[xersanozgen (OP)]

Photons can now be sent one at a time, so if researchers observe an interference, it must be because they do split in two at the first mirror.

A single photon never genetare doppler effect, redshift and interference.

If you use a single photon in MM experiment, one of the light will arrive to board at the moment T₃ and the other will arrive at the moment T₄ and you never see fringes.

[Le Repteux]

A single photon never generate doppler effect, redshift and interference.

If we can measure the frequency of a single photon, and I think we can because we can measure its energy and transform it into frequency, then it should be able to suffer doppler effect.

If you use a single photon in MM experiment, one of the light will arrive to board at the moment T3 and the other will arrive at the moment T4 and you never see fringes.

In the two slit experiment, we can observe fringes with only one photon, so why not in the MM experiment? Did you make that experiment, or do you have a link to somebody who did?

[xersanozgen (OP)]

If you use a single photon in MM experiment, one of the light will arrive to board at the moment T₃ and the other will arrive at the moment T₄ and you never see fringes.

In the two slit experiment, we can observe fringes with only one photon, so why not in the MM experiment?

If we set an analog cine-cam instead of the monitor/board of interferometer, we will see two different points/lines on the film band for the halves of single photon packet. This experiment is simple and easy. 

[Le Repteux]

My simulations show that SR is wrong pretending that c is the same in all directions, but they also show that it is right about us not being able to measure our own speed through space, which also means that we can't measure c one way, and you think that SR is wrong all the way, which is not necessary for me to study it more closely. You probably have a fundamental reason to think this way, for instance a theory that you think is right and that contradicts SR. Is that so?

[opportunity]

I hate being repetitive (in the "new theory" section), yet a key feature special relativity does not address is what Dirac proposed regarding "negative"/enthalpic energy, the idea of gravity accommodating for the increase of energy between mass bodies "speeding up" in allowing for the "conservation of energy" principle.

The idea Dirac proposed was annexed by the idea of "Positrons".....yet reality does not collapse around us with gravity (in effect) given positrons in theory would annihilate electrons.


Are there flaws in "special" relativity?


Are there flaws in using the idea of light as entropy to gauge a theory of everything in the absence of understanding the enthalpic nature of gravity?

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Are there flaws in "special" relativity?

S. Hawking had said something as the meaning of  "Science philisophy does not contribute anymore".

In my opinion, methodology or science has not perfection yet. Yes we see high successes. However human has not consciousness about "management of mental references". We human have some false facts. For example in light kinematics (or SR) scientists may assign local object (source) as a reference frame for universal problems;  and they directly use genuine relativity for light ( they don't consider/distinguish relativity kinds: Please look at http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/6600).

Why cannot the science overcome a fallacy for years?

[xersanozgen (OP)]

My simulations show that SR is wrong pretending that c is the same in all directions, but they also show that it is right about us not being able to measure our own speed through space, which also means that we can't measure c one way, and you think that SR is wrong all the way, which is not necessary for me to study it more closely. You probably have a fundamental reason to think this way, for instance a theory that you think is right and that contradicts SR. Is that so?

My arguments are simple/naked:

1- There are the types of relativity (genuine relativity, pseudo/nominal relativity, momentary relativity); SR prefers "genuine relativity" for light's velocity. Whereas, the velocity of light is nominal or momentary relative value according to local place or its source.
2- In light kinematics, most external frame (space or LCS) must be considered as co-reference frame , not local frame or source.

[Le Repteux]

Your two points mean that c is not the same in all directions, and that's enough to say that SR is wrong, so why are you trying to prove that we can measure it with an experiment where light travels in only one direction? My simulations show that c is not the same in all directions, but they also show that we can't measure it one way without a faster than light device. Relativists don't like to discuss that point because they would finally have to admit that it is the two way speed of light that is always c, which means that, during a measure, light could very well be traveling faster one way and slower the other way. That's what Lorentz aether theory shows, and they admit that it gives the same numbers than SR, so what are they waiting to admit it is better?

