[guest39538]

Ok let us look at the first flaw, I have found us a video that explains it pretty well and print screened a shot from the video to add relativistic correctness.

see attached for error in logic in the video.

t/dx is not equal to t/dxy  and your imaginations are misleading you.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Ok let us look at the first flaw, I have found us a video that explains it pretty well and print screened a shot from the video to add relativistic correctness.

see attached for error in logic in the video.

t/dx is not equal to t/dxy  and your imaginations are misleading you.

Thanks Thebox for your examples. They seem much persuasive.
 
However, I had discussed this example with Einstein fictionally in my book.

wait me (If I can learn to post the figures here)

[guest39538]

Ok let us look at the first flaw, I have found us a video that explains it pretty well and print screened a shot from the video to add relativistic correctness.

see attached for error in logic in the video.

t/dx is not equal to t/dxy  and your imaginations are misleading you.

Thanks Thebox for your examples. They seem much persuasive.
 
However, I had discussed this example with Einstein fictionally in my book.

wait me (If I can learn to post the figures here)

Could you please quote the fictional conversation from your book? I would be very interested in reading this. 

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Could you please quote the fictional conversation from your book? I would be very interested in reading this. 

Dear Thebox,

My fictional conversation with Einstein takes 32 pages, therefore I want to submit a brief:

1-   I may say directly that in your video for the position   v = c,   light’s path is being parallel to shuttle’s path (does it mean that the time stops?). This result is wrong / impossible; because the minimum angle of light is 45° degree  (tangent φ  ≤ 1; or H = L).

2-   If we set the tangent value of light’s path as c/v  (or  H / L = the distance between two mirrors / the length of shuttle’s way  by the time H/c) by a filter, at this layout the light will travel smallest way ( H ) between two mirrors  (perpendicular  direction of the shuttle’s way). So, it means time tempo will be faster. The faster tempo is not mentioned for SR.

3-   However an alternative option is possible except these explanations; so the fact may be different. If we set your video example as tangent of light’s angle as the value ∞ (If we use a filter for perpendicular path of light), the total way of light will always be H again [please remember a stairway and the total of steps’ heights (figure 15 at attachment)].

[guest39538]

Could you please quote the fictional conversation from your book? I would be very interested in reading this. 

Dear Thebox,

My fictional conversation with Einstein takes 32 pages, therefore I want to submit a brief:

1-   I may say directly that in your video for the position   v = c,   light’s path is being parallel to shuttle’s path (does it mean that the time stops?). This result is wrong / impossible; because the minimum angle of light is 45° degree  (tangent φ  ≤ 1; or H = L).

Ok, I am not quite sure what you are getting at but I can tell you that light does not have any angles  at all, the observer is imaginary angled to the light, the light always travels a linearity.  Normal matter such as a rock does not reflect light. Only mirrored surfaces reflect light proven by a laser in the dark travelling through a medium .
Angles are only ''relative'' of light. of the imagination.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

I could perform to share the figure 15 from my book.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Ok, I am not quite sure what you are getting at but I can tell you that light does not have any angles  at all, the observer is imaginary angled to the light, the light always travels a linearity.  Normal matter such as a rock does not reflect light. Only mirrored surfaces reflect light proven by a laser in the dark travelling through a medium .Angles are only ''relative'' of light. of the imagination. 

The science likes and wants transparency, discipline, certainty not cloudy. We must consider/use  -while we are analyzing and telling-  a defined/unique photon instead of "light". When the term "light" is preferred, a rationalization window is opening that is a reason of confusing (*). To realize the light experiments by continuous/uninterrupted light is already a serious problem in itself.

To isolate a single photon or few photons by Kerr obturator and to set a route for these photons by  filters are possible.

(*) Unfortunetly, SR and related texts contain similar inelaborate explanations. The light ridicules with human mind; we must not serve for its mystic aims.

 

By the way,  the position of a sky object -that we perceive it-  is indicated by  the coordinates "x, y, z, T" ; all of them are belonging to past and they determine/represent the emitting point and moment of a single photon. However the observing object had been marked on LCS; and at present time it is not located on this point.








