[xersanozgen (OP)]

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).

We may say that this preference is the key point/trick of the theory SR; because, minimum three types of relativity can be defined;

Genuine relativity

Nominal/titular relativity

Momentary/temporary relativity 

1. Genuine relativity: In this regard, we must remember the essence of the concept of
simple relativity. A car obtains its speed by applying power to the road surface via
friction, such that the numerical value of its speed is relative to the road. Thus, the
road is the reference frame (or comparing/inertial object) for the speed of the car.
The car obtains its speed via its frictional pushing against the road or in actuality,
the mass under the road. The road or mass of the Earth beneath it, has an active
(but indirect) role in the motion and speed of the car. In other words, the speed of
the moving body is relative to the mass of the reference frame. At the time of
motion, the car’s speed remains relative to the road. The distance between the car
and its starting point can be determined by this relative value of its speed.


2. Nominal/supposed relativity: Think about two cars moving on the same road.
When we give the reference role to one of them (we suppose that it is immobile),
the speed of other car (vectorial total of their speeds) can be defined as “nominal
relative”. This car does not obtain this value of its speed due to other car. In this
regard, the nominal relative value of a particular speed is the titular / notional /
artificial / comparative value. The increasing/decreasing speed of the distance
between these two cars can be defined by coding for the “nominal relative” speed
of each car.
 

3. Momentary/temporary relativity: If a player throws a ball, what is the reference
frame of the ball’s speed? The player is the reason for the ball’s motion, as the
player supplies the power. Therefore, we can say that “the ball moves away from
the player at the speed at which was thrown” or “the ball’s speed has a value that is
relative to the player”. However, this holds only if the player does not leave the
point from which (s)he threw the ball. Naturally the player has freedom to move
after throwing the ball. At any given moment of flowing time, the distance
between the player and the ball will differ from the “v.t” value, because the player
can travel in any direction [even if (s)he maintains uniform motion]. However, the
relativity-based computation is valid with regard to the throwing point (which can
be marked on the ground); thus, the main reference frame regarding the relativity
of the ball’s speed is the mass of the ground. The player determines the quality of
reference frame only at the throwing moment; at subsequent moments the distance
between the player and the ball cannot be determined merely by the throwing
speed. Likewise, the relativity of the ball’s speed is valid only with regard to the
point (marked on the ground) at which the ball was thrown. Thus, the ground is the
co-reference frame for the motions of the player and the ball.


Which type of relativity pertains to the relationship between light and its
source/moving body? SR theory considers “the relativity concept” according to its first
meaning (genuine relativity). Based on SR theory “the distance between a photon and its
source always increases with the value of speed c “. We must, therefore, discuss “what
contribution the source makes to the velocity of light?” or whether “the source makes any
such contribution at all”. The source never applies a power akin to pushing or throwing. In
addition, the light does not apply such power to the source or moving body or its
place/ground.


. The light’s velocity results from electro-magnetic cycles in space. The value of
light’s velocity can be defined based on the concept of “genuine relativity”, which considers
only the space involved. I prefer to call this major reference frame “Light coordinate system
(LCS)”. If we suppose that the source throws the photons, then the relationship between the
light and its source (or moving body) is defined by momentary relativity by-which the light
instantly transfers to the LCS. In this case, the LCS is the co-reference frame for the motions
of the light and the other actors (source, observer, everything). The values of all parameters
involved must be determined based on a co-reference frame, which is the LCS for light
kinematics.


English language gives a different word for nuances. Why has not it encoded for different concepts of relativity? In my opinion, the subject of relativity in physics has not been deserved deep interest.

 

[xersanozgen (OP)]

If Einstein could be alive he would reconsider relativity theories by alternative LCS concept and he would revise his paradigm; because the arguments about methodological defects are clear/transparent and effective.

[guest4091]

If Einstein could be alive he would reconsider relativity theories by alternative LCS concept and he would revise his paradigm; because the arguments about methodological defects are clear/transparent and effective.

The closest thing to your LCS concept is the cmb. If you move to the imagined location of emission, you don't find any markers or evidence. If it originated from a material object, the object has moved since the emission. The coordinate transformations obviously depend on spatial coordinates, which are material objects.The LCS is just as elusive as the absolute rest frame! SR has an established history of successful experimental agreements.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

1- The LCS is just as elusive as the absolute rest frame!