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Your two points mean that c is not the same in all directions, and that's enough to say that SR is wrong, so why are you trying to prove that we can measure it with an experiment where light travels in only one direction? My simulations show that c is not the same in all directions, but they also show that we can't measure it one way without a faster than light device. Relativists don't like to discuss that point because they would finally have to admit that it is the two way speed of light that is always c, which means that, during a measure, light could very well be traveling faster one way and slower the other way. That's what Lorentz aether theory shows, and they admit that it gives the same numbers than SR, so what are they waiting to admit it is better?

I have not suspicion that SR is wrong. The mental adventure of SR is transparent for me: Second Galilei fact.

I had shared some phenomenons to tell the defects of SR. I want to repeat:

Lake Analogue: (Please look at the figure / my book: Pseudo Science)

1- Person (experimentalist) represents the light source,

2- The quiet surface of lake represents outer space or LCS (light Coordinate System),

3- The ring wave represents the light ( a photon packet).

4- The increasing speed of wave's radius represents the velocity of light.

Experimentalist release the pebble and the pebble causes a ring wave.

As shown, it is possible an event that a motion cannot be impressed by the speed of its source.

We cannot determine/say  that the relative speed of a point of wave is ' c ' according to experimentalist (the reason/source of the motion of wave).

The distance between him and a point of wave is L = (c +/- V) t


However, The universal velocity of light is ' c ' ; this is genuine relative value according to outer/outmost space and  our present measurement experiment can already measures the value at  this meaning. We cannot measure the relative speed according to source or local place..

the pseudo or nominal relative velocity of light according to its source/local things is the value  "c + / - V" ( V is source's universal speed according to outmost space).

[xersanozgen (OP)]

We human have a co-reference frame: The Earth  directly, indirectly, autochthonously ; and we use this great convenience.

In lake analogue the surface of the lake is a co-reference frame for the motions of experimentalist and ring wave. All in order.

In light kinematics the outmost space is a co-reference frame for the motion of the photon and other things.

[Le Repteux]

A lake wave is effectively not always going at the same speed with regard to an observer that is moving with regard to it, and it is the same with light waves, except that in the case of light, we can't see the wave moving because we would need a faster than light wave to do so and we don't have it. In other words, we can use light to measure the speed of a lake wave, whereas there is nothing faster than light to measure the speed of the light wave. This is why we can easily measure the one way speed of the lake wave, whereas we can only measure the two way speed of light.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

A lake wave is effectively not always going at the same speed with regard to an observer that is moving with regard to it, and it is the same with light waves, except that in the case of light, we can't see the wave moving because we would need a faster than light wave to do so and we don't have it. In other words, we can use light to measure the speed of a lake wave, whereas there is nothing faster than light to measure the speed of the light wave. This is why we can easily measure the one way speed of the lake wave, whereas we can only measure the two way speed of light.

 Yes, I agree; the light cannot assist.

On LCS concept, starting point of the photon is marked on LCS (most external frame) and it move away from this point by ' c '. Of course, LCS is not tangible, but surface of a sheet of paper is useful for theoretical analyses.

You may reconsider/trial your simulation by this concept. So, for MM experiment, while the setting/mechanism travels because of universal motion of the earth, starting point and reflecting points (from mirrors) must be marked on LCS every time.

[Le Repteux]

Your sheet surface is equivalent to the computer screen in my simulations. On the screen, c is the same in all directions, but if an object is moving on the screen, c is no more the same whether we measure it at the front or at the rear of the object. When I measure the time my photon takes between my two particles, it also takes more time when it travels in the same direction as the particles, and less time the other way. When I measure the total time it takes to make a round-trip between the particles, it takes more time when the particles travel across the screen than when they do not. Einstein must have had a distorted mind to believe that light could mysteriously behave the way he pretended, and those who supported him also. Now we are stuck with that crazy idea that has nothing to do with logic. Specialists on scientific forums go on repeating what they learned instead of analyzing it. Using simulations to show the way light moves is quite new though; apart those from David and me, I can't find any on the web, so it is probable that some scientists will accept them with time. Any scientist here that dare to confront that daemon? :0)

[xersanozgen (OP)]

1- Your sheet surface is equivalent to the computer screen in my simulations.