 

 

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Please don’t think and label me like that I had been an anti-Einstein (the fans or mysticism chauvinists may think so; whereas we always  seek scientific reality/essence of nature). Actually I have admiration for Einstein’s vision/wisdom about E = m.c² and the potential of Bose-Einstein density (because these definitions are presents to understand our place in universe and life; so they have high importance for humankind).

Why was I obliged to examine the theory SR?

I have serious interest for philosophy and cosmology. I ascribe high interpretation for the phenomenon that human’s performance for calculating the age of universe. I wanted to realize this performance myself. And I realized too.
In this study, radial speeds of sky objects are important parameter. The redshifts represent radial speeds and the measured values of redshifts must be reduced. The theory SR uses the value c for the top limit of radial speeds on reducing operation. Whereas radial speed has two components; one of them is the speed of observing object; and the other component is belonging to observer (or our local cluster); thus the distance between observer and object can increase up to 2.c at simultaneous layout (or by God’s eyes). But SR persists for single c. I had perceived the first flaw of SR.

The value 2c (for the top limit of increasing/decreasing speed for the distance between two independent moving bodies) presents better/logical result  for analyzing space time.


The graphic of the redshifts are curved upward on a diagram redshifts/distance. After SR reduction the graphic of radial speeds takes a form as a positive inclined and it becomes asymptote to the value c. But on the derived diagram (Hubble constant values according to their distance) the graphic (SR originated) is a negative inclined line; whereas it would be a horizontal line for simultaneous layout. My solution or reduction method provides this requirement.


Briefly, my SR interest is not directly. The subject of SR’s defects was a secondary inference of my primary project (the age of universe).



19130

[xersanozgen (OP)]

KEY CLUE  for wrong mentality of SR

SR considers the "genuine relativity" for light's motion. Whereas other options (nominal/titular and temporary/momentary relativity) define  preferable/better the relative motion of light (please allow you yourself). SR had never examined these other types of relativity. Its decision is not result of  a scrutiny.

To understand the wrong mentality of SR postulates is significant  for science history; it is interesting that these options of light's relativity is not mentioned by anybody until today.

In my opinion the new definition may be called by "Second Galilei Event".

[xersanozgen (OP)]

 
 

We can understand  the essence and flaws of SR by this  figure

The essence of SR

1- The velocities of the photons P' and P''  are the value c according to the point O that is located on the World/rails. When we measure the velocity of light, we find the value c on the world.
2- The velocities of the photons P' and P'' are the value c according to their source that has uniform motion by the speed v. When we measure the velocity of the same light, we find the value c again on the world or train/rocket.

The flaws of SR:

[xersanozgen (OP)]

This figure can indicate the flaws of SR easily:


Our mind may be deceived by going position toward same direction of the source and its photon. Same direction has
convenience to rationalize the mistake.

Please, examine the photon P'' (that goes toward - x). This photon had released while the source is passing over the point O at the moment To and it travels the distance OP'' ; the source get the distance OS during same time.

So, every points of the distance SP'' is not traveled by the photon.

If our mind complete the interval automatically, this is not scientific.

 To analyze by taking a photo on a moment  of time t  may not reflect the authentic reality; and the position of same direction  helps for misinformation. SR and Lorentz had neglected the attitude about continiuum of tracing.

[PmbPhy]

Sometimes I take a peek into this forum to see if anybody actually has a valid idea. I haven't seen one in all the years I've visited forums, i.e. 20 years. But I keep trying.

I thought I'd check this thread out only because I'm bored. All too often I run into comments like the following.

Remember the Galileo event! Everybody had said that "The sun turns around the earth" exept Galileo.

First off, you were wrongly corrected regarding this. While it was Copernicus's theory which said that the Earth orbits the Sun it was Galileo who provided evidence for it.

Anyway, the fact that Galileo argued this and his argument has been borne out by observations its always the crackpot who uses this as an example as if everyone who disagrees with a current theory can rightly compare themselves with Galileo. Wrong! So wrong in fact that its been put on the crackpot index

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

which states

40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

Please don't bore us with such comparisons in the future. We all see right through it.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

I thought I'd check this thread out only because I'm bored. All too often I run into comments like the following.

