

- 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).
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Halc on 04/09/2019 15:32:34
Anyway, please ignore multiverse. The velocity of light is 'c' according to outmost reference frame (SR does not object this).
Concerning what SR might object to, and what we should ignore:
SR does object to 'visible universe' as it is a local theory and under the special conditions that make it 'special', there is no limit to how far light goes, and hence no limit to visibility.  SR is not a model of the actual universe, so it isn't valid to compare it to a model that intends to be one.
SR for instance never asserts that Earth, solar system, galaxy, or any real object, can be used as a reference for an inertial reference frame since no known object is not under acceleration of some kind.  All reference frames based on real objects are accelerated frames, possibly accelerating/rotating frames.

GR (which does model the universe) also objects to 'visible universe' being used as a reference frame since 'visible universe' is defined for an event, and events do not define reference frames.  Said observable universe is the set of all events in the past light-cone of that event, and light cones are not frame dependent.

Quote
Quote from: Halc
Velocity 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.
I said different velocity, not different speeds.  Do you know the difference?  The former is a vector quantity, and quite frame dependent.  A photon might be moving north relative to one frame and the same photon moving east in another, both at speed c of course.  Hence the photon does not define a frame.  It is certainly not valid to say 'the frame in which the photon is stationary'.  The laws of physics fail in such a frame.  It violates Galilean relativity.

Quote from: Halc
Quote
If 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.
- In forums, I don't like to say “you are wrong” or ”are you kidding?”. However, SR and Lorentz insist that the velocity of a photon is the same value according to moving train and Peron/ all sequential frames.[/quote]SR says speed will be measured to be the same.  Velocity will not.  I didn't mention photons in the bit above, so unclear why you think my comment contradicts what SR and Lorentz actually say about a photon (and Lorentz actually goes so far as to say that the speed of a photon is not c relative to a moving train, or relative to a moving planet for that matter).

What I said above was that no frame was defined.  What is the velocity of my mailbox "according to THE OUTMOST FRAME / LCS"?  The mailbox is said random object.  The question has no answer absent a frame, and those words don't identify a frame.
It is also unclear why that needed to be in caps.

Quote
- To determine the universal speed (Vu) of the source or the Earth is difficult; but, in analysis we can use it like parametric term.
SR is not a model of the universe, so if you're going to determine the speed of Earth, you need to compare it to GR, the equivalent model.  SR allows only local measurements, and I suspect you're going to violate that.

Quote
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).
I presume you mean 'c' is a value relative to the LCS and 'v' is a value relative to a local place.  But only the latter define a frame.  'c' is a constant and not relative to any specific thing.  It appears in plenty of formulas that require no frame reference such as E=mc˛.  If your idea asserts otherwise, that's fine, but LCS as a frame still hasn't been identified.  I still don't know how fast my mailbox is going relative to the LCS.

That aside, you claim SR incorrectly uses c and v in the same formula. That it does. Which formula does not yield the correct empirical result due to this?  If there is none, then you've not demonstrated that it is incorrect usage.

Quote
The values of parameters must be decided/calibrated according to same reference frame (this is a requirement in accordance with methodology).
I'll agree that mixing reference frames leads to trouble, but since SR never mentions the LCS, it does not mix its references with this (undefined) frame.

You seem to be just another absolutist giving yet a different name to the aether (the LCS: Lake/Creek surface), something Einstein found to make no empirical difference, so he, being more clever, left off this needless 3rd postulate of the existence of a medium for light.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 05/09/2019 09:14:37
1-Yes, the essential condition of SR is inertial frame (uniform motion). This a Galilean relativity principle; but, this principle is valid for genuine  relativity. However itis not valid for hypotetical relativity (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. It is smilar status for a photon.

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. LCS or outmost frame is co-reference frame for photon and its source. So, we can get over some confusing of relativity method.

3- I have not a problem about outmost frame. For theoretical analyses, a sheet of paper (A4) is sufficient.

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. However I improved a method (Light kinematics to analyze space time ( http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhyEs..26...49E (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhyEs..26...49E))

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.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Halc on 05/09/2019 19:33:30
1-Yes, the essential condition of SR is inertial frame (uniform motion).
It says no such thing.  SR works fine with alternate frames.  It's gravity that it doesn't cover.

Quote
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.
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?

Quote
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.
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?

Still don't know the speed of my mailbox because there are a lot of pages, most of which are stationary in different frames.  Maybe you mean the surface of a page in my mailbox, in which case the box is reasonably stationary.

Quote
4- SR claims to advance the physics for universal scale.
I don't think that claim appears in the theory. Perhaps you mean there isn't a scale limit, in which case I agree.  Perhaps you mean it is a model of the universe, in which case it is easily falsified.

Quote
5- Nature never care our possibilities. Yes we cannot know universal speed of local things /train/ earth.
Sounds like SR is quite useful then and this LCS idea isn't at all since none of speed, location, current time, distance, energy nor a host of other values can be known.

Quote
6- We human have a habit to consider tangible things for reference frame.
Physicist tend to use reference frames, and may or may not identify a tangible thing that is say stationary in the frame.  But most humans are not in the habit of discussing relativistic physics.

Quote
Light is a universal reality. We may/must consider the light itself for competent reference frame.
But I don't have a velocity relative to light.  It's not just that I don't know it, it's that the concept is meaningless.  So it's not a 'competent' reference frame, as you put it.

Quote
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.
Light doesn't behave like waves on a lake.  Sound does, but not light.
No theory claims that light speed is dependent on speed of the source, so I agree with that much.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 08/09/2019 13:31:04
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?

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.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 08/09/2019 13:34:44
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?

LCS or a sheet of paper can be used as a common reference frame for photon and its source like the ground for the ball and the player.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/09/2019 13:41:01
But the inferences of this opinion include mystical/fantatic results.
Like what?
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Halc on 08/09/2019 15:52:10
Quote from: Halc
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.
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.
Here's your problem then.  First of all, your terminology has always been wrong.  Speed is not a vector, and velocity is.  You seem to use each term when you mean the other.  Velocity of light is frame dependent, but speed of light is not.

Secondly, you are working with a non-standard definition of 'relative speed or velocity between two objects' by invoking a 3rd frame (the ground) without justification.  The ground is continuously accelerating, so a frame based on it does not foliate spacetime. Both objects and light all move at faster than c in such a frame.
Even if you used an ideal 'ground' in a thought experiment that was not under acceleration, you'd have no way to demonstrate its preference as the frame defining what is actually stationary.
It would also seem that physical measurements cannot be made if there is no 'ground' at hand.  Physics only works here on Earth. Only some fringe religions still hold on to such geocentrism.

You seem to actually be (inaccurately) describing something related to Newtonian mechanics, especially with the arguments in you paper.  This view (which at least doesn't assume 'the ground' to be stationary) does indeed assert that the velocity between A and B can be computed as the vector difference of their respective velocities relative to a 3rd thing such as 'the ground'.  The view has been falsified.

For example, if A is moving along the ground at 0.946c and B is moving at 0.6c in the same direction, the velocity of A relative to B is 0.8c (Einstein), not 0.346c (Newtonian vector difference of velocities) nor 1.546c ('vectorial total of the speeds') as you word it above.

Quote from: Halc
How can you not know these simple things?
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.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 08/09/2019 20:38:52
Quote from: xersanozgen

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 had wanted to explain that Galilei relativity principle is not valid for hypotetical/pseudo relativity. This principle is valid for genuine relativity (e.g. a moving car on a moving ship board).

SR uses this principle for becoming inertial frame of the source. And SR claims that the relation of a photon and its source is genuine relativity. Whereas, the relation of a photon and its source is hypotetical relativity like the relation of a ball and a player.

Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 08/09/2019 20:43:07

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.

You will live more than me. :) :) :)
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 08/09/2019 20:49:43
But the inferences of this opinion include mystical/fantatic results.
Like what?

Like "time dilation", "FitzGerald contraction", time travel, "twin paradox", etc.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 08/09/2019 21:11:51
Like "time dilation", "FitzGerald contraction", time travel, "twin paradox", etc.

Call it mystical if you want to, but it's still true either way (but only time travel into the future works in reality, so far as we know at least).
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Halc on 09/09/2019 01:09:07
Quote from: not Halc
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.
...
Kindly take care not to put my name on quotes that are not mine.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 09/09/2019 10:39:54
Natural phenomena and events include relational integrity.

Science uses methodology to analyze them. We humans have  linear thinking; so, we have problems dealing with all factors. For this reason, we isolate some factors and analyze them and then apply the superposition step. We also consider some coefficients in the formulas for other low factors.

In the history of science, some of the main factors may remain hidden (e.g. phlogiston theory for burning event when oxidation is unknown).

Light kinematics contains at least 6-7 main factors. The special theory of relativity has produced inferences only by considering two factors of them (*). These inferences bribed our archetypal mystery enthusiasm and caused admiration.

The benefit of SR is limited by being the first approach to light kinematics.

You can be one of the first witnesses to the second Galilei event by internalizing the clues presented in this topic.

(*) And one of these postulates is wrong. Because SR considers the relation of the photon and its source as concept of "genuine relativity"; whereas the relation of the photon and its source is "hypotetical relativity". You can see the explanations  the types relativity in my first message at this topic or http://vixra.org/abs/1903.0044 (http://vixra.org/abs/1903.0044)

In my opinion;  this subject is coded with only one word "relativity" in latin originated languages; so, probably the types of relativity  may be ignored because of this attitude.
Title: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein
Post by: AustinnEp on 09/09/2019 11:28:44
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.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 09/09/2019 12:25:51

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.

:) ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8) ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'(
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/09/2019 18:58:17
But 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?
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 10/09/2019 11:09:06
But 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.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 10/09/2019 14:23:31
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.

That article is hidden behind a paywall. Not exactly useful for debates.

So are you arguing that time dilation is not an observable phenomenon or what?
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 10/09/2019 19:23:44
So are you arguing that time dilation is not an observable phenomenon or what?

Not exactly. Because, there are some visual time deformations that are caused because  of  light's velocity is not infinity:

For example, a moving train has a clock at  back wall; we can see it from peron.
1- If the train moving away from us we will see that the clock's tempo works slower altough the clock works normal.
2- If the train stops at far place we will see the clock that it works normal but delayed
3-If the train come up us we will see that the clock works faster altough it works normal.
4- When the train come to peron we will see the train's clock and our watch are equal.

However these slow and fast tempo of the clock are not linked to SR.

Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/09/2019 20:02:19
Why do you call real, observable phenomena like time dilation " mystical/fantatic results."?
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Halc on 10/09/2019 20:12:41
For example, a moving train has a clock at  back wall; we can see it from peron.
1- If the train moving away from us we will see that the clock's tempo works slower altough the clock works normal.
By how much?  You need to quantize what the observer will see given a speed and a distance, else we can't distinguish one theory from the other.  Both SR and your assertions agree on points 1-3.
Quote
2- If the train stops at far place we will see the clock that it works normal but delayed
3-If the train come up us we will see that the clock works faster altough it works normal.
4- When the train come to peron we will see the train's clock and our watch are equal.
This (#4) is the only quantized statement, and SR does not predict it.  The experiment was first performed in 1971 (Hafele–Keating) and the two clocks were not equal, as predicted by relativity, and thus falsifies your not-even-Newtonian assertions.  The experiment is performed every day these days.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 12/09/2019 11:38:42
Why do you call real, observable phenomena like time dilation " mystical/fantatic results."?

When we look to sky, we see the celestial objects that each one of them is not at its simultaneous position and its real age. Whereas we can see all of them in the same plan/frame although the sight is an space-time illusion. The reason of this illusion is the value of light’s velocity is not infinity; theoretically, we cannot see anything simultaneously. But somebody may link this illusion to SR.

And somebody may link to SR my virtual/visual experiment too. Whereas the inferences of this experiment are caused with the reason of finite/limited value of light’s velocity. SR bases on the fixed value of light’s velocity.  A serious nuance is mentioned. However, many people interpret/suppose these some visual deformations are reasoned by SR (*) and they can be convinced. In my opinion, they don’t know the essence of SR. As if the fallacies and rationalisations (making something reasonable) protect the SR.

Nobody gets  offended. It goes on like this. Much people never desist from SR; because it has a confusing potential .

Much people don't know the essence of SR or they have second-hand knowledge.  Perhaps, I would convince Einstein, If he would be alive.

(*) the deformations of  SR's dimension units are genuine. Please remember Fitzgerald contraction.

Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 12/09/2019 11:56:16

This (#4) is the only quantized statement, and SR does not predict it.  The experiment was first performed in 1971 (Hafele–Keating) and the two clocks were not equal, as predicted by relativity, and thus falsifies your not-even-Newtonian assertions.  The experiment is performed every day these days.

Atomic clocks are directly effected by gravity. Yes they are quite sensitive. But, even if they are not move, their tempo change because of  gravity. So, this quality is not link to SR and GR. The boiling degree of water varies with height.
Similarly, Atomic clocks' tempo changes with altitude.

