[xersanozgen (OP)]

"I analyse the space-time from out of Universe. "
Quite.

I have a report about the age and diameter of universe by me. The master axis of this study:

Cosmic units (or the actors of analyse) are clusters of galaxies. I use the values of parameters of these actors for scientific integrity.

We can not assure the values of parameters by observatories because of limit of light's velocity. And the effective form of universe is deformed. Therefore I use the form which isolated from ability of observer. It is possible.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Come on x, lets see your sums.

I am preparing the perfect information. It is very simple like making reference the sun instead of earth. My announcement takes power by its simplicity. Everybody can understand easily.

Thanks for your patience.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

I've made the same and didn't find any relativity violations...

The redshifts are reduced by a formula (This formula is produced from SR). According to SR, If the lenght is endless Vspec/c becames "1". Let's think:

to be continued.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

If we organize a diagram for the values of Ho according to their own distances:

The graphic (*) : by the reductions of SR
            (o) : The reduction by new postula (Also, theoretical requırement)
            (z) : Observational values of redshifts.

Ho km/sec/mps
...l
80.l.*..........................z
...l.....*......................z
...l..........*.................z
...l...............*...........z
...l....................*.....z
...looooooooooooooooz
40.l.......................z....*
...l....................z
...l...............z
...l..........z
...l...z
...l_______________________________Distances (at present) G Iy
...0.........................16


(excuse me my graphic and my english)

The points become a linear graphic with negative inclination by reduction of SR. This result tells us that experimental and observational values are correct enoughly; but ıt may be impropriety or a problem in theory of reduction.

The values of the expanding velocity and Vspect was maximum at the start of universe (big bang). Expanding velocity is discreasing by the time*. But the increasing of Vspect   (as the distances grow) is at present. That is an important nuance. The diameter of universe is limited, so the value of Vspect is limited and it doesn't increase by the time. It is fixed interval analysis. 


*Of course somebody inverts thıs reality.

[Alan McDougall]

General relativity collaped, "news to me" or is just speculation.

As for me it is still sound physics

Regards

Alan

[Alan McDougall]

This might be of some interest.

Some theorists think that dark energy and cosmic acceleration "are a failure of general relativity on very large scales", larger than superclusters.

It is a tremendous extrapolation to think that our law of gravity, which works so well in the solar system, should work without correction on the scale of the universe. Most attempts at modifying general relativity, however, have turned out to be either equivalent to theories of quintessence, or inconsistent with observations. It is of interest to note that if the equation for gravity were to approach r instead of r2 at large, intergalactic distances, then the acceleration of the expansion of the universe becomes a mathematical artifact,[clarify] negating the need for the existence of Dark EnergyNature of dark energy

Regards

Alan

[DoctorBeaver]

and QED doesn't try to say exactly what the six different quark flavours actually represent.

QED? Shouldn't that be QCD?

[xersanozgen (OP)]

I want to remember some basis rules of scientific integrity.

If we organize a relativity problem between two vehicles which one of them is on Mars and other is on Venus; we must not use the value of their velocities at Vehicle's own speed indicator. Once we must procure similar characteristic for the values of speeds.  The values of both vehicles' speed must be calculated according to same or single reference for example the sun.

I hope there any problem is not.

 

[xersanozgen (OP)]

 What is the "Universal relative velocity (Vur)"?

It is sufficiency/necessary to use the value of speed indicator on the earth (by local conditions). This value of the speed is relative according to first reference or coordinate system. This value of speed presents the performance of the vehicle (we may think the maximum of performance).

If we want, we can find the velocity of the same vehicle according to the sun by vector methods. This value of speed is "relative" according to second or consecutive reference system. The third reference system is our galaxy. The fourth is local cluster of galaxies…. And then chaining ….. the external system is out of general form of Universe. Universal relative velocity of the vehicle is relative according to consecutive system of Universe. We can find this relative value by traditional methods, with vector analysis.