Remember the Galileo event! Everybody had said that "The sun turns around the earth" except Galileo.

First off, you were wrongly corrected regarding this. While it was Copernicus's theory which said that the Earth orbits the Sun it was Galileo who provided evidence for it.

Anyway, the fact that Galileo argued this and his argument has been borne out by observations its always the crackpot who uses this as an example as if everyone who disagrees with a current theory can rightly compare themselves with Galileo. Wrong! So wrong in fact that its been put on the crackpot index.

Thanks for your interest. Yes you are right it was Copernicus's theory. He had determined that the Earth has orbital motion around the Sun. When I mark Galilei, similar corrections were replied.

I think and distinguish that Galilei's claim was about "axial rotation of the earth". Already the opposite (or genuine explanation) of the perception/illusion/opinion  "the Sun turns around the Earth" must be axial rotation. If the Earth has not axial rotation, the relative motion of the Sun according to Earth reference frame may be the same for during one year probably. Besides, If the Earth has only axial rotation and it never has orbital motion the common wrong perception would be valid again. So / in my opinion Galilei's subject was axial rotation that is more hot/effective for common opinion/ one daily event.

We may see an example of first approach due to this interpretation. Thanks Pmbphy.

We may evaluate the flaws of SR and revise it for major/absolute reality.

We must prefer to reconsider by advanced paradigm instead of first approaches. We can overcome  the captivity of  glamorous ideas.

We may allow to understand the clues of flaws and we may prefer to discuss by scientific arguments instead of labelling "crackpot" for the sake of "Naked Science".

40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

Yes, I agree. I prefer to say like a  self-image  "irresistible fascination of criticising upon Einstein". I had mentioned in my book. So, I am aware similar psycological motivation. I have explained formerly that my arguments are generated  as a by-product of my main project (light kinematics to analyze space-time). If you can allow you yourself  for the clues/arguments probably you will may have the possibility of recording different options.  To label like "crackpot" or to use  trivializations by irrelevant argument may prevent your scientific wisdom. Please focus technical subjects. 





I will go on share technically

[xersanozgen (OP)]

If you consider just a moving body and its fictive source and if you know Galilei relativity principle (an object -that has uniform motion- can be used like a reference frame), so  you can generate the theory SR.

In SR an outer reference frame is present -but indirectly or hidden- because of the moving body’s speed; In Lorentz, this second reference frame is used and mentioned distinctly; but, here it is all. The inference of time dilation seems convenient and consistent on these conditions. We human/science stayed at this closed frame for 112 years. Unfortunately, humanly attitudes are predominant.

The relative speed of moving body gets different values (but limited by c) according to each one of other sequential frames (Solar system, Milky way galaxy, local cluster, super cluster… universe, multiverse… most external frame /space/ LCS). And every different value of the parameter v (v is the speed of moving body) requires different time tempo because of SR mentality; but this result is impossible for the clock of moving body and the concept of abstract time.


Here are the factors that help for misinformation on readings SR:


To analyze the motion of moving body and light on same direction,
To consider the light like uninterrupted form instead of identified photon,
To ignore other relativity types and to attribute/apply the well-known/genuine relativity type for also the light’s motion.
To ignore other external frames, to consider just the local frame,
To neglect tracing the positions of the photon, and to calculate by taking a photo at a moment of time (it means freezing the time; whereas SR and Lorentz had emphasized the importance of 4th dimension.

These attitudes are not methodological / scientific; they were one of well-intentioned efforts to define nature events and this first approach fastinate us, the inferences of SR, especially time travel is  - so to say- a bribe   for our archetypical passion of mysticism.

 

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Galaxies were defined at 1920’s.

Galaxy clusters were discovered at later times.

The theory SR was publicized at 1905; so, the hierarchical ranking of outer/external reference frames could not be known. However, we know and can consider them.

The absolute truth has a habit like to come out always.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

IS THE VALUE  c  THE TOP LIMIT FOR ALL TYPE OF  SPEEDS?