On the other hand, you are right for amount of time difference; because the observer has universal speed according to LCS. So, the photon's traveling way is changing in accordance with this speed. I said "equal" for first step of explanation.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Halc on 12/09/2019 13:47:39
Quote from: Halc
SR does not predict it.  The experiment was first performed in 1971 (Hafele–Keating) and the two clocks were not equal, as predicted by relativity, and thus falsifies your not-even-Newtonian assertions.
Atomic clocks are directly effected by gravity. Yes they are quite sensitive. But, even if they are not move, their tempo change because of  gravity. So, this quality is not link to SR and GR. The boiling degree of water varies with height.
Similarly, Atomic clocks' tempo changes with altitude.
Indeed, clocks at higher altitude have a higher 'tempo' as you put it.  But in the H-K experiment, the one with the altitude and the greater speed ran at a lower tempo, as predicted.  The negative effect due to its increased motion was greater than the positive effect from the altitude.

I see empirical facts do not come into play in your choice of beliefs.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 12/09/2019 16:43:29
The boiling degree of water varies with height.

That's because of air pressure, not gravity.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 12/09/2019 17:25:14
The boiling degree of water varies with height.

That's because of air pressure, not gravity.

Pressure is correct.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 15/09/2019 10:26:00
That article is hidden behind a paywall. Not exactly useful for debates.

The possibility  of cosmological analysis due to a new method  “Light Coordinate System (LCS)” :

Light coordinat system or outer space is considered as a common reference frame for a photon and its source (celestial object: cluster of galaxies or super cluster).

The absolute form (through God’s eye) of the universe may be a spherical surface in accordance with expansion theory.  the form of visible universe (through an observer’s eye that he is placed on the spherical surface) is found easily because of limited/finite value of light's velocity (NVE.   Observational and simultaneous astronomical parameters can be theoretically calculated by using these absolute and visible forms for various ages of the universe and some diagrams can be generated according to these ages. The similarity of diagrams (e.g., Hubble constant – distance, redshifts-distance), including “theoretically visible” and “real observational” data, verifies the consistency of this method. Besides, it has been indicated that in accordance with their distances different values of the Hubble constant (H0 = 80 – 50 km/sec/mpc) represent a unique value (HA) of the absolute form of universe.
Observational parameters are deformed values because of NVE. However we can see the relation of deformed and absolute values of astronomical parameters due to this LCS method. We can study with simultaneous values of observational values of parameters.

Eventually, the actual age of the universe can be determined by overlapping some real observational data on various diagrams.

For full method (analysis, tables, graphics etc) and details:

Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/09/2019 10:39:52
Why do you call real, observable phenomena like time dilation " mystical/fantatic results."?

When we look to sky, we see the celestial objects that each one of them is not at its simultaneous position and its real age. Whereas we can see all of them in the same plan/frame although the sight is an space-time illusion. The reason of this illusion is the value of light’s velocity is not infinity; theoretically, we cannot see anything simultaneously. But somebody may link this illusion to SR.

And somebody may link to SR my virtual/visual experiment too. Whereas the inferences of this experiment are caused with the reason of finite/limited value of light’s velocity. SR bases on the fixed value of light’s velocity.  A serious nuance is mentioned. However, many people interpret/suppose these some visual deformations are reasoned by SR (*) and they can be convinced. In my opinion, they don’t know the essence of SR. As if the fallacies and rationalisations (making something reasonable) protect the SR.

Nobody gets  offended. It goes on like this. Much people never desist from SR; because it has a confusing potential .

Much people don't know the essence of SR or they have second-hand knowledge.  Perhaps, I would convince Einstein, If he would be alive.

(*) the deformations of  SR's dimension units are genuine. Please remember Fitzgerald contraction.

That did not answer my question.
Why do you dismiss reality as fantasy?

Time dilation is real.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/09/2019 10:41:34
Atomic clocks are directly effected by gravity.
Yes they are.
And the way in which they are affected is general relativity.
Why are you trying to pretend that it is not?
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 15/09/2019 14:52:41
For full method and details: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhyEs..26...49E

Paywall.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/09/2019 15:04:32
For full method and details: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhyEs..26...49E

Paywall.
And, judging it by the abstract, not worth paying  for.
"How is cosmological relativity can be analyzed when the finite value of the velocity of light is considered as the primary reason of the space-time illusion/perception? In this study, an analysis of space-time is provided, and a practical model is presented in accordance with Galilean relativity and expansion theory. The results of astronomical observation can be transformed into simultaneous data using this model (with the relations of visible-absolute forms of universe)."
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 16/09/2019 09:58:43
Why do you call real, observable phenomena like time dilation " mystical/fantatic results."?

When we look to sky, we see the celestial objects that each one of them is not at its simultaneous position and its real age. Whereas we can see all of them in the same plan/frame although the sight is an space-time illusion. The reason of this illusion is the value of light’s velocity is not infinity; theoretically, we cannot see anything simultaneously. But somebody may link this illusion to SR.

And somebody may link to SR my virtual/visual experiment too. Whereas the inferences of this experiment are caused with the reason of finite/limited value of light’s velocity. SR bases on the fixed value of light’s velocity.  A serious nuance is mentioned. However, many people interpret/suppose these some visual deformations are reasoned by SR (*) and they can be convinced. In my opinion, they don’t know the essence of SR. As if the fallacies and rationalisations (making something reasonable) protect the SR.

Nobody gets  offended. It goes on like this. Much people never desist from SR; because it has a confusing potential .

Much people don't know the essence of SR or they have second-hand knowledge.  Perhaps, I would convince Einstein, If he would be alive.

(*) the deformations of  SR's dimension units are genuine. Please remember Fitzgerald contraction.

That did not answer my question.
Why do you dismiss reality as fantasy?

Time dilation is real.

My article "Essential factors for light kinematics and special relativity" (http://vixra.org/abs/1903.0044 (http://vixra.org/abs/1903.0044)) presents sufficient arguments and an answer.

As summary, light kinematics includes and requires 7-8 factors; when two factors of them are considered, mystical/fantastic inferences are emerged (There are many examples in science history. Karl Popper had mentioned this subject). In addition, SR has applied the relativity consept for the relation of a photon and its source as "genuine relativity". . Whereas in deeply analyzing/examining, it can be seen that the relation of a photon and its source is the type "hypotetical relativity" (*).

The arguments are transparent /clear.

Of course, some people has emotional or mental resistance. But if they consider these new ideas, their wisdom and vision will improve.

(*) To understand and internalize only this inaccuracy is sufficient for  verifing the claim.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/09/2019 20:54:43
The arguments are transparent /clear.

Of course, some people has emotional or mental resistance. But if they consider these new ideas, their wisdom and vision will improve.
You are entirely correct on those points, but incorrect in your assessment of which side you are on.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/09/2019 20:55:26
Why do you call real, observable phenomena like time dilation " mystical/fantatic results."?

When we look to sky, we see the celestial objects that each one of them is not at its simultaneous position and its real age. Whereas we can see all of them in the same plan/frame although the sight is an space-time illusion. The reason of this illusion is the value of light’s velocity is not infinity; theoretically, we cannot see anything simultaneously. But somebody may link this illusion to SR.

And somebody may link to SR my virtual/visual experiment too. Whereas the inferences of this experiment are caused with the reason of finite/limited value of light’s velocity. SR bases on the fixed value of light’s velocity.  A serious nuance is mentioned. However, many people interpret/suppose these some visual deformations are reasoned by SR (*) and they can be convinced. In my opinion, they don’t know the essence of SR. As if the fallacies and rationalisations (making something reasonable) protect the SR.

Nobody gets  offended. It goes on like this. Much people never desist from SR; because it has a confusing potential .

Much people don't know the essence of SR or they have second-hand knowledge.  Perhaps, I would convince Einstein, If he would be alive.

(*) the deformations of  SR's dimension units are genuine. Please remember Fitzgerald contraction.

That did not answer my question.
Why do you dismiss reality as fantasy?

Time dilation is real.
Still waiting...
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 22/09/2019 17:44:59
In life, much subjects include relational integrity. For example, macroeconomics is an important section of our life; and if we want to accurately analyze current events, we have to consider all of primary and secondary factors (Geopolitical Factors, Cost of energy, Balance of Payments, Supply & Demand, Industrial Production, Gross Domestic Product,  Retail Sales, Interest Rates, Employment Data, Monetary Policy, Economic Indicators, Shocks/chrisis, etc.).

However, if we neglect to consider some of them, probably we cannot get useful inferences; even, if we isolate only 1-2 factors, we can find some inferences  like factoid/misinformation/occult/mystic.

Here, Light kinematics has many factors (the limited value of light's velocity, the types of relativity, primacy of co-reference frame, the presence of multi-sequential reference/relative frames, essence of Galilei’s relativity principles,  the top limit of speed for “hypothetical relativity” is 2c,  the principle of action-reaction, better/elaborative technical definition of parameters etc).

SR considers the fixity of light's velocity and the concept of "genuine relativity" for light's velocity according to every frame. So, SR isolates some factors or neglects some factors and the theory of SR finds some   exciting inferences.

We cannot ignore some factors for light kinematics.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/09/2019 21:49:58
That did not answer my question.
Why do you dismiss reality as fantasy?

Time dilation is real.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 23/09/2019 09:58:49
That did not answer my question.
Why do you dismiss reality as fantasy?

Time dilation is real.

Interesting.  As if, you harp/say "The sun turns around the Earth". In addition, you say "this is reality".

Einstein was aware of his own passion about mystisism and he had corresponded with Tagore about reality-mystisism.

In my opinion, you have to allow yourself for examining the clues that are presented on this topic. Of course your choice, yours willing.

Light kinematics is a universal event and it must be analyze on universal scale. So, if we want to analyze the motion of a photon according to its source; we have to use the parameters 'c' and Vu ( universal speed of the source) in formulas; not source's local value 'v'. Correct method is this.

Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 23/09/2019 19:52:41
Interesting.  As if, you harp/say "The sun turns around the Earth". In addition, you say "this is reality".

False analogy. Time dilation has been observationally supported many times whereas geocentrism has been observationally falsified many times.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 23/09/2019 20:02:05
Time dilation has been observationally supported many times

which; how??????
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 23/09/2019 20:19:57
which; how??????

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_testing_of_time_dilation
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/09/2019 21:02:21
That did not answer my question.
Why do you dismiss reality as fantasy?

Time dilation is real.

Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/09/2019 21:05:35
Interesting.  As if, you harp/say "The sun turns around the Earth". In addition, you say "this is reality".
The only bit that is interesting is how confident you are, even though you are plainly wrong.
I don't say the Sun turns round the Earth.
I say the sun and earth rotate about their mutual centre of gravity.
And I say that  because it is what the evidence supports.
I also say that time dilation is real, and I say that because it is what the evidence shows.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/09/2019 21:06:24
Time dilation has been observationally supported many times

which; how??????

Do you think you should have known about that before you told everybody it was a fantasy?
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 24/09/2019 10:10:50
which; how??????

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_testing_of_time_dilation

I know this argument and I had explained  the crux of it at my another topic.

There are natural muons (N) that come from atmosphere and there are artificial muons (A)  that are producted in CERN lab.

Naked results of similar experiments:

The lifetimes of N and A are different. The lifetime of muons are measured by statistical method (specifed number of amount). The amount of lab muons is find at theheight 2000 m of mountains for natural muons.

The scientists dress up this naked results by using SR on  the conclusion / interpretation  section of their papers:

They say that the speed of N requires ~0.95 c  for linking to SR. And BİNGO.

But there is a serious defect: The speed of lab muons (A) is also a high value. If the comparion of lifetimes between N and A; the difference of their speeds must be considered.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 24/09/2019 15:29:10
They say that the speed of N requires ~0.95 c  for linking to SR. And BİNGO.

Physicists don't need to assume the speed of a particle based on the time dilation factor. It can be measured directly. An experiment done some years ago using lithium ions in a particle accelerator measured the velocity of the ions at 33.8% the speed of light (determined using optical-optical double resonance spectroscopy) and measured the resulting time dilation factor using redshift. The result of the experiment was that relativistic time dilation was found to be accurate to within an uncertainty of +0.0000000023: https://arstechnica.com/science/2014/09/time-dilation-measured-at-40-percent-of-the-speed-of-lightin-the-lab/ and https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.120405
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 24/09/2019 16:59:53
They say that the speed of N requires ~0.95 c  for linking to SR. And BİNGO.

Physicists don't need to assume the speed of a particle based on the time dilation factor. It can be measured directly. An experiment done some years ago using lithium ions in a particle accelerator measured the velocity of the ions at 33.8% the speed of light (determined using optical-optical double resonance spectroscopy) and measured the resulting time dilation factor using redshift. The result of the experiment was that relativistic time dilation was found to be accurate to within an uncertainty of +0.0000000023: 1- https://arstechnica.com/science/2014/09/time-dilation-measured-at-40-percent-of-the-speed-of-lightin-the-lab/ and 2- https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.120405

1- Yes, it says something (*) and than it needs an insurance by saying: "But there are competing models that may have much stronger deviations from Lorentz invariance." (at two final paragraph)

(*) For example time contraction (faster tempo) for approaching status (Doppler effect); SR does not claim/project this option.

