[xersanozgen (OP)]

There are some failures in your analysis of relativity. SR is not the failure you suspect. The failure is your interpretation of SR. There is no perpendicular path for light in vector speed. The spectrum where photons exist are not particles A moving to B. It is merely a wave on the spectrum same as any other alpha or Bata wave on the spectrum. Electrons do not travel to the dual slit only the representative wave of the electron travels at c. Dilation of the clock in the forward vector with a ship takes the geometry of the hypotenuse of a right triangle. Half the speed of light is a 30,60,90 triangle. Cos 30 = 0.866025 which represents the clocks reduction in tick rate relative to one. The reduction in tick rate is due to the increased travel distance of the hypotenuse. This is the same value as the Lorentz contraction using Euclidean geometry. The speed of light is c but the distance is the hypotenuse 1.33075. I can even explain the equivalence in GR if you like. But there is nothing wrong with SR or GR. Stay on the path. You might learn Relativity properly.

 SR claims that the distance (between the photon and its source) always increases by the velocity c. Moreever, the source has independence to go to anywhere/any direction. For example the source can travel to the direction ( - x); while the photon goes to ( + x). On this position the parameter v will be negative mark in Lorentz equation and t’ (for –x) > t’ (for +x); so it means, time tempo works faster instead of time dilation. A clock never work slower and faster simultaneously.

[yor_on]

It's 'time' that defines a speed, time over distance. Instants or happenings are what counts here. Whether a 'source' goes in one, or another direction, under the instant a 'photon' is released is of no importance for 'c', as it is a observer dependent factor. Think of doing a two (way) mirror experiment on Earth, you reverse its direction and still get 'c' . Relative motion is of no importance to this. But if you have a feeling of that 'speeds' isn't what defines it then I think I might agree.

[yor_on]

The first point one need to see is that there is no defined way of measuring a speed, except as compared to something else. In a black box scenario (SR) all 'uniform speeds' are equivalent inside that box, no way to differ between them experimentally. So any suggestion of defining a 'speed' is doomed to fail. It's comparisons, and your uniform motion will change, as soon as you pick something else to measure it by.
=

That means that in a two way experiment, where you get to a speed, you're doing a local measurement, defined by your own clock and ruler, relative what you measured to be the distance between those mirrors you set up. The mirrors being 'at rest' relative yourself. But it has nothing to say about which way you are 'moving' as a whole 'system' and it doesn't really matter for measuring 'c'.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

GALILEI had presented two principles about relativity:

I . An object (if it has uniform motion) can be used as an inertial frame. This principle supports SR.

II. Light kinematics must be considered on minimum four dimensions; OK. But there is an important principle too (That it caused to be judged Galilei): Predominant frame must be always preferred for analyses.  As known, it (“The sun turns around the Earth”) was a strong determination. Galilei had  solved this mistake. In substance, the human had assigned the relative object as dominant reference frame. 

This second principle does not support the theory SR. Even, it disclosures a methodological defect of SR. Because SR considers local objects (the source, moving body, observer) for the role of competent reference frame.

The space (or Light Coordinate System LCS) is the competent reference frame for the analyses about Light kinematics. This option is not objectionable; because the velocity of light according to space or LCS is the same value c (of course, the value of parameters for other actors must be considered according to space instead of local values).

[xersanozgen (OP)]

That means that in a two way experiment, where you get to a speed, you're doing a local measurement, defined by your own clock and ruler, relative what you measured to be the distance between those mirrors you set up. The mirrors being 'at rest' relative yourself. But it has nothing to say about which way you are 'moving' as a whole 'system' and it doesn't really matter for measuring 'c'.

Yes, we measure always local speeds for materials.  But we can measure just the universal velocity (according to space) of light, not local or relative velacity.  Our measuring system (continuous photons because of uninterrupted light, double paths, mirrors, etc)  can determine just this universal value (this interpretation is possible; please allow yourself).  The results of all experiments is the same and we know the velocity of light never takes an adding by its source's speed.

That phrase is wrong : " The velocity of light is always the same value ( c ) according to everything"

That phrase contains the nuance: The velocity of light is always measured  the same value ( c) by the present measuring experiment.

Substantially, we must consider the increasing or decreasing speed of the distance between the defined photon and its emitting point on LCS.

[GoC]

That phrase is wrong : " The velocity of light is always the same value ( c ) according to everything"

No, this is not wrong, this is correct.

That phrase contains the nuance: The velocity of light is always measured  the same value ( c) by the present measuring experiment.

This is also correct.