Bibliography:

Ersan O. Autopsy Report of SR,Infoyay.2008

[LeeE]

and QED doesn't try to say exactly what the six different quark flavours actually represent.

QED? Shouldn't that be QCD?

Oops! - I was thinking of Quantum Electrodynamics - it should indeed be Quantum Chromodynamics.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

An important nuance for experiments and analysis of light kinematics:

The essential uniqueness of the light actor as a partner of SR.

The actors of mechanical experiments are evident, almost they have a name. For example we start and complete the experiment with this subject. It is very important. Because the experiment does not finished by the blue vehicle while we had begun it with red vehicle.

If we start the experiment with the ball numbered 3528 we must complete the experiment with the same numbered ball (3528). This is an undefined principle; but it is absolute requirement.

But such of light experiments are organized with the light in continuity because of some technical difficulties. In this case we can never be sure the completing the experiment by the chosen light actor, if we suppose that the light is like numbered balls or consecutive (recursive/flowing) impulses.

The light actor of SR experiments or analysis must be supposed as a flash impulse. The light actor must be isolated as a single/individual subject from case of continuity. We can succeed this for theoretical analysis.

[lyner]

I'm sorry, that needs translation.

[Bored chemist]

"if we suppose that the light is like numbered balls or consecutive (recursive/flowing) impulses. "
We don't supose that, all photons (of a given enegry) are identical.

[lyner]

Thank you BC - you have cracked the code for me.

If we start the experiment with the ball numbered 3528 we must complete the experiment with the same numbered ball (3528). This is an undefined principle; but it is absolute requirement.

That is not necessarily the case.
Allow yourself to think in terms of the photon only existing at the interaction (what happens at each end) and the wave function being what describes the situation in between source and detector (on the way). The need for a particular photon to follow a whole journey is now eliminated.
The way to deal with modern ideas is not to insist on bringing all your old ideas with you. Every significant step that has been made in the past has required similar leaps away from 'comfortable' and established views.
The reason that experiments have not dealt with individual photons is not just a 'technical difficulty'; it is fundamental.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Thank you BC - you have cracked the code for me.

If we start the experiment with the ball numbered 3528 we must complete the experiment with the same numbered ball (3528). This is an undefined principle; but it is absolute requirement.

Allow yourself to think in terms of the photon only existing at the interaction (what happens at each end) and the wave function being what describes the situation in between source and detector (on the way). The need for a particular photon to follow a whole journey is now eliminated.
The way to deal with modern ideas is not to insist on bringing all your old ideas with you. Every significant step that has been made in the past has required similar leaps away from 'comfortable' and established views.
The reason that experiments have not dealt with individual photons is not just a 'technical difficulty'; it is fundamental.

That is not necessarily the case.


CORRECT: We can measure the velocity of light by using perpetual/flowing photons.

WRONG: If we want to measure the relative value "c - v" of light's speed according to Earth.

There is a nuance. Many speculations rove in sight because of this nuance.

The original text of SR bases the relative speeds of materials; light is fictionalized. Einstein's explanation is closer to modern physics. But Lorentz's proceeding is an analysis of light motion by classical mechanic. Also Einstein had used Lorentz's explanation in his book (for students) at 1916.

In my opinion elementary analysis is better instead of abstruse thinking as in original text.

The way to deal with Lorentz's setting requires the individual photon. That is fundamental. We can use the individual photons for theoretical analysis. The experiments with flowing photons may be deceptive or misleading. For example Michelson-Morley experiment. If we can use the halves of single photon we would determine different number of interference. That is technical difficulty.

[lyner]

CORRECT: We can measure the velocity of light by using perpetual/flowing photons.

How can you say that? You can measure the time between the emission and reception of some light energy. No one has a CLUE about how it travels. It may be 'perpetual, flowing photons' or it may not be. All we know is the effect the experiment gives.