2- In Lorentz transformations, there are a value of γ for any 'v'.Or  I cannot understand this abstract.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/09/2019 17:36:43
The lifetimes of N and A are different.
How do the muons "know" which sort they are?
There are natural muons (N) that come from atmosphere and there are artificial muons (A)  that are producted in CERN lab.
How do the reactions "know" if they are in Cern's lab or in the upper atmosphere?

This idea of two sorts of muons is  just plain silly.
And it's something you made up with no actual evidence.

Do you think what you are doing is science?

Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 24/09/2019 21:25:37
1- Yes, it says something (*) and than it needs an insurance by saying: "But there are competing models that may have much stronger deviations from Lorentz invariance." (at two final paragraph)

Those "competing models" are for the Standard Model, not relativity.

(*) For example time contraction (faster tempo) for approaching status (Doppler effect); SR does not claim/project this option.

What is that and how is it observationally any different from time dilation? More importantly, what is the predicted value for this "faster tempo" for a given speed?

2- In Lorentz transformations, there are a value of γ for any 'v'.Or  I cannot understand this abstract.

Yes, and the experiment confirmed that the value for gamma predicted by relativity is accurate to over one part in a billion. That's strong evidence in favor of relativity.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 25/09/2019 08:57:53
1- This idea of two sorts of muons is  just plain silly.
And it's something you made up with no actual evidence

2- Do you think what you are doing is science?
.

1- To determine the increasing of muon's lifetime we need the reference muons. In articles they are called rest muons;  they are the muons that are producted in lab and they have high speed. 8) In some articles, this speed is accepted zero by manipulating (consciously or unconsciously). I prefer to question the  papers as if I personally set/realize the experiments.

2- Someones will say this for every new idea.   :) 8)
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 25/09/2019 09:32:14
What is that and how is it observationally any different from time dilation? More importantly, what is the predicted value for this "faster tempo" for a given speed?

The both of them are illusions because of limited/finite velocity of light like space-time illusion. Perhaps, we must analyze the cosmos without the actor/factor role of observer.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 25/09/2019 16:38:43
The both of them are illusions because of limited/finite velocity of light like space-time illusion.

How is a finite speed of light going to make those measurements be an illusion?
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 26/09/2019 14:27:02
The both of them are illusions because of limited/finite velocity of light like space-time illusion.

How is a finite speed of light going to make those measurements be an illusion?

An observer and a clock; the distance of them =  L.

If the clock does not move; he see the clock  a little delayed (L/c)  according to his watch.

If the clock move away by the speed v; singals of seconds will come to obsever with more delay (L/c + 1.v/c )

If the clock approach to him by speed v; signals of seconds will arrive to obsever earlier than a proper second. (L/c - v/c).

These illusions (wrong perceptions) may be called  "natural visual error" (NVE). The moving clock works always fixed tempo like observer's watch. But, observer will see different times according to his watch because of changing the distance and finite value of light's velocity.

Besides there are mental illusions in SR and GR.

to be continued...

Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 26/09/2019 17:01:28
If the clock does not move; he see the clock  a little delayed (L/c)  according to his watch.

If the clock move away by the speed v; singals of seconds will come to obsever with more delay (L/c + 1.v/c )

If the clock approach to him by speed v; signals of seconds will arrive to obsever earlier than a proper second. (L/c - v/c).

Thank you for providing falsifiable predictions. In your scenario, you assume a Doppler effect without time dilation. This provides a different predicted measurement than a Doppler effect that does include time dilation. The equation for the relativistic longitudinal Doppler effect is:

fr = (√((1 - β)/(1 + β)))fs, where

"fr" is the measured Doppler shift
"β" is the ratio v/c, and
"fs" is frequency of the light in the source's rest frame

Since this equation and your equations are different, this means that an experiment can tell the difference between the two. The relativistic equation is the one that was supported.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/09/2019 19:30:39
2- Someones will say this for every new idea.
And they are usually right.

But saying "they always say that" does not in any way detract from the fact that you are totally wrong.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 26/09/2019 19:49:44
According to my LCS concept, the photons (of the picture of moving clock) are marked on LCS (or outer space). And the observer has also a speed according to LCS. Doppler effect may consider this position but the value Vu must be used instead of v ( Vu is universal speed according to LCS).
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/09/2019 20:06:21
Besides there are mental illusions in SR and GR.
Like what?
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 26/09/2019 21:32:33
According to my LCS concept, the photons (of the picture of moving clock) are marked on LCS (or outer space). And the observer has also a speed according to LCS. Doppler effect may consider this position but the value Vu must be used instead of v ( Vu is universal speed according to LCS).

This is known as "moving the goalposts": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

In order for you to be correct, your equation would have to give the same answer as relativity (at least to within the measured precision, since the observations so far have supported the accuracy of relativistic equations). So how about working out your equations and giving us some numbers that we can compare against experimental results?
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 27/09/2019 11:19:51
Logical illusion in SR

there is a common-known mental experiment to support time dilation (Fig. 1).

When the train does not move,  a photon travel between the points B and E ( t: proper time)

If the train moves by the speed v, the way of this photon becomes AE, ED...etc because of mirrors. Thus, time dilation is realized and its formula is got by Pythagoras relation.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 27/09/2019 17:13:20
In order for you to be correct, your equation would have to give the same answer as relativity (at least to within the measured precision, since the observations so far have supported the accuracy of relativistic equations). So how about working out your equations and giving us some numbers that we can compare against experimental results?

LCS concept considers limited value of light's velocity. It is useful for cosmological analyses. My example (train-peron) was for explanation the visual illusion about time dilation. And I had neglected universal motion of observer for first stage.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 27/09/2019 17:21:38
Logical illusion in SR

And how is that an illusion?

LCS concept considers limited value of light's velocity. It is useful for cosmological analyses. My example (train-peron) was for explanation the visual illusion about time dilation. And I had neglected universal motion of observer for first stage.

So how about working out your equations and giving us some numbers that we can compare against experimental results?
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/09/2019 18:50:50
Logical illusion in SR

there is a common-known mental experiment to support time dilation (Fig. 1).

When the train does not move,  a photon travel between the points B and E ( t: proper time)

If the train moves by the speed v, the way of this photon becomes AE, ED...etc because of mirrors. Thus, time dilation is realized and its formula is got by Pythagoras relation.
And if you do the (analogous) experiment, you find out that time dilation is real, and the value measured is that predicted by SR.

The "mental delusion" is thinking that time dilation is not real.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 28/09/2019 12:47:26
Logical illusion in SR

there is a common-known mental experiment to support time dilation (Fig. 1).

When the train does not move,  a photon travel between the points B and E ( t: proper time)

If the train moves by the speed v, the way of this photon becomes AE, ED...etc because of mirrors. Thus, time dilation is realized and its formula is got by Pythagoras relation.

On Fig. 1 we sent the photon from the point B to perpendicular path (BE); but the path became diagonal. The tempo gets lower.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, Fig.2

When the train moves with its speed  v, we directed our photon on the way FK ( the angles KFH = EDB). So, we sent the photon to diagonal path; but this time its path became perpendicular way (KH). The tempo gets faster.

Both of two option can be considered simultaneously; which tempo is indicated by train's clock?

Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/09/2019 22:32:13
The "mental delusion" is thinking that time dilation is not real.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 29/09/2019 11:40:05
The "mental delusion" is thinking that time dilation is not real.

I could not solve the relation of delusion.  Because I tell with arguments. I hope someone will understand. Probably, you did not read the explanation and did not examine the figures 1 and 2:.A clock cannot work faster and slower simultaneously.

When the train don't move the photon is sent to perpendicular way (BE). Methodology requires to use a perforated filter for this. Thus the steps of the photon's motion are like the steps of a stair; so, the total way is H; time dilation will not be realized (Figure 3). Our poor human brain easily connects the points that are beginning and arrival of the photon. This is a mental/logical illusion.

It was indicated the genuine event according to LCS concept at Figure 3. So, the photon will go on absolutely straight line. The beginning point of the photon has traveled because of the speed of the train.

Mental illusion in GR:

At figure 4, we can see the mentality of GR. GR says the path of light will become bent because of acceleration.

However by the same logic, it is indicated that the path of light will incline again without accelerating (a = 0).

In GR the genuine reality is given at right figure. The photon will travel horizontal; but our brain will suppose light's  path as the line SP.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/09/2019 14:24:32
Because I tell with arguments.
You tell us, with badly framed arguments, that time dilation is not real.
But we can measure it, so we know it is real.

We do not need to study your arguments  to find out exactly what mistake you have made.
We know you are mistaken.

Why would I even bother to look at the picture you cite?
I know there's a mistake there somewhere (in the picture or in your understanding) because you say that it shows that time dilation is not real.
Reality shows that it is.
Reality does not make mistakes.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 29/09/2019 15:11:45
A clock cannot work faster and slower simultaneously.

It can in different reference frames.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 29/09/2019 16:11:16
A clock cannot work faster and slower simultaneously.

It can in different reference frames.

No. Same train/ same frame.

Einstein consider the light that travels to only one direction (+ x); and its source also travel on the same direction ( +x ).

Whereas he must analze that option light toward +x; its source toward -x or reverse. Einstein had said about just the perpendicular direction ( + y); and he says time dilation is not mentioned because of projection of perpendicular light; that,  when we consider both option for the clock on K' frame this clock also never  workswith  two and very tempos simultaneously.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 29/09/2019 16:20:22
Because I tell with arguments.
You tell us, with badly framed arguments, that time dilation is not real.
But we can measure it, so we know it is real.

We do not need to study your arguments  to find out exactly what mistake you have made.
We know you are mistaken.

Why would I even bother to look at the picture you cite?
I know there's a mistake there somewhere (in the picture or in your understanding) because you say that it shows that time dilation is not real.
Reality shows that it is.
Reality does not make mistakes.

OK. Your interpretations; thanks. Nobody gets upset
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/09/2019 16:57:11
Because I tell with arguments.
You tell us, with badly framed arguments, that time dilation is not real.
But we can measure it, so we know it is real.

We do not need to study your arguments  to find out exactly what mistake you have made.
We know you are mistaken.

Why would I even bother to look at the picture you cite?
I know there's a mistake there somewhere (in the picture or in your understanding) because you say that it shows that time dilation is not real.
Reality shows that it is.
Reality does not make mistakes.

OK. Your interpretations; thanks. Nobody gets upset
It's just silly to write off the observations made during experiments as my "interpretations".
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 29/09/2019 18:16:28
No. Same train/ same frame.

Anyone on the train is in the same frame as the train, yes (assuming they are sitting down), so they won't observe any kind of time dilation from the train's movement. The only time that the train's time can be measured as dilated would be by someone in a different frame from the train (such as those people at the train station as the train goes by).
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 29/09/2019 19:03:05
Figure 4 :

An eye (that is placed at the point P) will see the source (photo-flash) at the other tip of horizontal line not at the point S.

When we look at the sky, we see the target object at its position and date of the photons (*) that they begin their travel (**).

(*) they are the photons that has came to our eyes.

(**) So, LCS concept does not conflict with this reality.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 29/09/2019 19:27:59
No. Same train/ same frame.

Anyone on the train is in the same frame as the train, yes (assuming they are sitting down), so they won't observe any kind of time dilation from the train's movement. The only time that the train's time can be measured as dilated would be by someone in a different frame from the train (such as those people at the train station as the train goes by).

Yes you are right in accordance with SR mentality; reference frame K and relative frame K'.

However, a person on reference frame will deal with  two or very different (for other angles) tempos for the object K' again ; this result is contrary  to causality.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 29/09/2019 22:59:45
So, LCS concept does not conflict with this reality.

It does if it doesn't make predictions consistent with the lithium ion experiment. I'm still waiting for you to show those calculations.

However, a person on reference frame will deal with  two or very different (for other angles) tempos for the object K' again ; this result is contrary  to causality.

How do you figure?
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 30/09/2019 10:47:35
Figure 4 :

An eye (that is placed at the point P) will see the source (photo-flash) at the other tip of horizontal line not at the point S.

When we look at the sky, we see the target object at its position and date of the photons (*) that they begin their travel (**).

(*) they are the photons that has came to our eyes.

(**) So, LCS concept does not conflict with this reality.

Thus, we constitute an important inference (like radical postulate) for light kinematics:

Whereever its source is, the emitting point of a photon is marked on outmost frame (outer space or LCS).
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 30/09/2019 11:05:54
So, LCS concept does not conflict with this reality.

It does if it doesn't make predictions consistent with the lithium ion experiment. I'm still waiting for you to show those calculations.

which calculations?

However, a person on reference frame will deal with  two or very different (for other angles) tempos for the object K' again ; this result is contrary  to causality.

How do you figure?

My detailed explanation by that link  (Figure 1)

Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/09/2019 20:20:08
Yes you are right in accordance with SR mentality
And, more importantly, right in reality.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 30/09/2019 23:06:30
My detailed explanation by that link  (Figure 1)

I don't understand your argument. Why do you assert that P3 must experience an accelerated rate of time? Actually, saying that its time is accelerated is insufficient. No observer will see their own local time as accelerated or dilated. Only a different observer can see their rate of time flow change. So who is it that is observing this change? Is it K'?