Substantially, we must consider the increasing or decreasing speed of the distance between the defined photon and its emitting point on LCS. 

This is incorrect. The only way to measure is local and freezing of position. You are trying to suggest a preferred frame. There is no preferred frame. You cannot measure something of which you are a part. You are a part of the motion of the universe.

If you were going half the speed of light is your relative speed to light different from a person at relative rest to the speed of light? Yes. Will your measuring stick and clock measure the same SOL as the person at rest? Yes. Your clock measures c - kinetic energy. There is no preferred frame of zero kinetic energy.

Well there is a contribution that's been proved experimentally, called a recoil. As that 'photon' leaves, the material it left recoils, due to conservation laws. Whether one want to see that as a 'photon propagating' or just as a example of conservation laws is another thing.

yor on

The standard model suggests a virtual photon because a photon with mass would violate relativity. The standard model does not include energy of space which is necessary for something to move faster than its generator in mass. Other wise you would need to believe in magic. An energy spectrum of space is the very essence of a virtual photon.

Energy could be a spinning grid pattern of a dimension of size relative to the electron that actually move the electrons. The electron jump would cause friction on the energy grid propagating the energy as a form of coiled wave in all directions. The opposite direction would be a mirror image we consider entangled. Spooky at a distance would be nothing more than a trick based on an incorrect understanding of wave creation. c is of space and creates the motion of time. Planck time and Planck distance are the same exact thing. Motion.

Would there be a recoil to a wave production? You bet there would be a recoil.

[Janus]

Slower And Faster Tempo Of Time At The Same Clock

Figure-1: To = T'o = 0




[SIZE="2"]..................A………….........………S……........………B[/SIZE]
Figure-2 Tı = 10 earth-second

1-   We want to analyze spaceship's motion by the theory of SR or Lorentz's analysis. The value of its speed is "v" according to The Earth.
2-   The Earth is a reference frame.
3-   The spaceship has a source of light (a flash). And an observer is on the Earth.
4-   At the moment of To The observer and the flash are at the point "A". And it flashes.
5-   Light impulse of the flash has the same value of speed "c" according to the spaceship and the Earth (according to the theory).
6-   Flash's light can travel to every direction. We consider the same directional light for first analysis (Fig.-2).
7-   At the moment Tı (= 10 earth-second) the light is at the point "B" and the spaceship is at the point "S".
8-   The results according to the theory: (t=10 - 0=10 earth-second)

AS = v.t = 1 800 000 earth-km

L = AB =c.t= 3 000 000 earth-km (traveling length for light according to earth and the unit of earth)

SB = 1 200 000 earth-km

L'(same) = SB = 1 200 000 / [1 - (v/c)^2]^1/2 = 1 500 000 ship-km (traveling length for the same light according to spaceship and the unit of ship).

Wrong.  You are operating under the misconception that because The ship is length contracted in the Earth frame, that the ship would measure this distance as being stretched out. This is not what SR says.  Under SR, length contraction is reciprocal.  If the Earth frame measures a distance AB as being 3,000,000 km, and the relative velocity of the ship and Earth is 3,000,000 km, then the Ship will measure this same distance as being 2,400,000 km. From this it is quite clear that you don't actually understand what the theory you are trying to dispute really says.

t'(same) = (t - v.L/c^2) / [1 - (v/c)^2]^1/2 = 5 ship-second (traveling time of the same light according to spaceship).

c = L'(same) / t'(same) = 1 500 000 / 5 = 300 000 space-km/space-second.

OK.  THE THEORY IS CERTIFICATED.

A proper analysis of the above situation:
From the Earth frame: 
At T=0, both ship and light leave Earth. After 10 sec Earth time, the light reaches point B, 3,000,000 km away and the ship reaches point A and the Ship reaches point S, which is 1,800,000 km away.  At which point the clock on the ship will read  8 sec.   The ship will be 1,200,000 km away from Point B.

From the Ship frame:  The light and the Earth both leave the the vicinity of the Ship, in opposite directions. At the same moment point B, which is 2,400,000 km away is moving towards the ship at 0.6.   The light, heading in the direction of B meets up with point B after 5 sec, at which time point B will be 900,000 km away.  (here we see an example of the relativity of simultaneity,   According to the Earth frame, the light reaching point B and the ship clock reading 8 sec are simultaneous events, but in the Ship frame, they are not. The ship clock does not read 8 sec until three sec after the light and point B are coincident. )
According to the Ship, a clock on Earth now reads 4 sec past what it did when the ship and Earth separated. ( time dilation is also reciprocal and a further example of the Relativity of simultaneity).