If we can use the halves of single photon we would determine different number of interference.

But it isn't just 'halves' of photons which are involved; every flow of em energy follows the 'rules' of diffraction. The two slits experiment is the very simplest (although, of course, the slits have finite width, in practice and have their own associated diffraction pattern). If you insist that the photon exists as 'fractions' you have to allow it to spread, in the limit,in all directions and be spread everywhere. Where's your 'little bullet' now?
The Photon, as a concept, is a useful thing to explain many interactions but trying to use it when describing the propagation of em energy is seriously fraught. We are on to a loser if we insist in saying what anything 'really is' and this (what I am criticising) is an excellent example of that statement.

[blakestyger]

xersanozgen, Copernicus didn't determine that the Earth went around the Sun, he suggested it. What he was originally trying to do was produce more effective tide tables for navigators and this heliocentric system did just that - coupled with the observation that fewer epicycles were needed to account for some planetary orbits this way. Because it was a 'tidier' system in the mathematical sense it was seen to be right, by him and one or two others; elegance is still important in pure mathematics.
 
He was never able to demonstrate his system directly.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

CORRECT: We can measure the velocity of light by using perpetual/flowing photons.

How can you say that? You can measure the time between the emission and reception of some light energy. No one has a CLUE about how it travels. It may be 'perpetual, flowing photons' or it may not be. All we know is the effect the experiment gives.

If we can use the halves of single photon we would determine different number of interference.

But it isn't just 'halves' of photons which are involved; every flow of em energy follows the 'rules' of diffraction. The two slits experiment is the very simplest (although, of course, the slits have finite width, in practice and have their own associated diffraction pattern). If you insist that the photon exists as 'fractions' you have to allow it to spread, in the limit,in all directions and be spread everywhere. Where's your 'little bullet' now?
The Photon, as a concept, is a useful thing to explain many interactions but trying to use it when describing the propagation of em energy is seriously fraught. We are on to a loser if we insist in saying what anything 'really is' and this (what I am criticising) is an excellent example of that statement.

The light is used by uninterrupted form in experiments of SR (the measurements of velocity or Michelson-Morley). I claim that if we can interrupt the light for example with Kerr obstructer, and we can complete the experiment by single flash impulse we can interpret more significant results.

The primary receptions of SR are simple* and the analysis of SR deals elementary for light's motion. Even the Lorentz's transformations are reduced relation by "λ" of the relation of classic relativity (x - v.t). In my opinion we don't need to think complexity for SR.  Also Einstein and Lorentz could not think by our actual knowledge in 1905. They did not put the meaning or analyze light's motion by high advanced physics. The fiction SR is simple that it can be understood by medium education. Of course it has a point of hardness for our logic.

I solved this point by reconstructing of a postulate. I'll declare it after Olympics. The space-time, the light kinematics and SR will be transparent** due to this announce.

 

*But Einstein wrote the original text of SR like by abstract or advanced mathematical thinking.
** Of course it is optional. I can just only state. If it would be understood easily it will be effective and take place in paradigm. Somebody will use and examine it. They will analyze and compare the new results by natural realities. I hope it will not take long time.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

xersanozgen, Copernicus didn't determine that the Earth went around the Sun, he suggested it. What he was originally trying to do was produce more effective tide tables for navigators and this heliocentric system did just that - coupled with the observation that fewer epicycles were needed to account for some planetary orbits this way. Because it was a 'tidier' system in the mathematical sense it was seen to be right, by him and one or two others; elegance is still important in pure mathematics.
 
He was never able to demonstrate his system directly.

Thanks for your gentle explanation.

I had said in some forums as "Galileo's determination"; but somebody corrected me "it was Copernicus". Of course Galileo had intented to say "The earth turns around the own axle of earth, against to belief of "the sun turns around the earth". The idea for orbital turning of earth is suggested by Copernicus as you say.

[Flyberius]

Not long now!