If you claim there is some kind of causality violation for relativity's prediction, can you construct a thought experiment that can take advantage of that violation in order to create a paradox? For example, could you think of some kind of mechanism where the very light emitted by a source can be used to trigger a secondary mechanism that will prevent the light source from ever being switched on in the first place?
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 01/10/2019 10:09:53
My detailed explanation by that link  (Figure 1)

1-  I don't understand your argument. Why do you assert that P3 must experience an accelerated rate of time? Actually, saying that its time is accelerated is insufficient. No observer will see their own local time as accelerated or dilated. Only a different observer can see their rate of time flow change. So who is it that is observing this change? Is it K'?

2- If you claim there is some kind of causality violation for relativity's prediction, can you construct a thought experiment that can take advantage of that violation in order to create a paradox? For example, could you think of some kind of mechanism where the very light emitted by a source can be used to trigger a secondary mechanism that will prevent the light source from ever being switched on in the first place?

1- The photons that are emitted at same moment from a star or any source (e.g. candela) generate a spherical surface that its radius increases by the speed ' c '. P1, P2, P3,... Pi etc. photons are placed on this surface and their time T is same for K reference frame ( I Generally /often forget to note: my K reference frame is LCS; because when we consider sequential external frames of any local frame, we arrive/find  to LCS; and so, I also consider the relative speed of K' as Vu universal value of speed). In accordance with SR, an observer of K' determines different times ( T' of the coordinates x'; y'; z'; T') for the every photon that are placed on spherical surface. But the external observer (we; if we are on LCS) knows all different T'i values represent a  unique T time.  T' (P3) > T' (Pi). The clock of K' observer must shows bigger time  for (P3) and other different times  for Pi simultaneously. In my opinion is a paradox. Yes, we may say "illusion"(wrong perception).

2- When I examine the theory SR according to LCS concept; I found many paradoxes. I shared them in my book (Pseudo science; under protection of mystisism). I may mention some of them:

One (A) of twin moves away by high speed from other (B); In accordans with SR mentality, when they meet again, A perceives B younger.

Now, please suppose that they are on a space shuttle. If B has the speed  v according to A; Also A has the speed v according to  B (reciprocity principle or Newton's action-reaction rule). So, when they meet again, the each one sees the other like same age.

b- Isaac Asimov's example (in his book: Science Guide)

Two rockets have parallel ellips orbits; they go opposite directions and resultant speed is high. On every alignment, they will say to each other "your clock has losed two hours (four,six, eight, .... 2n  hours). whereas both of clocks must show proper time.

Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 01/10/2019 15:03:25
In my opinion is a paradox.

No, it's begging the question. Saying that your model predicts a different outcome than relativity is not evidence that relativity is wrong.

When I examine the theory SR according to LCS concept; I found many paradoxes.

This, again, is begging the question. You can't say, "If my model is correct, then relativity has paradoxes. Since I concluded that relativity has paradoxes, my model is correct." You are using your assumptions as evidence for your assumptions. That's circular reasoning.

One (A) of twin moves away by high speed from other (B); In accordans with SR mentality, when they meet again, A perceives B younger.

Only if A is the one accelerating.

Quote
Now, please suppose that they are on a space shuttle. If B has the speed  v according to A; Also A has the speed v according to  B (reciprocity principle or Newton's action-reaction rule). So, when they meet again, the each one sees the other like same age.

Perhaps you should watch this:
b- Isaac Asimov's example (in his book: Science Guide)

Two rockets have parallel ellips orbits; they go opposite directions and resultant speed is high. On every alignment, they will say to each other "your clock has losed two hours (four,six, eight, .... 2n  hours). whereas both of clocks must show proper time.

Both of them are accelerating at the same rate (assuming they are in the same orbit travelling in opposite directions), so both experience the same degree of time dilation. They would therefore agree on the amount of time passing each time they met. Unlike constant velocity, acceleration isn't relative. An observer can know whether they are in an accelerating or an inertial frame.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/10/2019 19:46:09
Ignoring experimentally determined fact is not "more clever than Einstein".
It's "less clever than a teenager".

Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 01/10/2019 19:49:02

Last discussions have potential of confusing. Details may be tiring and boring.

Only/singly one primary factor is sufficient to perceive the flaws of the theory SR (*): Please study to distinguish the nuance about "genuine relativity" and "hypothetical relativity" for the motional relation of a photon and its source . Lake surface analogy and football game analogy help to you for verifing or corroborating.

(*) The link for the definition of genuine relativity/hypothetical  relativity and  other primary factors ( "Essential factors for light kinematics and special relativity"):

http://vixra.org/abs/1903.0044 (http://vixra.org/abs/1903.0044)
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 01/10/2019 19:58:02
Ignoring experimentally determined fact is not "more clever than Einstein".
It's "less clever than a teenager".

No matter what the forum gods say, please (you; naked scientists) trust your own mental cognitive performance.

Kindly; they will suffice to note objections or new syntheses.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/10/2019 20:02:59
Ignoring experimentally determined fact is not "more clever than Einstein".
It's "less clever than a teenager".

No matter what the forum gods say, please (you; naked scientists) trust your own mental cognitive performance.

Kindly; they will suffice to note objections or new syntheses.
It has nothing to do with this site, or the gods.
The experiments show time dilation in exact accord with GR.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 01/10/2019 21:41:19
No matter what the forum gods say, please (you; naked scientists) trust your own mental cognitive performance.

I trust the experimental evidence.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 02/10/2019 09:39:51
Only if A is the one accelerating.

In universe, there is not any inert/immobile thing except outer space or LCS; that, they are not tangible too. So, in space environment any one of actors can be choice for the role of reference frame; the inverse of setting is also valid for analyzing. This is called "reciprocity principle". Therefore,  A and B of twin see other one as same age. Egocentric or earthcentric inference is wrong; SR prediction is wrong.

I trust the experimental evidence.

I guess you will find a defect for experimental evidences; as if your aim is not to arrive reality. If you are happy with "time travel", "twin paradox" etc.; you must ignore reciprocity principle and the essence of relativity (genuine/hypothetical relativity).

Here is an experiment: The budget of this experiment is minimal and it is very easy; everybody can repeat.

Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 02/10/2019 16:41:52
In universe, there is not any inert/immobile thing except outer space or LCS

You are begging the question again.

So, in space environment any one of actors can be choice for the role of reference frame

You can't compare accelerated frames to inertial frames like that. Acceleration isn't relative. Whichever twin is accelerating will know that they are the one accelerating and not their twin. It's constant velocity that is relative.

SR prediction is wrong.

Every experiment yet made to test relativity has found that its predictions match reality (gravitational lensing, gravitational waves, frame dragging, orbital precession, time dilation, etc.), so what you are saying goes against the experimental evidence.

I guess you will find a defect for experimental evidences; as if your aim is not to arrive reality.

The entire point of experimenting is to understand reality. If the experimental evidence disagrees with one's reasoning, then one must reexamine their reasoning. Nature can't be the one who is wrong.

But the external observer (we; if we are on LCS) knows all different T'i values represent a  unique T time.

And there is your problem. You are assuming that there is such a thing as an absolute reference frame. The sum of modern experimental evidence strongly points to that not being the case.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/10/2019 20:16:15
Egocentric or earthcentric inference is wrong; SR prediction is wrong.
SR isn't egocentric or earth centric.
And it is experimentally shown to be right.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/10/2019 20:17:57
Here is an experiment: The budget of this experiment is minimal and it is very easy; everybody can repeat.

The link doesn't work for me; it comes up as blocked (presumably by the anti virus s/w.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Halc on 02/10/2019 23:51:12
The link doesn't work for me; it comes up as blocked (presumably by the anti virus s/w.
Click through your own post above.  It's a single paragraph of somebody verifying the principle of relativity by failing to measure the change in resistance of a piece of conductive material due to its being contracted when aligned with the direction of absolute motion.
Translation: It is pretty easy to find a link to somebody posting a denial of relativity.  This one is a particularly pathetic choice by xersanozgen because it actually has somebody directly verifying the first postulate of relativity and then claiming that the theory predicts otherwise.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 03/10/2019 10:26:47
Egocentric or earthcentric inference is wrong; SR prediction is wrong.
SR isn't egocentric or earth centric.
And it is experimentally shown to be right.

SR designates local objects (source; train, etc) as reference frame for motion of light. This very clear. Formerly, people and scientists considered the Earth as the centre of universe; it is the same fusty paradigm.

Example: The orbit of the Moon is like circle.In primary schools, the event is learned at this meaning.  This is a first perception/education step  for natural events. Whereas, we know that the Earth turns around the Sun; thus, if we consider the Sun as reference role in this case, the orbit of the Moon is like spiral according to Sun. which is correct?

We human, especially scientists have to improve our mindfulness  about management of mental references. As first, İt is possible that an idea can be confuted/collapsed  by another idea which if its reference frame is larger / more inclusive.

SR accepts every sequential frames for reference role; so in accordance with SR mentality the value of  light velocity is ' c ' again according to outer space or LCS. I always prefer this external frame for reference role. LCS reference frame has ability and  authority in the meaning of force major to analyze light kinematics.

You may say that If the theory of SR would not be generated, LCS concept could not improved. Yes, I agree this idea.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Halc on 03/10/2019 12:32:15
Example: The orbit of the Moon is like circle.In primary schools, the event is learned at this meaning.  This is a first perception/education step  for natural events. Whereas, we know that the Earth turns around the Sun; thus, if we consider the Sun as reference role in this case, the orbit of the Moon is like spiral according to Sun. which is correct?
Stock answer:  Neither is the correct description since motion is relative, as you point out. Hence the term 'proper motion' not being more meaningful than 'the moon spins'. But (proper) acceleration is absolute, as Kryptid pointed out in post 132, so the acceleration of the moon is the same in both those frames.
Time dilation depends not on acceleration, but on moment-of-acceleration.  There's a difference.

Quote

We human, especially scientists have to improve our mindfulness  about management of mental references. As first, İt is possible that an idea can be confuted/collapsed  by another idea which if its reference frame is larger / more inclusive.
Acceleration is absolute, so selection of a different, or larger context, has no effect on the idea in this case.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 03/10/2019 14:36:14
An experiment for Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction

Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 03/10/2019 16:08:39
Example: The orbit of the Moon is like circle.In primary schools, the event is learned at this meaning.  This is a first perception/education step  for natural events. Whereas, we know that the Earth turns around the Sun; thus, if we consider the Sun as reference role in this case, the orbit of the Moon is like spiral according to Sun. which is correct?
Stock answer:  Neither is the correct description since motion is relative, as you point out. Hence the term 'proper motion' not being more meaningful than 'the moon spins'. But (proper) acceleration is absolute, as Kryptid pointed out in post 132, so the acceleration of the moon is the same in both those frames.
Time dilation depends not on acceleration, but on moment-of-acceleration.  There's a difference.

Quote

We human, especially scientists have to improve our mindfulness  about management of mental references. As first, İt is possible that an idea can be confuted/collapsed  by another idea which if its reference frame is larger / more inclusive.
Acceleration is absolute, so selection of a different, or larger context, has no effect on the idea in this case.

As if, Your message does not match with mine ;)

Besides, SR is based uniform motion (fixed speed and linear path). Acceleration = 0
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 03/10/2019 16:50:28
Besides, SR is based uniform motion (fixed speed and linear path). Acceleration = 0

That weakness was fixed when general relativity was developed.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 04/10/2019 11:28:30
Example: The orbit of the Moon is like circle.In primary schools, the event is learned at this meaning.  This is a first perception/education step  for natural events. Whereas, we know that the Earth turns around the Sun; thus, if we consider the Sun as reference role in this case, the orbit of the Moon is like spiral according to Sun. which is correct?

SR was a first approach for light kinematics; thanks to Einstein. However it was a earthcentric theory. Einstein had considered the train and peron.for mental experiments.

Whereas there are outer frames and they generate sequential chain. In theory SR the speed of train is considered as local value according to earth. However, there is a resultant/different value of  the train's relative speed according to the Sun. Because the Earth also moves according to Sun. And the train has other different resultant speeds according to other celestial objects (e.g. galaxies, clusters.... universe, outer space.

Now, are we simultaneously exposed to different tempos of time dilation and different ratios of Fitzgerald contraction in accordance with SR mentality? Our bodies are not be quaking.

Where is causality?

Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 04/10/2019 17:34:56
Now, are we simultaneously exposed to different tempos of time dilation and different ratios of Fitzgerald contraction in accordance with SR mentality?

Yes, each observer in a different frame will measure a different value for train's time dilation. So what?

Where is causality?

What does causality have to do with it? None of this violates causality.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/10/2019 17:56:54
Yes, you did.
But I don't know why you attachedit.
It was useless dross the last time you posted it, and it still is.

Had you hoped I'd not notice this time?