2- SR has an established history of successful experimental agreements.

1-   The LCS or outer space is an absolute rest frame. Yes you are right; it is not tangible and we human need concrete objects for marking/comparing/relativity.

The nature does not care this reality or cognitive requirements of scientists.

However, we are not helpless; we can use a sheet of paper as outer space for light kinematics analyses (the parameters of other f-actors must be adapted/evaluated according to LCS).  This method allows to use Galilean/classical relativity (the top limit for genuine relativity is ‘ c ‘; but the top limit for nominal/pseudo relativity is ‘ 2c ‘).

But the analysis of  LCS method does not present interesting or sensation results like time travel.


2-   If you share these experiments (Muon ?) I can present alternative interpretion by LCS mentality.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

LCS concept considers the same experimental results of the theory SR:

1- The measuring experiments of the light's velocity; the result:  we get the same value on everywhere

The conclusion of SR: this measured value is relative speed of light according to its source or local place (train/perron/the place of experiment)

Interpretation of LCS: we can measure just the universal speed of light (relative value according to outmost space frame).The isotropic quality of measuring experiment is a powerfull  evidence for universal speed.

2- Michelson - Morley interferometer experiment: The amount of fringes is the same for different directions.

The conclusion of SR: The velocity of light never gets any addition from its source's speed.

Interpretation of LCS: The light arrives by always the velocity ' c '  to an observer/receptor.



3- Muon experiment: It claims Natural muons lives longer than the muons of laboratory.

The conclusion according to SR: the diference of time can be explained by the formulas of SR.

Interpretation of LCS: The paper of this experiment use the muon's speed value according to the Earth for calculation; whereas it must consider the difference of the speeds of natural and laboratory muons; but, unfortunately the speeds of natural muons and laboratory muons are on the same level.

[guest4091]

In reality, the train burnt the fuel and was placed on motion due too this. The amount of energy needed is lower since the station is a large stone building

Could that be why physicists accelerate the particles and not the lab?

[xersanozgen (OP)]

In muon article the Earth has assigned as  co-reference frame. The speeds of natural and laboratory muons are a big fraction of light’s velocity and the are similar level. Besides, the comparison object is the laboratory muon, therefore in calculation the difference of the speeds would must be usen. 

[xersanozgen (OP)]

LCS concept considers the same experimental results of the theory SR:

1- The measuring experiments of the light's velocity; the result:  we get the same value on everywhere

The conclusion of SR: this measured value is relative speed of light according to its source or local place (train/perron/the place of experiment)

Interpretation of LCS: we can measure just the universal speed of light (relative value according to outmost space frame).The isotropic quality of measuring experiment is a powerfull  evidence for universal speed.

2- Michelson - Morley interferometer experiment: The amount of fringes is the same for different directions.

The conclusion of SR: The velocity of light never gets any addition from its source's speed.

Interpretation of LCS: The light arrives by always the velocity ' c '  to an observer/receptor.



3- Muon experiment: It claims Natural muons lives longer than the muons of laboratory.

The conclusion according to SR: the diference of time can be explained by the formulas of SR.

Interpretation of LCS: The paper of this experiment use the muon's speed value according to the Earth for calculation; whereas it must consider the difference of the speeds of natural and laboratory muons; but, unfortunately the speeds of natural muons and laboratory muons are on the same level.

4- GPS corrections: It is claimed that the relativity theories is usen for GPS correction about practical useage area.

We can examine this subject:

Each satellite in the GPS constellation orbits at an altitude of about 20,000 km from the ground, and has an orbital speed of about 14,000 km/hour (4 km/sec) (http://www.gpsports.com/gpsports_website/articles/GPS%20-%20What%20is%20it.pdf )

The Earth has the rotational speed at equator about 1667 km/hour (0.46 km/sec).