SR supposes/determines that the value c is the top limit for all type of speeds. (SR likes to restrict events for example the moving body and its fictive light; whereas the universe is not consisted merely these two objects: excessively reductionist attitude) Yes we can simplfy to analyze; but then we have to superpose in accordance with the nature.

 This postulate indicates that the theory SR considers merely the "genuine relativity" (If only/I wish, the English language would has some specific words for the types of relativity; the coding by single word can direct the mind and caused confusion); because the value c is the top limit for "genuine relativity". SR had ignored other relativity types.

Whereas the top limit is the value 2c for other relativity types.

We must reconsider and revise this postulate of SR.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

I liked this crackpot index. They are humanly behauvoirs that we are often encountering in forums (especially "you think/understand wrong").

However, an important point has been forgetted: To take aim at the person instead of his/her syntheses/submissions.  In my opinion 80 point.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

In science reduction/isolation is a usual method to simplify the analyses; few main factors are isolated and repeated for others. When some inferences are generated, the superposing step is considered.

Of course optimal scale of reduction method is important for science. If we exaggerate the reduction method, the results may be fantastic/amazing like illusionists’ attractions (Had K. Popper studied this subject? He had mindfulness for  prophecy and prediction). Illusionists are successful to direct/confuse our mental references.

SR has excessive reductionist attitude and -moreover- neglected superposing process.   

We may remember briefly:

. SR reduces the entire universe/nature to a moving body and its fictive light; so much so that, an outer reference frame is –please- considered because of moving body’s speed.   

. SR sets the analysis for only single direction. The moving body and the light go toward same direction.

. SR considers only one type of relativity concept. In SR the relation of the light and its source is considered like the relation of a car and the road (genuine relativity).

. SR freezes the time by taking a photo at a moment of flowing time. I had explained that how did this attitude cause wrong perception by the example opposite directions.

Besides the methodological defects are not limited by these points:

. SR directly supposes and labels the measured speed for light like a local relative speed. It never discusses and interprets which speed is measuring; as if a dogmatic opinion or implicit postulate. The same measurement result on everywhere can also indicate/include a different option that the universal (not local relative) speed can be always measured by present experiment.  So, if we want to measure the universal value of the light's velocity, we would use the present measurement experiment and we would label/interpret the result value inaccordance with our beginning intention.

. In science the test subject must be identified object; so, a numbered photon instead of the abstract coding “light”.
(SR neglects the essential/a priori isolation like to use a numbered photon).

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Please we must/may distinguish the nuance of a photon's relativity and for example a car's relativity.

A car provides its speed due to its road interactively. Car's speed is essential relative to the road. The road is comparison/reference frame for car's speed.

A photon is released by a source and the relation of source-photon ended at the emitting moment. The velocity of light is realised without a help of source. to claim that a photon always move away by the velocity c from its source is like to claim that a ball always move away by its speed from the player who shot it (player can change his position independently after shotting; it means the relation ends after shotting moment).

If you believe the SR; time-travel is possible also on a ground of stadium.

We can overcome this first approach consideration.

we are in knowledge/information age. We can well-directed reconsider the light kinematics..

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Much phenomenas and events of nature are multi-dimensional, multi-factorial; but human cognitive capacity is formed to survive in accordance with the concept of “necessary and sufficient”;   and unfortunately it is lineer logic (*), its ability does not match to the complexity of nature (**). Therefore some first approaches may not be well-directed; and however, their inferences may be also labelled as a high success of humanity proudly; because human cognitive capacity has not highest qualities; we may say "pathway / winding trail " (**).


 The refracting and reflecting subjects of light had been solved and defined easily; however light kinematics contains more/most difficult problem.   First approaches can be wrong/deceptive/illusion probably. If -at next- Human cognitive capacity can have high qualities like functionality and cosiness of an autobahn (superhighway), new generations will may label as “occultist efforts” for these first approaches.


(*)  We may remember the award systems.

(**) However we can improve and manage our capacity by hard discipline/methodology. The clues/points of low discipline about analysis of SR has been indicated at the section # 137.

20575