Well, anyway, here's where I pointed out that it's useless.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=77389.msg579082#msg579082
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 04/10/2019 20:29:03
Now, are we simultaneously exposed to different tempos of time dilation and different ratios of Fitzgerald contraction in accordance with SR mentality?

Yes, each observer in a different frame will measure a different value for train's time dilation. So what?

Where is causality?

What does causality have to do with it? None of this violates causality.

1- Much academician and articles have opinion that SR deformations are real. Even, some of them works to explain as an example the lifetime of a simple candela. This understanding neglects/violates the causality.

2- If you say that a person in K' frame does not feel/detect the deformations; in this case, it means, the observers of other sequential frames visually measure or visually perceive SR's deformations. That, this time this deformations became exactly an illusion.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 04/10/2019 20:54:47
Even, some of them works to explain as an example the lifetime of a simple candela.

A candela is a unit of measurement, so what do you mean when you say "lifetime" of a candela?

This understanding neglects/violates the causality.

Again, how do you come to that conclusion?

If you say that a person in K' frame does not feel/detect the deformations; in this case, it means, the observers of other sequential frames visually measure or visually perceive SR's deformations

All frames measure deformations depending on the relative velocities involved.

That, this time this deformations became exactly an illusion.

You keep coming to conclusions without providing adequate reasoning about how you arrived at those conclusions. How do you figure that each observer seeing different time dilation rates has anything to do with an illusion?
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/10/2019 00:43:42
Much academician and articles have opinion that SR deformations are real.

Do you understand that someone did the experiment, and found that time dilation is real?
It's not "opinion", it's fact
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 05/10/2019 13:13:20
Much academician and articles have opinion that SR deformations are real.

Do you understand that someone did the experiment, and found that time dilation is real?
It's not "opinion", it's fact

Experiments are significant. And we must internalize  them as  if we personally perform.

You had refused requirement of a comparing material (LAB. muon) about   the experiment of lifetime of muon. You said we can measure time dilation/life time. Yes, but a conclusion/interpretation cannot be generated without comparison. This was a serious defect for science. The science needs to empierce to essence of natural events not singing by stock answers from outside. You were positioned off-side.

In my opinion; it seems that, your aim is not to research the natural reality. Probably you may be charge yourself like mobbing mission.  If not, you may say "never mind" and ignore this topic. I don't want to discuss physics at level of polemics.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 05/10/2019 13:48:19
Even, some of them works to explain as an example the lifetime of a simple candela.

A candela is a unit of measurement, so what do you mean when you say "lifetime" of a candela?

This understanding neglects/violates the causality.

Again, how do you come to that conclusion?

If you say that a person in K' frame does not feel/detect the deformations; in this case, it means, the observers of other sequential frames visually measure or visually perceive SR's deformations

All frames measure deformations depending on the relative velocities involved.

That, this time this deformations became exactly an illusion.

You keep coming to conclusions without providing adequate reasoning about how you arrived at those conclusions. How do you figure that each observer seeing different time dilation rates has anything to do with an illusion?

They say that the life time of a candle flame (which has high relative speed) will  increase according to rest candle. Or moving one of twin will come back younger really. This result is opposite of causality; and common attitude: this result is already called as aparadox. So, they think that the deformation of SR will be realized in metabolic order.

On the other hand, the others think that the deformations are visual detections. I guess this case is like yours opinion.

Different  observers can see different tempos; yes I agree this. No problem. According to this thinking , the SR deformations are seemed/perceived as if they are generating really. We see them with different settings. In my opinion this is illusion and has not significance for science. Is this the all of  SR? Please SR; don't waste science's time.

Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 05/10/2019 14:50:59
You had refused requirement of a comparing material (LAB. muon) about   the experiment of lifetime of muon. You said we can measure time dilation/life time. Yes, but a conclusion/interpretation cannot be generated without comparison. This was a serious defect for science.

We are capable of producing "cold" muons with a kinetic energy of less than 1 electron-volt. That is equivalent to a velocity of less than 57,700 m/s (less than 0.019% the speed of light). Time dilation at such a low velocity is extremely small (dilated time being more than 99.98% of undilated time). So we have a good experimental basis for knowing a rest muon's decay rate.

This also completely ignores that fact that we have other experiments that have determined the value of time dilation that does not require the use of unstable particles (like the lithium ion experiment I linked earlier, as well as those involving clocks at different altitudes and velocities).

This result is opposite of causality; and common attitude: this result is already called as aparadox.

I don't think you know what the word "causality" means. The twin paradox isn't really a paradox. It was solved a long time ago.

On the other hand, the others think that the deformations are visual detections. I guess this case is like yours opinion.

Like Bored Chemist said, experimental data isn't an opinion.

In my opinion this is illusion

Why should we defer to opinions when we have facts generated by experimental data? Facts are better than opinions.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/10/2019 15:14:56
I don't want to discuss physics at level of polemics.
Since physics is an experimental subject, and you keep ignoring the experimental evidence, you clearly don't want to discuss physics at all.

Why do you keep coming back here and posting stuff that is known to be wrong?
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/10/2019 15:15:56
They say that the life time of a candle flame (which has high relative speed) will  increase according to rest candle.
Who are "they" and where do they say this?
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 05/10/2019 16:45:10
Why should we defer to opinions when we have facts generated by experimental data? Facts are better than opinions.

The determination of "The Sun rotates around the Earth" is an experimental result. However, it means that some alternative mechanisms can be possible in nature.

I personally performed an experiment about Fitzgerald contraction. The result is clear. The length  contaction is not be generated for the universal way/speed of the Earth. The measured value is single and isotropic (it never change because of different directions).

If you say this contraction is  just an apperance; this time The Fitzgerald's interpretation about result of experiment of the Michelson-Morley must be wrong; because he consider that length contraction is really happened. Please lets remember; genuine factor of Einsteins motivation was to verify the the Fitzgerald contraction about SR. He began with accepting the Maxwell's definition for light propagation as introduction of SR article; but he verified eather concept by producting theoretical base in SR.

My experiment indicated that the length contraction is not happened really.

Important notes:

1- I have not an intention to convince anybody with this topic. I just share alternative synthesis. You may note them or ignore. Therefore I cannot the phrase like polemic. Already the members have scientific capacity and questioning concious, strong-willed about free thinking; ıt never be thougth opposite of this  in a scientific forum. Kyrptid's objections (thanks) and my answers will be useful to consider the subject larger.

http://www.mrelativity.net/ (http://www.mrelativity.net/)

Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/10/2019 18:03:45
The determination of "The Sun rotates around the Earth" is an experimental result.
What experiment distinguishes it from "The Earth rotates around the Sun"?
I personally performed an experiment about Fitzgerald contraction.
How?
I just share alternative synthesis.
Your alternative is experimentally shown to be wrong.
Why share something that you know is useless?
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 06/10/2019 13:01:29
SUMMARY

"To understand the special theory of relativity" was included in a book on "To-do list while alive". This statement pointed out the difficulty of understanding the theory as well as the importance of knowing the amazing secrets of nature.

If you distinguish the difference between essence and so-called relativity, you can easily understand both the logic of theory and its flaws.

At present, there are various publications supporting the theory as well as false publications. Inaccuracies usually focus on a few details inference. Their impact remains weak; because they cannot offer integrity, . I've published a summary article (3 pages) that offers compactness and integrity (even postulate review):  http://vixra.org/abs/1903.0044
(http://vixra.org/abs/1903.0044)
The main axis is the kinematics of light instead of special relativity. When some of the inevitable factors of light kinematics are neglected, you can produce new theories with surprising implications such as special relativity.

On the other hand, this study raises the issue of the management of  mental references in methodology. The science of the future will restructure the postulates by applying scientific discipline.

It is not enough to refute a theory; a new functional hypothesis should be replaced. This requirement was also provided by my study (Light kinematics to analyze space time: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhyEs..26...49E). This LCS concept allows cosmological analyzes and calculates the current age of the universe; that is, it is functional. As  known, the theory SR does not allow cosmological analysis.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/10/2019 14:47:21
This LCS concept allows cosmological analyzes and calculates the current age of the universe;

Go on then, calculate it.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 06/10/2019 14:51:13
I'll repeat what Bored Chemist said earlier: what experiment did you perform to search for Fitzgerald contraction? It was an actual experiment, wasn't it? Not just a thought experiment?
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/10/2019 15:19:36
Let's face it  xersanozgen isn't going to show us anything useful.
He talks of experimental verification of Fitzgerald contraction and calculating the age of the universe, but it's all nonsense.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 06/10/2019 15:20:09
I'll repeat what Bored Chemist said earlier: what experiment did you perform to search for Fitzgerald contraction? It was an actual experiment, wasn't it? Not just a thought experiment?

Yes, it is a practical experiment; every one can perform; its budget is very low and easy:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1905.0094v1.pdf (http://vixra.org/pdf/1905.0094v1.pdf)
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 06/10/2019 15:32:28
Yes, it is a practical experiment; every one can perform; its budget is very low and easy:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1905.0094v1.pdf

If your equipment was in the same reference frame as the conductor, it won't see any length contraction. So of course it won't measure any resistance change...
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/10/2019 15:55:28
It's also laughably insensitive.

It's like saying I can prove I don't breathe.
I weighed myself on my bathroom scales, and after 10 minutes, I weighed myself again. The reading was the same.
If I had been breathing I would have lost weight, so I can't have been breathing.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 06/10/2019 18:43:31
Yes, it is a practical experiment; every one can perform; its budget is very low and easy:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1905.0094v1.pdf

If your equipment was in the same reference frame as the conductor, it won't see any length contraction. So of course it won't measure any resistance change...

My friend said we've fallen to repeat. OK; never mind; I can tell you more detail for you and other readers.

The Michelson-Morley experiment did not support the ether hypothesis. Thereupon Fitzgerald made a very clever / rescuer/refreshing prophecy; if length contection occurs due to the universal movement of the world, this experiment cannot falsify the ether hypothesis. Young scientists of the period adopted this brilliant idea. In addition, a city legend was on the agenda: "An experimenter who proves his Fitzgerald contraction, will win the nobel prize." One of these young scientists was Einstein.

If you examine the process, in the M-M experiment, you can understand that the contraction must actually occur in the K' system so that the number of fringes does not change. That is, the special theory of relativity is based on the fact that deformations occur by metabolically and actually. My experience proves that conractions are not generated  in the K' frame; because the measurements are isotropic.

The contradictions led some to think that deformations can only be perceived visually from the outer K-frame. This new/rescuer hypothesis is also a prophecy or rationalisation (at the meaning of psycological defect); soothe the SR supporters. However, a phenomenon that does not really occur and is perceived only by the external observer is not meaningful to science. SR is not this.

On the other hand MM experiment had proved that the lights always come to an eye by the velocity ' c '. In device of experiment, the lengths of two photon packets' path are different; but they arrive to the screen simultaneously; because these two photon packets are not the halves of a same light. Each one of them is emitted at different moments. Nobody claims for same moment; because the light source is  continuous open. In experiment it never be used a Kerr obturator.

Note: The possibililty of time travel is mentioned if the time dilation is realized in  K' frame. If you say the time dilation are visually perceived by only The observer of K system; in this case the legend of time travel becomes a myth/fairy tale.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/10/2019 21:17:53
You forgot the important point.
Unless the change in length is significantly more than the resolution of the meter you shouldn't expect to see anything.

How fast does something have to travel before it contracts by 0.4% ?

Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 07/10/2019 01:49:33
If you examine the process, in the M-M experiment, you can understand that the contraction must actually occur in the K' system so that the number of fringes does not change.

Are you defining K' as the reference frame of an observer moving with the apparatus or moving relative to the apparatus? In the frame of an observer co-moving with the apparatus (that is, the apparatus is at rest according to this observer) no contraction can be measured by said observer whereas in the frame of an observer that is not co-moving with the apparatus (that is, the apparatus is moving according to this second observer) a contraction will be observed.

That is, the special theory of relativity is based on the fact that deformations occur by metabolically and actually.

What do you mean by "metabolically"?

My experience proves that conractions are not generated  in the K' frame; because the measurements are isotropic.

Then I presume that what you call the K' frame is the frame where an observer is at rest relative to the apparatus. In such a case, no contraction is expected to be measured in the first place.

However, a phenomenon that does not really occur and is perceived only by the external observer is not meaningful to science.

It if wasn't really occurring, it couldn't be observed by anyone. Yet it can be, so we know that it's really happening.

If you say the time dilation are visually perceived by only The observer of K system; in this case the legend of time travel becomes a myth/fairy tale.

There you go with the non-sequitur again. What makes you say this? Time dilation has been experimentally verified. That demonstrates that your reasoning is flawed. We know that observers in different reference frames will measure different rates of the passage of time because we've actually measured it. When reasoning clashes with reality, you throw out the reasoning, not reality. You don't have to like it, but you can't pretend that your reasoning ability somehow overrides reality itself. Although length and duration can appear different to different observers, the total space-time interval will be agreed upon by all observers regardless of reference frame.

How fast does something have to travel before it contracts by 0.4% ?