To achieve this level of precision, the clock ticks from the GPS satellites must be known to an accuracy of 20-30 nanoseconds. However, because the satellites are constantly moving relative to observers on the Earth, effects predicted by the Special and General theories of Relativity must be taken into account to achieve the desired 20-30 nanosecond accuracy. ( http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html  )

The path length of microwave is 2 x 20,000 = 40,000 km; and the duration is 40 000/300 000 = 0.133 sec = 133 000 microsec.= 133 000 000 nanosec

( transposition because of  the limited value of light's velocity:  0.133 sec x 4 km/sec = 0.532 km )


max transposition because of relativity theory: 0.000000030 sec x 4 kmsec = 0.00000012 km = 0.012 centimeter.

 Alright, now, we may look/consider the tolerans of GPS:

The accuracy commitments do not apply to GPS devices, but rather to the signals transmitted in space. For example, the government commits to broadcasting the GPS signal in space with a global average user range error (URE) of ≤7.8 m (25.6 ft.), with 95% probability. Actual performance exceeds the specification. On May 11, 2016, the global average URE was ≤0.715 m (2.3 ft.), 95% of the time. ( http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/ )

So, what is the conclusion? Is the GPS relativity correction sufficient for endorsement the theory? 

[xersanozgen (OP)]

The future of SR


The theory of SR has an important position in cognitive improvement of humanity. The theory is still used to provoke the interest for science by popular science digests. But in future, it will get a place in science history like a getting confused on the border of intellectual performance/capacity. The theory served fantasy for our archetypical mysticism due to its fantastic inferences like “time travel”; we thought that we could discovery an important secret of nature. Therefore we assign it as an idol in accompanied with admiration and hubris. Peoples liked and settled with this catharsis. Even a powerful chauvinism was generated for SR and GR. They ignored to examine the essence of theory mentality; they present the arguments like psycho-rationalization for supporting the theory. They wear some blinkers that are labelled by “admiration”,  “time travel”, “I am so happy” etc . Are there chauvinism and other emotional attitudes in science? Here is already present about SR. These blinkers don’t allow considering the arguments of methodological defects. In my opinion this attitude will be continued for years/centuries** because of chauvinism and mysticism passions even if the scientists internalize the LCS concept.

The peoples of Cosmic Civilizations Union (If UCC is present) have experienced SR adventure and they use it as a test to decide for relation with other civilizations.

 (**) This relation decision  of UCC will be  activated when we will  begin to use the LCS concept.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Two photons (which have been emitted from the Sun and Andromeda on the same moment) approach to each other.

What is the approaching speed? 

Or what is the speed of decreasing the distance between these two photons?

The distance to the Andromeda Galaxy is 2.54 million light-years. When will these photons meet?.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

https://www.academia.edu/34982209/An_Experiment_for_Lorentz_-Fitzgerald_Contraction

           Abstract: If length contraction is real, the electrical resistance value of a conductive cable must be changed in accordance with its different directions because of its universal motion.   The management of precision is important for this experiment. Our electrical resistance based experiment did not indicate an evidence for the length contraction; all measured values are isotropic.

[guest39538]

https://www.academia.edu/34982209/An_Experiment_for_Lorentz_-Fitzgerald_Contraction

           Abstract: If length contraction is real, the electrical resistance value of a conductive cable must be changed in accordance with its different directions because of its universal motion.   The management of precision is important for this experiment. Our electrical resistance based experiment did not indicate an evidence for the length contraction; all measured values are isotropic.

Length contraction is ''real'' using the present semantics involved.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

https://www.academia.edu/34982209/An_Experiment_for_Lorentz_-Fitzgerald_Contraction

           Abstract: If length contraction is real, the electrical resistance value of a conductive cable must be changed in accordance with its different directions because of its universal motion.   The management of precision is important for this experiment. Our electrical resistance based experiment did not indicate an evidence for the length contraction; all measured values are isotropic.

Length contraction is ''real'' using the present semantics involved.

Please note this experiment; put to a rack in brain.

If I or someone say that to believe is a scientific method, you must object.

Of course we want to protect our holly; however to update in science is ordinary.

Naked scientists must want to catch genuineness instead of dogmatism.

Don’t worry for length contraction or SR; because, people always need idols (of course these idols/fantastic inferences are more respectable according to astrology etc.), the mystical admiration or dogmatic appropriation  will remain for few centuries, even if inaccuracy of them is determined.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Fitzgerald had submitted a saver claim (contraction) for aether concept against the negative result of Michelson - Morley experiment.

