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.

Please read for more : http://vixra.org/pdf/1903.0044v1.pdf (http://vixra.org/pdf/1903.0044v1.pdf)
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.
He's dead.
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.


Thanks for your question.

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.
Bored-Chemist made a similar request, and I notice your reply to that doesn't provide one.
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
We didn't ask for pictures.
We asked for evidence.
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
We didn't ask for pictures.
We asked for evidence.
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
We didn't ask for pictures.
We asked for evidence.
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
We didn't ask for pictures.
We asked for evidence.
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
My message was about SR.
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:

https://www.academia.edu/36057326/The_Path_of_Light_on_a_Moving_Body (https://www.academia.edu/36057326/The_Path_of_Light_on_a_Moving_Body)

Title: Re: Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?
Post by: xersanozgen on 23/07/2019 17:45:34
My message was about SR.
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:

https://www.academia.edu/36057326/The_Path_of_Light_on_a_Moving_Body (https://www.academia.edu/36057326/The_Path_of_Light_on_a_Moving_Body)
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?

Thanks for your this question.

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=mc².  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.

Your other discourses are irrelevant.
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.
...
Your other discourses are irrelevant.
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:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhyEs..26...49E (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhyEs..26...49E)
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...