About 8.9% the speed of light: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/length-contraction
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/10/2019 09:41:51
About 8.9% the speed of light: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/length-contraction
Thanks, so the next question is "Are we going that fast?".
Well, clearly the answer is "WRT what?"

It's about the right ballpark for Earth's orbital velocity. So, you might (just) detect the change over the course of a year, but would anyone in their right mind try to publish a paper saying "the resistance didn't change from 251 ohms to 252" ?

What's particularly stupid is that, with virtually the same equipment, you can easily improve the sensitivity by a hundredfold or more.

That tells me that the experimental designer is incompetent, so I'd be very wary of accepting their results.

It will be interesting to see if the OP knows how to do the experiment better so please don't give him any clues just yet.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 07/10/2019 10:27:03
What do you mean by "metabolically"?

Let's take two candles (A; B) and burn them at the same time. Then, one of them (B) moves away by the train.

When the candle  A completes its life and extinguishes; we see B still on fire. Because the photon that determines the moment of  B's finishing has not reached us yet, and needs time to travel  the distance BA. So,  to see the B's ending moment will delay. This perception does not change even if the train stops there or continues its movement. That is to say, we may think that the the lifetime of the candle B  increased due to SR's time dilation. However, in this experiment, both candles live at the same normal tempo (metabolically). Their proper times/tempos are the same. If there is a confusion; suppose the train comes back and meets us while the candle continues to light. In this case we will see that both candles ended at the same moment. It means In this fiction, time dilation is not metabolically realized.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/10/2019 12:02:46
The important question is what happens if you send the candle away in its journey, but bring it back before the candle burns out?
Long ago they used candles as clocks. We can imagine a perfect candle clock - it's got lines marked on it to say how long it takes to burn. So there's a line at 1 hour, at 2 hours and so on.

Now imagine we set two candles burning- one on a train and one at the station.
But we also set two  atomic clocks running next to the candles.
And we set to video cameras to record what the clocks say.

And we send the train away and then bring it back before the candle burns out.
The two videos (one of each candle and clock) look the same.
Both candles burn down to the 1 hour marker at 1 hour (as measured on the atomic clock).

But when we compare the two clocks after the return journey, they no longer agree.

That's time dilation
It's not to do with the fact that it takes a photon some time to get to you from a distant clock. That would explain why a distant clock always seems to run slow- a  clock on the moon would seem to be about 2 seconds late.
But the interesting thing is that the clock is also wrong when you bring it back.

Do you see the difference?
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 07/10/2019 12:43:18
Are you defining K' as the reference frame of an observer moving with the apparatus or moving relative to the apparatus? In the frame of an observer co-moving with the apparatus (that is, the apparatus is at rest according to this observer) no contraction can be measured by said observer whereas in the frame of an observer that is not co-moving with the apparatus (that is, the apparatus is moving according to this second observer) a contraction will be observed.

As if you and I say same things. I understood, you say that the observer of K' never aware the deformations; or SR's deformations can be perceived by only the observer of outer frame K.

But, in MM experiment, Fitzgerald contraction (for the light's path on moving direction) must be really happened for the result of exp. (Same number of fringes). It means, the observer of K' frame perceives the contraction. Can you internalize the nuance?
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 07/10/2019 12:57:14
dear Bored chemist,

I know that there are people who consider the theory of SR on dogmatic   pattern like a religion. They cannot perceive alternative hypotheses because of their blinders.

I hope, perhaps they may allow theirselves to note other opposite/alternative ideas. Forums are useful for this.

A scientific forum must encourage to discuss the new theories.

I guess your attitudes were  to represent them. Thanks for your efforts.

My best regards...
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 07/10/2019 13:54:16
Then I presume that what you call the K' frame is the frame where an observer is at rest relative to the apparatus. In such a case, no contraction is expected to be measured in the first place.

We are a at point that has high potential about confusing and misunderstand.Perhaps we have to follow chronology.

1- Fitzgerald claimed the length contraction may be possible for a moving body without outer observer.

2- Lorentz generated mathematically transformation equations (not physical formulas) for this brillant idea without outer observer.

3- Einstein performed a publication and registrated by being inspired from Lorentz.

4- Some people confused and they found a solution by accepting the option of outer observer's visual perception.

Outer observer's visual perception cannot provide the predictions about "time travel", time dilation", twin paradox", etc. They are just visually detections. Metabolical/Physical or biological realizations are not mentioned.

In my opinion, SR predicts/claims genuine deformations for moving body. My electrical resistance experience does not prove/support this inferences of the theory.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 07/10/2019 14:34:59
It if wasn't really occurring, it couldn't be observed by anyone. Yet it can be, so we know that it's really happening.

Some people accepts that an experiment and visual detection are the same. Some events and perceptions led us for this opinion.

Of course we generally use visual sense. However we have to be interrogator; otherwise, all of tricks of magicians and illusionists would be supposed reality and  somebodies would take seriously.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 07/10/2019 14:41:34
There you go with the non-sequitur again. What makes you say this? Time dilation has been experimentally verified. That demonstrates that your reasoning is flawed. We know that observers in different reference frames will measure different rates of the passage of time because we've actually measured it. When reasoning clashes with reality, you throw out the reasoning, not reality. You don't have to like it, but you can't pretend that your reasoning ability somehow overrides reality itself. Although length and duration can appear different to different observers, the total space-time interval will be agreed upon by all observers regardless of reference frame.

Time dilation has been experimentally verified.

I trust my studies about light kinematics (Already my sharings are a byproduct of this)  and experiments. The essence of light kinematics is transparent for me. Besides there are opposite persons (Millenium relativity); I am not alone about this idea.

Of course, to prefer the outer space for reference role instead of a local object has more significance and effective.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 07/10/2019 20:22:59
Let's take two candles (A; B) and burn them at the same time. Then, one of them (B) moves away by the train.

When the candle  A completes its life and extinguishes; we see B still on fire. Because the photon that determines the moment of  B's finishing has not reached us yet, and needs time to travel  the distance BA. So,  to see the B's ending moment will delay. This perception does not change even if the train stops there or continues its movement. That is to say, we may think that the the lifetime of the candle B  increased due to SR's time dilation. However, in this experiment, both candles live at the same normal tempo (metabolically). Their proper times/tempos are the same. If there is a confusion; suppose the train comes back and meets us while the candle continues to light. In this case we will see that both candles ended at the same moment. It means In this fiction, time dilation is not metabolically realized.

That didn't do anything to tell me what you meant by "metabolically". What does this have to do with metabolism?

But, in MM experiment, Fitzgerald contraction (for the light's path on moving direction) must be really happened for the result of exp. (Same number of fringes). It means, the observer of K' frame perceives the contraction.

This does not follow. A person in the K' frame will see the lengths of both arms as the same and thus see that it takes light the same amount of time to reach the end of each arm. In this person's frame, the device isn't moving. There is no reason that contraction should be observed.

In my opinion, SR predicts/claims genuine deformations for moving body. My electrical resistance experience does not prove/support this inferences of the theory.

Special relativity predicts that you shouldn't have detected any deformations in the first place, so your findings are actually in accord with it.

Of course we generally use visual sense. However we have to be interrogator; otherwise, all of tricks of magicians and illusionists would be supposed reality and  somebodies would take seriously.

So how do you explain experimental results as being an illusion? How is it that the illusion conveniently matches up precisely with the predictions of relativity?

I already did. Go back and look at my post about the lithium ion experiment.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Halc on 07/10/2019 21:00:07
That didn't do anything to tell me what you meant by "metabolically". What does this have to do with metabolism?
I think he means processes other than mechanical clocks, like candles, paint peeling, and specifically here biological aging.
The suggestion is that a twin would age normally but as he moves fast, he'd see his clock run stupid slow, but otherwise nothing else changes.  The defense of the position is that they've never had a human move at a significant velocity relative to another one, and also have the two meet again.  The experiment is beyond practicality, and even if it was done, the apparent age difference would probably be hand-waved away as differences in environment.  The deniers have the advantage here as science is not their method, so they're free to exercise their selection bias at will.  The same techniques are used to deny global warming, despite the fact that most of the deniers of it are well aware of it.  It simply isn't in their personal interest to admit it.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 10/10/2019 10:38:11

That didn't do anything to tell me what you meant by "metabolically". What does this have to do with metabolism?

If time dilation is really occured; the metabolism of moving person/organism  must be slower biologically.

Reciprocity is an important principle of relativity. Please look at that: the observer move away from peron by a fast train;  he will see the peron's clock at slower tempo while his watch works by proper tempo. Another observer who is stand on peron will see the train's clock at slower tempo according to his watch. While they approach to each other, each one will see the other's clock at faster tempo and when they meet, the clocks will indicate the same time.  We may analyze the twin paradox at the same meaning.

Quote
This does not follow. A person in the K' frame will see the lengths of both arms as the same and thus see that it takes light the same amount of time to reach the end of each arm. In this person's frame, the device isn't moving. There is no reason that contraction should be observed.

The example upon arms is good. In according to SR mentality a length (which is parallel to motion direction) must be contracted/decreased (other perpendicular dimensions remains their formations); but, a similar deformation never be happened in our life because of universal motion of the world. It means Fitzgerald contraction is not real. Yes you say that the deformations can be seen by the observer of K frame. This option is not a reason of excitement and scientific significance; not worth talking.

Quote
Special relativity predicts that you shouldn't have detected any deformations in the first place, so your findings are actually in accord with it.

As I say; if the theory SR is consist of this, it will become fairy tale for adults. But SR  (with its this meaning) cannot be useful/functional for cosmology and light kinematics.

Quote
So how do you explain experimental results as being an illusion? How is it that the illusion conveniently matches up precisely with the predictions of relativity?

I agree, there are visual deformations. The reason of them is the finite/limited value  of  light's velocity. The reason of SR's deformations is relative motions of objects/bodies/frames. Of course, some people may be convinced due to arguments of visual deformations. However we interest nature reality.

Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 10/10/2019 14:19:14
Quote from: xersanozgen on 07/10/2019 14:41:34

I already did. Go back and look at my post about the lithium ion experiment.

I could not the see the main text of  lithium-ion experiment. Probably it may be also similar to muon experiment. Because it claims that time dilation is effective for GPS. Whereas the effect of time dilation for GPS correction is not significant according to other force major corrections.

I had examined an article about lifetime of muons. Some physicans may be victim of their first intends. They had neglected to consider the speed of reference muons.  The speed of the benchmark is ignored, and the hoped result/interpretation is put forward as the cause. So he says "-at the most- it could be because of SR".

At this point, I will say: If the initial acceptance (in the theory, the relation of a photon and its source is supposed like the relation of a car and its road) is incorrect (according to LCS concept the relation of a photon, its source and outer space is like the relation of a ball, player and the ground), its inferences may not match with natural reality. And other innovative ideas and interpretations of experiments may be ad-hoc.

It is important to restructure the postulates with scientific discipline on space related issues. Because postulates generally contain locality. Present postulates are the opinions that are generated  by the repetition of repeated perceptions.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 10/10/2019 16:24:02
but, a similar deformation never be happened in our life because of universal motion of the world.

What is this "universal motion of the world" you speak of? Are you talking about an absolute reference frame? If so, then you are begging the question again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

As I say; if the theory SR is consist of this, it will become fairy tale for adults.

Again, why do you conclude this?

I agree, there are visual deformations. The reason of them is the finite/limited value  of  light's velocity.

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.

Probably it may be also similar to muon experiment.

It can't be. Lithium ions aren't unstable like muons are.

They had neglected to consider the speed of reference muons.

I already pointed out to you that we can make very cold muons for which time dilation is negligible. Even in that particular case, knowing the kinetic energy and mass of the muons allows one to calculate their velocity. You can then calculate from that velocity and the observed decay rate what the resting decay rate should be (as predicted by relativity). If relativity is correct, then the predicted decay rate of those resting muons can be used to accurately predict the decay rate of moving muons.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/10/2019 19:26:10
dear Bored chemist,

I know that there are people who consider the theory of SR on dogmatic   pattern like a religion. They cannot perceive alternative hypotheses because of their blinders.

I hope, perhaps they may allow theirselves to note other opposite/alternative ideas. Forums are useful for this.

A scientific forum must encourage to discuss the new theories.

I guess your attitudes were  to represent them. Thanks for your efforts.

My best regards...
Well, there might be "people who consider the theory of SR on dogmatic   pattern like a religion."
There are also scientists.
Scientist use SR because it agrees with what happens in the real world. Do you see how that is different?

"They cannot perceive alternative hypotheses because of their blinders."
I can perceive an alternative hypothesis with no problem at all.
I can also consider the implications of such a hypothesis.
And I can compare those implications with experimental data.
And, if the hypothesis does not agree with reality, I reject the hypothesis.

Any scientist would do that.

So what are you doing here?
.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 11/10/2019 13:05:22
Quote from: xersanozgen on Yesterday at 10:38:11
but, a similar deformation never be happened in our life because of universal motion of the world.

1- What is this "universal motion of the world" you speak of? Are you talking about an absolute reference frame? If so, then you are begging the question again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Quote from: xersanozgen on Yesterday at 10:38:11
As I say; if the theory SR is consist of this, it will become fairy tale for adults.