1- It's not a claim and never was. Lorentz stated it as a postulate for the null result of the MMX and its something that is subject to observation. A "claim" is something that is stated with no evidence of it being valid. That's not the same thing as a postulate.

2- The Lorentz validity of Lorentz contraction has been demonstrated many times. One observation concerns the observation of muons which are created in the upper atmosphere. For details see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction

Lorentz contraction also manifests itself by observations of the EM field surrounding conductors. For details see:
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/physics_world/em/rotating_magnet.htm

Whether or not someone has actually constructed an experiment, run it and recorded the results is another story. However I'm fairly sure that there's ample evidence out there which imply it.

One thing to understand regarding the validity of various things is that one makes a prediction and then constructs an experiment and/or makes an observation. If the observation contradicts the prediction then what led to the prediction is wrong. If the observation is consistent with the prediction then we have more confidence in the prediction and what led us to the prediction.

3- Einstein's special theory of relativity (SR) one can derive the Lorentz contraction from the two postulates of SR, i.e. in SR Lorentz contraction is not a postulate but is derived.

If you've never seen the derivation of Lorentz contraction and know algebra then you can follow the derivation at the web page I created for that purpose. See:
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/physics_world/sr/lorentz_contraction.htm

1-   Is a saver/reviver idea requirement for aether hypothesis? There is already Maxwell’s determination for radiating of light.  Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction and the theory SR want to verify aether hypothesis. And similar following efforts will fall to position of AD-HOC. We know anymore that the light can radiate in vacuum without physical medium/aether. Is the insistence a logic attitude about a quitted hypothesis?

2-   The muon paragraph of your link:

“ The range of action of muons at high velocities is much higher than that of slower ones. The atmosphere has its proper length in the Earth frame, while the increased muon range is explained by their longer lifetimes due to time dilation (see Time dilation of moving particles). However, in the muon frame their lifetime is unchanged but the atmosphere is contracted so that even their small range is sufficient to reach the surface of earth. “


I had read some scientific article about muons. If you make half-read, the phrase “slower ones” may convinces you. If you deeply research this subject, you will see that slower muons are produced in laboratory; whereas the velocities atmospheric muons and laboratory muons have similar value. But, these articles consider the speed value of laboratory muons as zero. Some scientists may delude himself or they may want to misinform.


3-   Yes if you accept the postulate that a moving body (*) can be reference frame for the motion of light, you can derive length contraction. However, there is an alternative option: the space can be considered as co-reference frame for the motions of light and other actors (source, observer, etc. … everything).  This analysis is possible and we must not forbid this option.


(*) Moving body or light’s source is always a relative object; therefore to give a reference role to source is a defect like first Galilei event (The Earth was considered as a main reference frame for Sun’s motion, whereas indeed, Earth is relative position according to Sun). So, local-centric analyses cannot be accuracy for universal subjects like light’s motion.


Finally, people want experimental evidence for many events. However if we would like some fantastic inferences because of our archetypal mysticism passion, we may want to ignore these experimental evidences. But the genuine reality has already force major.

[guest39538]

https://www.academia.edu/34982209/An_Experiment_for_Lorentz_-Fitzgerald_Contraction

           Abstract: If length contraction is real, the electrical resistance value of a conductive cable must be changed in accordance with its different directions because of its universal motion.   The management of precision is important for this experiment. Our electrical resistance based experiment did not indicate an evidence for the length contraction; all measured values are isotropic.

Length contraction is ''real'' using the present semantics involved.

Please note this experiment; put to a rack in brain.

If I or someone say that to believe is a scientific method, you must object.

Of course we want to protect our holly; however to update in science is ordinary.

Naked scientists must want to catch genuineness instead of dogmatism.

Don’t worry for length contraction or SR; because, people always need idols (of course these idols/fantastic inferences are more respectable according to astrology etc.), the mystical admiration or dogmatic appropriation  will remain for few centuries, even if inaccuracy of them is determined.

Do you understand what semantics mean?

You can't put this experiment in the back of your head because it works correctly to the semantics involved. It is a factual length contraction, but if we use simple logic we can easily observe no length contraction.  If we remove the 1 second of present time from the situation, changing the thought experiment using time Planck, there is no dilation or contraction.
I can and have already proved this but the proof itself and facts do not really help the situation where the untruth actually works for our needs of GPS.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

I can and have already proved this but the proof itself and facts do not really help the situation where the untruth actually works for our needs of GPS.