The same analysis applied dealing with light going the opposite direction:

Earth frame:  After 10 sec the light is at Point B', 3,000,000 km away and the ship is 2,400,000 km in the other direction. They are 5,400,000 km apart and the ship clock reads 8 sec.

Ship frame.  Earth and the light separate away from the Ship in the same direction at the same moment that point B' is 2,400,000 km away and moving away at 0.6c.  It will take 20 sec for the light to "catch up to point B", at which time Point B' and the ship will be 6,000,000 km apart. The Earth clock will have advanced 16 sec. (reciprocal time dilation and relativity of simultaneity).

In order to argue against Relativity you must first fully understand the principles of the theory. What you have have done is argue against a straw-man version of your own making.   You will get nowhere by basing your argument on an erroneous interpretation of the theory. 

[xersanozgen (OP)]

  The speed of light is c but the distance is the hypotenuse 1.33075.

In my opinion, there is another explaining option  for  this inference: If we direct the photons to perpendicular path due to a filter the path of light will be perceived like a hypotenuse  again; as you said. But the distance of light does not increase, because we used a filter for perpendicular path. The light travels by micro perpendicular ways for every atto seconds and the total distance is the other small edge of the triangle (like total of the step’s height (vertical distance) of  a stair). The length of the light’s way is the same; not increases.
 
An other explain:  If we direct the light by the angle of your hypotenuse; at this time, we can perceive the light’s path perpendicular form or like smaller edge. In my opinion this example (without filter) may be more effective.

About general theory:

If you look at fig. 4 ( http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/6600 ) you can distinguished that the gravitational lens is possible without acceleration (a = 0).

[GoC]

xersanozgen

   There is an undeniable logic to relativity. Light being independent of the source and constant. Consider two ships in space parallel going half the speed of light. We can say relative to a person at rest if you like using half the speed of light. Now there is no possible way perpendicular light can be seen even with your filter between the ships. Lets take a atto second flash of light between the ships at event A from ship A. The detector detects the flash at point B from ship B. The physical positions of the ships remain in physical space parallel. Ship B receives the flash at an angle of 60 degrees behind its present position. Light can go no faster so each ship views the other as 30 degrees off from 90 behind by image while being parallel by physical position. This angle also creates a contraction of view. At 30 degrees off from 90 the contraction of view is 0.866025/1. And the light would have traveled 1.133075/1. This reduces the tick rate of a clock and contracts the view by the reciprocal of the view in angle to distance.

The only way a 90 degree filter will work is if you were able to go into the future position from the past. In other words 90 degree view with the geometry of motion is impossible. If light were infinite we would have no distinguishable images.

Janus- Very good understanding

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Well there is a contribution that's been proved experimentally, called a recoil. As that 'photon' leaves, the material it left recoils, due to conservation laws. Whether one want to see that as a 'photon propagating' or just as a example of conservation laws is another thing.

Very interesting! We know that the photon has not a mass how can be measured. So, the mass of a photon or photons can be determined by this method. As known, the recoil event is realised in accordance with the ratio of the masses of actors.

Probably this lights contained cosmic rays.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

xersanogen #56

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.

You mentioned marking the ground where the ball motion originated. Where do you mark for the emission point of light? If it is a material emitter, how fast is it moving in space?

Thanks for your serious question.

Yes, the ground is a genuine co-reference frame for the motions of ball and player. But, the logic of SR considers the player as reference/inertial frame, if he has an uniform motion. (Ball represents the defined photon; the playe represents the source in football analogy).

We need a co-reference frame for the actors of light kinematics (source and defined photon). To mark the emission point is not possible. But the nature does not care this reality . This problem is ours.  Generally present position of a sky object is considered for this. Whereas this attitude is a ease because of despair. We have a chance: we can use a paper/sheet  instead of co-reference frame for analyses about light kinematics ( practical example:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhyEs..26...49E ) .

[xersanozgen (OP)]

It's 'time' that defines a speed, time over distance. Instants or happenings are what counts here. Whether a 'source' goes in one, or another direction, under the instant a 'photon' is released is of no importance for 'c', as it is a observer dependent factor. Think of doing a two (way) mirror experiment on Earth, you reverse its direction and still get 'c' . Relative motion is of no importance to this. But if you have a feeling of that 'speeds' isn't what defines it then I think I might agree.

In analysis of SR, the source follows its photon  (Is it compelled?  No, never). Whereas the source has independence to travel anywhere (like football player) after emitting moment. SR must provided its inferences for other directions. But, this proof was neglected (This is a methodological defect).