2- Again, why do you conclude this?

Quote from: xersanozgen on Yesterday at 10:38:11
I agree, there are visual deformations. The reason of them is the finite/limited value  of  light's velocity.

1-   In universe, everything has a motion. The world has also its motion according to Sun, galaxy, local cluster, ........etc.

We use the earth as a co-reference frame for physical and other events. However , If we want to analyze the motion relation  of  Earth and a celestial  object (e.g. Fornax cluster) we must use  an outer/common reference frame how  includes both of them. And  -as a first step- we have to consider the centre of local cluster as the equivalent partner of  Fornax.

2-   If claimed deformations are visual; that space-time is also an illusion; SR does not impose/effect the life. Even, it cannot transform the astronomical parameters to respected/ useful / simultaneous values.

3- Your other sharings can be important; I ' ll examine and study.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/10/2019 13:36:24
If claimed deformations are visual;
They are mathematical and physical.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 11/10/2019 17:20:19
1-   In universe, everything has a motion. The world has also its motion according to Sun, galaxy, local cluster, ........etc.

We use the earth as a co-reference frame for physical and other events. However , If we want to analyze the motion relation  of  Earth and a celestial  object (e.g. Fornax cluster) we must use  an outer/common reference frame how  includes both of them. And  -as a first step- we have to consider the centre of local cluster as the equivalent partner of  Fornax.

And all of that motion is relative (except for acceleration).

2-   If claimed deformations are visual; that space-time is also an illusion

As Bored Chemist said, they are physically real.

SR does not impose/effect the life.

That depends on what you mean by "affect".

Even, it cannot transform the astronomical parameters to respected/ useful / simultaneous values.

I don't understand this sentence.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: SarahConnor on 11/10/2019 23:08:22
He was an idiot , like this test.l
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: SarahConnor on 11/10/2019 23:12:34
1-   In universe, everything has a motion. The world has also its motion according to Sun, galaxy, local cluster, ........etc.

We use the earth as a co-reference frame for physical and other events. However , If we want to analyze the motion relation  of  Earth and a celestial  object (e.g. Fornax cluster) we must use  an outer/common reference frame how  includes both of them. And  -as a first step- we have to consider the centre of local cluster as the equivalent partner of  Fornax.

And all of that motion is relative (except for acceleration).

2-   If claimed deformations are visual; that space-time is also an illusion

As Bored Chemist said, they are physically real.

SR does not impose/effect the life.

That depends on what you mean by "affect".

Even, it cannot transform the astronomical parameters to respected/ useful / simultaneous values.

I don't understand this sentence.
I am so going to burn your university down to the ground , all of them

Am see grave they say now
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 12/10/2019 01:06:37
That's definitely not a good start for you. You should shape up before you get banned for threats and insults.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: SarahConnor on 12/10/2019 01:52:47
That's definitely not a good start for you. You should shape up before you get banned for threats and insults.

Insults what you on about ?

Guess you dunna understand my lingo .

Thought you scientists meant be  clever and know stuff like lingo da !

Sad man, was hoping for some convo 🙁
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Colin2B on 12/10/2019 08:57:34
Insults what you on about ?

Guess you dunna understand my lingo .

Thought you scientists meant be  clever and know stuff like lingo da !

Sad man, was hoping for some convo 🙁
Scientists understand lingo very well. Making threats to burn down a university is not convo, but can be classified as a terrorist threat, especially if the writer misrepresents their identity!
I suggest you smart up if you want to remain a member here.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: SarahConnor on 12/10/2019 10:40:53
Insults what you on about ?

Guess you dunna understand my lingo .

Thought you scientists meant be  clever and know stuff like lingo da !

Sad man, was hoping for some convo 🙁
Scientists understand lingo very well. Making threats to burn down a university is not convo, but can be classified as a terrorist threat, especially if the writer misrepresents their identity!
I suggest you smart up if you want to remain a member here.

ya wat?

Nerr man , let's burn some rubber does not mean let's burn some paper . You error in reading man , not like I'm speaking a martian language 🙄
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: SarahConnor on 12/10/2019 10:56:55
Anyway , I'm smarter than Einstein
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/10/2019 11:46:30
Anyway , I'm smarter than Einstein
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: SarahConnor on 12/10/2019 13:02:13
Anyway , I'm smarter than Einstein

Well I appreciate your comment but I'm alive and kicking and consider  all the intricate physical details.  I expect harsh critics from any new forum I venture on .  I've no means of proving I'm smarter than Einstein and I have already raised concerns on this forum and I suspect you now think I'm a troll?
Title: sRe: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 12/10/2019 13:03:56

Einstein had said that “It is harder to crack prejudice than an atom.”

I understood I am on  wrong address to share alternative ideas about light kinematics.

Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 12/10/2019 13:06:39

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.

Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/10/2019 13:52:52
I understood I am on  wrong address to share alternative ideas about light kinematics.
You seem not to understand something important.
"alternative ideas" are fine when you are talking about taste in music.
But in science when the experiments show that time dilation is real, the only sensible idea is to accept it.
Not accepting reality isn't an "alternative idea"; it's just wrong.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 12/10/2019 14:36:05

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.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/10/2019 15:15:44
All I see is a quoting of my posts.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 12/10/2019 16:22:17

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.

I want to complete the answer.

I had not given a detail, because LCS mentality is clear and easy.  Assigning a common-reference frame (outer space or LCS) is useful for light kinematics and cosmological analysis. We may see on attached figure:  Initially, an observer (A) and a moving body/clock (B) is on the point O (Their time:To). B goes to right side by the velocity 60 % c; A goes to left side by the speed 40 % c.  The observer will see the B/clock on the point B'  and the time of the clock  as T B'. TB' = ?

On the moment Tı, the observer will may see the clock at the point B' (due to finite /limited value of light's velocity) although, actually the clock arrived to the point B. And he will may see the time of the clock as TB'. The photon (which is useful to detect the moment TB') get the distance B'A  by the velocity of light for the duration of (T - TB')

The equations:

AB' = OA + OB' = 0.40 c T + 0.60 c TB' = ( T -TB') c

Thus: TB' = T (0.60 / 1.60)

As seen, visual perceiving does not need an exponential function of parameters. LCS mentality is clear and easy.

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.  I may say that : SR considers the concept of “genuine relativity” for the motion relation for a photon  and its source like a car and its road (the car never  get speed without road or the mass of Earth). Whereas an alternative option is possible for the motion relation of a photon and its source like a ball and a player on the ground.  The player throws the ball by getting support from the mass of ground and the speed of the ball is relative speed according to the ground not the player. The speed of a photon  is generated  by electro-magnetic  cycle on space.  any  contribution  of the source to light's velocity is not mentioned  without its emitting. So, the source  can go to everywhere after emitting the photon. The following distances cannot calculate by only c; like that the distance of the ball and new position of the player  cannot calculate by only the speed of ball.

If you allow yourself for internalizing this point you may perceive the LCS concept.

The root postulate of SR is not consistent.  So, the other  interpretations  includes  suspicion.

.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 12/10/2019 20:19:32
I may understand the reactions/irritations  and sensitization for the title but it is just to catch interests as a metaphor.

The name of forum "Naked Scientist" had encouraged me to share my syntheses about light kinematics and special relativity. But a technical discussion cannot be sufficiently realized except "Kyrtpid".

The expertise / technique for  polemics,  empty rethorics, misinformations, demagogy, stock answers  probably will may  convince the persons who cannot activate their mental capacity/performance about questioning.  They always need a reference of a different person to belive (not" to know"). But natural  reality never care them.

The most discredited /fault of them is the labelling  a member  as an idiot. It has been  competed  by an argument against to an idea , not by defamation. In forums, while even  the phrase of " you are wrong",or " you don't know"  is a fault; how can be a defamation   say? When will the moderators aware?

If not, it means , I had attributed a high significanse for the phrase  “ naked scientists”

Nevertheless,the Earth rotates around the sun  and its own axis
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/10/2019 20:25:51
Therefore the root postulate of SR is not consistent.
"not consistent" with what?
It agrees with every single experiment ever done.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 12/10/2019 20:36:34
As seen, visual perceiving does not need an exponential function of parameters.

Then it doesn't match experimental results and is therefore falsified.

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.

A policeman's radar gun doesn't make measurements based on delay time. It detects frequency shifts. So a limited speed of light is a non-issue.

This is a cop-out.

I study astronomy, cosmology, light kinematics.

Gravitational waves, Mercury's orbit and neutron stars are all relevant to astronomy, so you can't use the "not my interest area" excuse for those.

Therefore the root postulate of SR is not consistent.

Non-sequitur. You absolutely can calculate the distance between yourself and some other object using light. If I'm in a spacecraft with a radar, it sends out a continuous pulse of radio waves that travel at the speed of light. The computers aboard know when each pulse was sent and when each pulse was received back. If a pulse impinges on an asteroid and is received back, the total travel time is now known. Since the speed of light is known, this means that the total distance is known as well. By measuring the change in total distance over time (by measuring subsequent travel times), you can know the relative velocity between the ship and asteroid. Alternatively, the presence (or lack) of red shift can tell you the same thing. Knowing both the total travel time and the relative velocity will tell you the distance. This holds whether you are sitting still, moving towards or moving away from the asteroid.

In the case where you aren't moving directly towards or away from the asteroid, but are moving at a right angle to it, you can use the angle that the radio pulse was received from to determine the direction that the asteroid is moving relative to the ship. That information, combined with the other information mentioned above, will still tell you the change of distance to the asteroid over time in your reference frame.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: SarahConnor on 12/10/2019 22:14:19
Therefore the root postulate of SR is not consistent.
"not consistent" with what?
It agrees with every single experiment ever done.

You dunna sound like you know wat u talking about either . you must in some way find him to be some sort of imminent threat towards science. You should leave him alone , he sounds like he has put in lots of work to produce such a great write up.

And besides , this forum is full of sh1t dick eds. Go fk yourselves , cya
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/10/2019 22:52:44
you must in some way find him to be some sort of imminent threat towards science.
His habit of posting nonsense is a threat to a science website.
Your's isn't any better.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Colin2B on 13/10/2019 08:40:28
And besides , this forum is full of sh1t dick eds. Go fk yourselves , cya
Another adolescent fool bites the dust.
Title: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein
Post by: Emilelix on 13/10/2019 18:35:17
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?
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein
Post by: Halc on 13/10/2019 19:17:17
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?
You;'d be going about 0.77c (Earth frame) after 1 year of 1g (time measured on the ship).
After 2 years ship time  (7.5 years Earth time), you;d be going about 0.968c relative to Earth.  In 3 years, 0.996c

No amount of acceleration would get you to speed of light.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/10/2019 19:21:59
If you could constantly accelerate at the rate of 1g
Then, even ignoring relativity, the power requirement would rise continuously.
Sooner or later you run pot of power.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Halc on 13/10/2019 21:25:53
Quote from: Emilelix
If you could constantly accelerate at the rate of 1g
Then, even ignoring relativity, the power requirement would rise continuously.
Sooner or later you run pot of power.
A G force is a unit of proper acceleration, not a unit of frame-dependent acceleration.  One can accelerate at 1G indefinitely given a continuous force on an unchanging proper mass.  In rockets, the mass gets lighter as it goes, so the power needed actually goes down over time.

So in my example, the guy between years 2 and 3 experiences 1G of acceleration the whole year on his watch, but from the inertial frame of Earth (or whatever he left behind), he's only increased his speed by 0.028c and taken years to do it.  That's a frame dependent acceleration of less than a tenth of a meter per second, but it's still 1G of proper acceleration.
I didn't do the arithmetic to get the actual figures here.

So if what you say is true about frame-relative acceleration:  One cannot accelerate an object at a steady 9.8 m/sec/sec (increasing G force) because the relativistic mass would go up with its speed in that frame and yes, eventually it would require infinite power to apply the force to an arbitrarily high mass.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Janus on 13/10/2019 22:24:07
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?
Assuming you had a ship that maintained a proper acceleration of 1g.  It starts at rest with respect a buoy floating in space.
After 1 year, as measured by the ship, it would be moving at 0.77c relative to the buoy.
After 2 years, it would be moving at 0.97c relative to the buoy
after 5 years, 0.99993c
8 years, 0.9999998c
12 years, 0.99999999996c
...
For someone at rest with respect to the buoy:
after 1 year you would be moving at 0.72c
2 years, 0.9c
5 years, 0.9816954499c
8 years, 0.9927286443c
12 years, 0.9967486193c

In neither case would the ship velocity relative to the buoy follow a strictly v=at pattern, though at the very begin it would be very close. ( for example if you just consider the first 10 days of buoy time, the difference only works out to be ~0.04%)
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/10/2019 19:37:30
One can accelerate at 1G indefinitely given a continuous force on an unchanging proper mass.
Well, OK, yes, near Earth satellites (nearly) do this all the time.
But, in practical terms, they don't get very far.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 24/10/2019 09:58:55
Why don't aliens get direct contact?