I want to share again the GPS evidence:

 It is claimed that the relativity theories is usen for GPS correction about practical useage area.

We can examine this subject:

Each satellite in the GPS constellation orbits at an altitude of about 20,000 km from the ground, and has an orbital speed of about 14,000 km/hour (4 km/sec) (http://www.gpsports.com/gpsports_website/articles/GPS%20-%20What%20is%20it.pdf )

The Earth has the rotational speed at equator about 1667 km/hour (0.46 km/sec).


To achieve this level of precision, the clock ticks from the GPS satellites must be known to an accuracy of 20-30 nanoseconds. However, because the satellites are constantly moving relative to observers on the Earth, effects predicted by the Special and General theories of Relativity must be taken into account to achieve the desired 20-30 nanosecond accuracy. ( http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html  )

The path length of microwave is 2 x 20,000 = 40,000 km; and the duration is 40 000/300 000 = 0.133 sec = 133 000 microsec.= 133 000 000 nanosec

( transposition because of  the limited value of light's velocity:  0.133 sec x 4 km/sec = 0.532 km )


max transposition because of relativity theory: 0.000000030 sec x 4 kmsec = 0.00000012 km = 0.012 centimeter.

 Alright, now, we may look/consider the tolerans of GPS:

The accuracy commitments do not apply to GPS devices, but rather to the signals transmitted in space. For example, the government commits to broadcasting the GPS signal in space with a global average user range error (URE) of ≤7.8 m (25.6 ft.), with 95% probability. Actual performance exceeds the specification. On May 11, 2016, the global average URE was ≤0.715 m (2.3 ft.), 95% of the time. ( http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/ )

So, what is the conclusion? Is the GPS relativity correction sufficient for endorsement the theory? 

[yor_on]

hmm, when it comes to gps and the way you define the values there I don't know. That would probably need to get into a real in depth analysis with more exactness. But there are other tests where you need to compensate for length contractions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity#Time_dilation_and_length_contraction

" Basically, because of length contraction you can squeeze in more charged particles in a single bunch than you could without length contraction. The design of the particle accelerator takes this length contraction into account, and the accelerator functions as designed. " By Dale

And here are some more effects involving length contractions

http://www.iflscience.com/physics/4-examples-relativity-everyday-life/

Whatever idea you have you will need a explanation for them, and a test proving your idea to give an explanation for some behavior where standard physics (SR) fails.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

hmm, when it comes to gps and the way you define the values there I don't know. That would probably need to get into a real in depth analysis with more exactness. But there are other tests where you need to compensate for length contractions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity#Time_dilation_and_length_contraction

" Basically, because of length contraction you can squeeze in more charged particles in a single bunch than you could without length contraction. The design of the particle accelerator takes this length contraction into account, and the accelerator functions as designed. " By Dale

And here are some more effects involving length contractions

http://www.iflscience.com/physics/4-examples-relativity-everyday-life/

Whatever idea you have you will need a explanation for them, and a test proving your idea to give an explanation for some behavior where standard physics (SR) fails.

I submitted my arguments and shared some analyses.

Key or clue: To use outmost frame is a useful method; and the velocity of light is the value c according to this outmost frame too. We know that to assign/use a relative/local object as reference frame causes wrong perception and false determination (First Galilei event).

Unfortunately, there is not an instruction about the management of mental references yet, even for science.

Naked scientists have cognitive performance and they can prioitise their own analysis instead of memorisation.

 Don't worry, mystery passion or mysticism is dominant; and current opinions and SR will be remained for hunderts years.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

If we humans would have gotten emotional investment to calm by a fantastic/mystic inferences about our problem of philosophic signifying, we cannot leave off the thing that we hold on to.

To believe may be more useful and significant  than science??

Is this  attitude psychologic or scientific ?

[Yahya]

moving objects undergo similar laws as objects at stationary , moving objects=more energy = more mass, that mean two masses undergo similar laws?!!! I push two different masses with the same force gives me different acceleration , is this the same ?!!!!!!!!