2- On the screen, c is the same in all directions.

3- Einstein must have had a distorted mind to believe that light could mysteriously behave the way he pretended, and those who supported him also. Now we are stuck with that crazy idea that has nothing to do with logic.

4- Specialists on scientific forums go on repeating what they learned instead of analyzing it. Using simulations to show the way light moves is quite new though; apart those from David and me,

5-  I can't find any on the web, so it is probable that some scientists will accept them with time. Any scientist here that dare to confront that daemon? :0)

1- Yes. Screen is LCS (Light Coordinate System).

2- The coordinates (x; y; z; T) of the starting point of photon and other actors must be marked on LCS.

3- Einstein was a mystery haunter. Mystery is an our humanly archetipical defect and we must overcome it for scientific realities.

4- Unfortunately,  people may choose someone else's guidance instead of using their own mind. The ability of analyzing and  synthesising   is not  common/prevalent. However, the presence of scientists -who behaves similarly- is amazing. If you research any subject deeply, probably you will feel loneness.

5- I had encountered some studies about your interest: Conrad Ranzan

https://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/76-10-conrad-ranzan-the-three-components-of-the-speed-of-light-postulate-the-presence-of-aether-introduces-a-harmony-into-three-diverse-aspects-of-the-speed-of-light.html

[Le Repteux]

We agree on everything then, so I conclude that you probably appreciate my simulations. I wonder if Ranzan would like them? Do you know him?

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Football game opposes Einstein

 When watching the world cup matches, to understand the key/main mistake of SR  may be simplier. We may consider the motion relationship of a player and ball as a light source and a photon motion relationship.

 

In special relativity, the light source or moving body has uniform motion (fixed speed and linear path) for inertial frame role;  Our football player may run  uniformly too.

In special relativity, the distance between the photon and the source increases with the speed of c, that means the velocity of the photon is relative value according to source or moving body. SR considers the measured value of light’s velocity  as a relative value to the source; Similar mentality labels the ball speed according to the player. If the ball speed is relative to the player,  the distance between the ball and the player increases with the ball's speed (we allow the player to have an inert frame assuming uniform movement).

So, the time dilation and length contraction must be realized in football game because of SR mentality.  But not. Even, there's no mental confusion.

 Because the world or the ground is a common reference frame for player and ball. To analyze the motions of player and the ball is possible by classical methods; movement parameters are already adapted according to the same frame/ground.

WE HAVE A GOLD STANDARD: USING A CO- REFERENCE FRAMEWORK IN MOTION ANALYZES. The relativity method has to give the same results.

Special theory of relativity ignores this principle. Or SR is also the victim of an illusion. The devil is right here: do not prioritise  to use a co-reference frame   for light kinematics analyses.

[Le Repteux]

Your language is incomprehensible Xersanozgen. If you want to be understood, you should really try to improve it.

[guest39538]

parlour trick.jpg (278.18 kB . 3168x1772 - viewed 4030 times)

[xersanozgen (OP)]

To understand the serious/important mistake of SR is possible by that example:


The indication  of "The sun turns around the Earth" is not consistent although visual/experimental evidences. Because the Earth is on relative position, the Sun is on reference position and analyzing/perception  from relative position can be misleading. I hope, this phenemon is clear/transparent.

However, the opinion about "The Moon turns around the Earth" is consistent. Because natural roles are proper.

Light is an universal reality; but the Earth and local objects (e.g. source or observer) are on relative/poor position according to the ranking of natural reference frames (outer space, multiverse, visible universe, filament formations, super clusters, subgroups, galaxies, star systems, planets, orbiters, vehicles/trains, source/observer).

The universal value of light's velocity ( c ) and the local values of source's or observer's speed  ( v ) * must not used in same formula  according to scientific integrity. Here is vital mistake of SR. Please distinguish this nuance. Galilei had pointed this reason and principle at 1600s.


*  the parameter V ( the resultant speed value of the source according to most external frame/ outer space) can be used with ' c '.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

parlour trick.jpg (278.18 kB . 3168x1772 - viewed 4030 times)

?

Information/interpretation/arguments/claims? Please