If we discover a world-like planet and wanted to relate to living intelligent organisms, we would want to run a series of tests to understand their cognitive capacities. One of them could be special theory of relativity. Theory is somehow introduced into their lives/paradigms by a young scientist like Einstein and developments are followed.

Is it possible that such a test was being applied to us? I wrote a science fiction story on this theme (einsteinRF@Cosmos.net). It is very interesting and surprising that human cognitive capacity has not been able to distinguish a simple nuance (about the essence of relativity*) for over 100 years.

(*) Essence: Taking deeper meaning into account; that is how relativity occurs; which factors are involved. For example:
1- The car gains speed by applying force to the road and pushing the road and the value of the speed is exactly "genuine relative" to the road. When the road friction is over, the car is now transferred to the oblique throw state with the previous speed being the first speed.
2- In our measurement of the speed of light, we habitually label the result value relative to the current environment. However, the method of measuring the velocity of light is similar to that of a light clock (mirrored dual path, continuous photon current); the experimenter intends and supposes that he is measuring with a single identified photon; whereas, it is possible to start with photon x and finish the experiment with photon y. Similarly, the light is also continuous in MM test. When the photons pack half X and the photons pack half y meet on the screen**, the experimenter assumes that the single light pack halves are interfering. This (**) different option could be ignored. While the isotropic results of the measurement and MM tests are present and pointing out that we can just measure the velocity of light on a universal scale; it is not scientific to still accept and process as relative value to local objects.
3- Is to understand the relation a player, a ball and the ground difficult? The ground is a co-reference frame for the motion analysis of the player and the ball.  The ball's speed is a relative value according to ground not the player. When the ball represents the photon; the player as light source; the ground as outer space/LCS; light kinematics will become transparent and functional.  These clues are not too difficult to consider.

We have to analyze the essence and kinds of relativity. When we distinguished the kinds of relativity and decided to choice the correct one (hypothetetical relativity like the relation a ball/player/ground) for light’s motion, our scientific vision/wisdom will improve on universal scale.

To be continued...
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 24/10/2019 13:57:24
In this title, the error in the root postulate of the theory and the local flaws are shared ( http://vixra.org/abs/1903.0044  (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/1503.0187 (http://vixra.org/abs/1503.0187)

http://vixra.org/abs/1501.0226 (http://vixra.org/abs/1501.0226)

http://www.mrelativity.net/ (http://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 (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.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Halc on 24/10/2019 14:24:48
One can accelerate at 1G indefinitely given a continuous force on an unchanging proper mass.
Well, OK, yes, near Earth satellites (nearly) do this all the time.
But, in practical terms, they don't get very far.
One can accelerate indefinitely at 1G in the same direction given said continuous proper force.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 24/10/2019 15:14:33
In this title, the error in the root postulate of the theory and the local flaws are shared ( http://vixra.org/abs/1903.0044  (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/1503.0187 (http://vixra.org/abs/1503.0187)

http://vixra.org/abs/1501.0226 (http://vixra.org/abs/1501.0226)

http://www.mrelativity.net/ (http://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 (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.

You're just repeating the same (debunked) claims and misconceptions as before. 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.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: PmbPhy on 25/10/2019 01:03:27
Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?

This is possible. .
Sure.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 25/10/2019 10:59:07
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.

E = mc2 is a great formula that helps to explain our position in Universe and life. We human arrived energy based paradigm instead of material based physics. Similarly, Einstein-Bose (and energy) density is useful for understanding the first life and mental activities of the brain (material based physics had could not empierced).  On the other hand "gravitational lens" is a natural reality. All of them include high significance and deserve high interpretations.

However, to use them as a proof to verify SR  is an misinformation. They are not even secondary proofs.  SR mentality is quite simply. Yes, the original article of SR contains ambiguous/heavy explanations; but, The book (1916) of Einstein is more understandable. Especially Lorentz transforms is useful to see the simplicity of SR. We have to remember them here.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 25/10/2019 14:13:54
However, to use them as a proof to verify SR  is an misinformation. They are not even secondary proofs.

Science isn't about proof, it's about evidence. They are good evidence for relativity's validity in particular because of their mathematical accuracy. Relativity doesn't merely predict the existence of particular phenomena, but also their magnitude. Are you going to call it a coincidence that relativity got the numbers right?
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 25/10/2019 15:36:54
Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?

This is possible. .
Sure.

OK. Very easy; here the clues:

1- Light Kinematics has 6 main factors; when the few of them are ignored, some post-truth hypotheses can be emerged like SR.

2- A link for more (only 3 pages): http://vixra.org/abs/1903.0044 (http://vixra.org/abs/1903.0044)

3- Never mind the relativity method; directly use outer space as a common reference frame for the motion relation of a photon and its source.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 25/10/2019 23:49:43
3- Never mind the relativity method; directly use outer space as a common reference frame for the motion relation of a photon and its source.

The problem with that is that "outer space" looks different depending on the observer.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/10/2019 00:28:50
Please explain exactly what you think this means
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/10/2019 00:32:09
2- A link for more (only 3 pages): http://vixra.org/abs/1903.0044
And... what it says is

You are so wrong you can't even count to 4.

Why on Earth would we pay you any attention.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/10/2019 00:33:43
- Never mind the relativity method; directly use outer space as a common reference frame for the motion relation of a photon and its source.
If I use relativity I get the answer that agrees with what I actually observe.

Why would I chose to use  any system that gives the WRONG answer?
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 26/10/2019 22:10:56
It may be useful to remember Einstein’s explanation about Lorentz transforms (Einstein,A., Relativity, the special and the general relativity, 1916 section 11):

K : Reference frame
K’: Moving frame (It is accepted as an inertial reference frame because of its uniform motion)

Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 28/10/2019 11:06:48
K : Reference frame
K’: Moving frame (It is accepted as an inertial reference frame because of its uniform motion)

K and K’ are on the point O at the moment To.
An identified photon (Pı) and K’ frame begin their travelings at the moment To.
At the moment Tı, Photon Pı has arrived to the point B; K’ frame has arrived to the point A.
Einstein write the coordinates of the photon Pı  for K (x; y; z; t) and K’: (x’; y’; z’; t’)

For K:    x = ct ;  y = 0 ; z = 0 and t
For K’:  x’ = ct’; y’ = 0 ; z’ =0 and t’

Thus far, everything is normal. If we want, we may indicate the coordinates according to other points/frames. The photon Pı is a unique object by its existence.

According to SR,  a person in K’ frame cannot know his relative motion and he considers the value of light as ‘ c ‘; because he will find this value on measuring. In this case the coordinates  of Pı will be x’ = ct' and t’ for him.  the relation of  x' / t' = c  is inevitabl; because he (K') will measure the value ' c ' always.

please look at the figure : (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2FFig.+SR.pdf&hash=a29d4fe2342a46f2db0efcc08e165c47)

Now; SR steps in the event:

The outer observer (in K) decides that the coordinates of the photon Pı would be
x’ = c.t’ = (ct – vt) and t’ according to the frame K’ (*). And he would find new transform equations for providing that relation:   x’ / t’ = c

It is interesting;  How will the photon’s  way be decreased  due to relative speed of the frame K’ ? Especially in space/vacuum environment.

SR mentality found a solution this problem by using a train or rigid steak for K’ frame !?****???

(*) Whereas the Photon Pı and the point K’ move away together from the point O and the photon Pı had actually traveled the way OB for the duration t. Lorentz, Poincaré and Einstein analyzed the photography that was taked at the moment Tı ; they had neglected the continuousness of events. They prefered an instantanous picture. But we can distinguish  the natural reality. We know the photon Pı traveled the way OB in the duration  t = (Tı – To) not the distance AB.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 30/10/2019 07:51:37
The same thing happened again. An avoidance attitude for the basic essence of SR (figure was downloaded 2 times). In publications, high comments on the inferences, expansions, examples and foamings  are the level of  95%, but the first technical base  is 5%.

Yet it is quite simple / easy; no need to be an authority. Let's activate the cognitive self-confidence and look at the event together:

At the moment To, the source / obturator and  the photon start  their journeys.

At the moment Tı,  the source reaches point A, the photon reaches point B. That's all. They go parallel in the common K system. (Please allegorize like a film or in four dimensions)

The external observer thinks that the person in K' will measure the speed of light as ‘c;  It wouldn't be a problem if it was measured as c-v.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/10/2019 09:03:38
Quick question; Do you understand that, in every test that has ever been done, GR gives the correct answer?
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 30/10/2019 09:37:04
Quick question; Do you understand that, in every test that has ever been done, GR gives the correct answer?

:) ;) :D

No problem for you.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/10/2019 10:48:39
Quick question; Do you understand that, in every test that has ever been done, GR gives the correct answer?
Specifically, it's a question to which I'd like an answer- either yes or no.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 30/10/2019 15:02:53
Quick question; Do you understand that, in every test that has ever been done, GR gives the correct answer?
Specifically, it's a question to which I'd like an answer- either yes or no.

Gravity can bend  the light's path.

GR accepts that the gravity and acceleration are equivalent; and GR claims that light's path is bended because of accelerating of a chest/cabinet. I indicated that the light path is bended again when the value of acceleration is zero (fixed speed) according to GR mentality. Because GR mentality supposes the form of path by allegorizing the source and final point of light.

Whereas, an alternative interpretation is possible in accodance with LCS concept: I attached the figure again.

Single photon's path is horizontal (right figure); the cabinet goes up with its fixed or accelerated speed. Please consider that the photon is sent to perpendicular  direction of the wall by a perforated filter or obturator.

The path of sequential photons is different (please look at:

Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/10/2019 16:19:58
Quick question; Do you understand that, in every test that has ever been done, GR gives the correct answer?
Specifically, it's a question to which I'd like an answer- either yes or no.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/10/2019 16:21:44

"obturator
/ˈɒbtjʊəreɪtə/

noun ANATOMY
either of two muscles covering the outer front part of the pelvis on each side and involved in movements of the thigh and hip."

Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 30/10/2019 20:55:29
Quick question; Do you understand that, in every test that has ever been done, GR gives the correct answer?
Specifically, it's a question to which I'd like an answer- either yes or no.

I'd like to know the answer to this too.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 31/10/2019 08:47:57

"obturator"

Sorry; you are right. It would must be "obstructor filter" . Thanks for your warning.

Perhaps, I would must use the word "photo-flash" for smallest photon packet.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 31/10/2019 11:08:50
Quick question; Do you understand that, in every test that has ever been done, GR gives the correct answer?
Specifically, it's a question to which I'd like an answer- either yes or no.

I'd like to know the answer to this too.

Probably, you claims that the tests of GR verifies/protects the SR.

This "YES" is sufficient for amateur science interests.

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.

However, publicated articles are sufficient for people who wants to believe. Nobody gets upset. SR is already a publicated article. Why do we discuss?

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.

Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 31/10/2019 17:52:18
Probably, 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:
Both 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.

In 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.

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.

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.

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.

Your light kinematics model has been falsified because it predicts results that are at odds with experimental data.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/10/2019 20:34:11
In my opinion, naked scientists must not confine himself to this "yes".
So, in your opinion we should get it wrong.
Why is that?
please remember the Cold fusion case in Nature Journals
Yes, 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.
The 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
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/10/2019 20:35:16
However, 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.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 01/11/2019 16:56:32
Probably, 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:
Both 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.

In 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.

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.

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.

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.

Your light kinematics model has been falsified because it predicts results that are at odds with experimental data.

If you are so sure about SR and GR; in this case you do not need to worry.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 01/11/2019 16:57:53
In my opinion, naked scientists must not confine himself to this "yes".
So, in your opinion we should get it wrong.
Why is that?
please remember the Cold fusion case in Nature Journals
Yes, 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.
The 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
However, 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.

If you are so sure about SR and GR; in this case you do not need to worry and rush.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 01/11/2019 17:19:50
SUMMARY AND FINAL

1- 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”.

Finally

It 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 miracle

For enthusiasts : Unsolved Problems in Special and General Relativity : Florentin Smarandache

Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/11/2019 18:52:51
FINAL
Good.

Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 01/11/2019 20:06:59
If you are so sure about SR and GR; in this case you do not need to worry.

I don't worry. It's not like I would need to worry even if relativity was wrong. It's not like I personally benefit from it.

And the source has to follow its photon for SR’s inferences.

No, it doesn't.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 10/11/2019 15:30:33
SUMMARY AND FINAL

1- 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”.

Finally

It 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 miracle

For enthusiasts : Unsolved Problems in Special and General Relativity : Florentin Smarandache

I was waiting an objection about the technical essence of SR. There is an interesting point.

Someone (who claimed to know the theory well) would catch my mistake.
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/11/2019 16:16:50
Someone (who claimed to know the theory well) would catch my mistake.
Your mistake was caught some time ago.
You keep posting nonsense.
This cartoon works just as well for disproving relativity as it does for inventing a perpetual motion machine.
https://xkcd.com/2217/

Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 11/11/2019 08:44:41
You keep posting nonsense.

You keep posting empty.

(I want to give a key clue: shortening of the photon's way.)
Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 25/11/2019 09:14:24