Otherwise, in SR, there is an excessive reduction ( single direction + x) for easy analysis. Whereas a star emits and sends the photons at 41253 spherical degrees and fractions. SR claims that perpendicular light (according to star’s path) does not cause time dilation because of projection. OK; but how has a clock two (*) tempos simultaneously ?


(*) Very much tempos (when we consider other directions)

[xersanozgen (OP)]

The first point one need to see is that there is no defined way of measuring a speed, except as compared to something else. In a black box scenario (SR) all 'uniform speeds' are equivalent inside that box, no way to differ between them experimentally. So any suggestion of defining a 'speed' is doomed to fail. It's comparisons, and your uniform motion will change, as soon as you pick something else to measure it by.
=

That means that in a two way experiment, where you get to a speed, you're doing a local measurement, defined by your own clock and ruler, relative what you measured to be the distance between those mirrors you set up. The mirrors being 'at rest' relative yourself. But it has nothing to say about which way you are 'moving' as a whole 'system' and it doesn't really matter for measuring 'c'.

Yes, local speed of other actors (v) is also mutable in accordance with other external reference frames. If the train has a uniform motion, this is not guaranteed for the experiment and the light inside that train; because uniform motion is not defined when we consider other sequential frames; seriatim Earth, Solar system, Milkyway galaxy, local cluster, super cluster, visible universe…..space or most external frame (LCS). Therefore we must use the most external reference frame for light kinematics analyses. To use local frames is a human’s defect. Methodology requires to assign most external frame for light kinematics.

The value of light’s velocity is ‘ c ‘ according to space or most external frame unobjectionably. So if we use the values of other actors’ parameters according to same reference frame (LCS) the Galilean analysis will be possible. We do not need the theory SR. We may not measure the universal value (V) of source's or observer's speed; but, nature does not care this reality. Of course we can make parametric analysis.

[guest39538]

The collapse of Special Relativity [1]

I study upon light kinematics and I have some new results/methods for space-time. One of them menaces the SR seriously.

I have followed forums about special relativity. I am glad for finding some objectors. My determination will approve their arguments.

In the forums which I joined, I tested the ability of understanding of my statement. The new concept was declared in few forums and by my book (at April 2008).

The new concept/master key will declare at August 25, 2008 (at the end of Beijing Olympics) on this thread.

Do you want to know why you are incorrect?

SR is correct relative to the definition of time.   

[xersanozgen (OP)]

That phrase is wrong : " The velocity of light is always the same value ( c ) according to everything"

No, this is not wrong, this is correct.

That phrase contains the nuance: The velocity of light is always measured  the same value ( c) by the present measuring experiment.

This is also correct.

Substantially, we must consider the increasing or decreasing speed of the distance between the defined photon and its emitting point on LCS. 

This is incorrect. The only way to measure is local and freezing of position. You are trying to suggest a preferred frame. There is no preferred frame. You cannot measure something of which you are a part. You are a part of the motion of the universe.

SR says that a photon always moves away from its sources. Is this correct for the next moments of flowing time?

Please think in four and more dimensions.

 

[xersanozgen (OP)]

The collapse of Special Relativity [1]

I study upon light kinematics and I have some new results/methods for space-time. One of them menaces the SR seriously.

I have followed forums about special relativity. I am glad for finding some objectors. My determination will approve their arguments.

In the forums which I joined, I tested the ability of understanding of my statement. The new concept was declared in few forums and by my book (at April 2008).

The new concept/master key will declare at August 25, 2008 (at the end of Beijing Olympics) on this thread.

Do you want to know why you are incorrect?

SR is correct relative to the definition of time.   

Second Galilei event : To discover/distinguish the defects of SR.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

In order to argue against Relativity you must first fully understand the principles of the theory. What you have have done is argue against a straw-man version of your own making.   You will get nowhere by basing your argument on an erroneous interpretation of the theory. 

I work to answer the messages. but I did not understand your argument. Please present a figure.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Please look at figure 1 by the below link:

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/5858

An Analogy to Clarify the Relativity of the Light


When a pebble is dropped to the flat/quiet surface of a lake, a ring/circle wave happens and its radius expands
by a value of speed (figure 1)[3]. The expanding speed of ring wave does not change while the experimenter is
standing, walking or running; it keeps the value of its speed on every standard dropping the pebble. On this analogy
ring wave represents the light, the surface of lake represents LCS, and the experimenter (who drops the small stones)
represents the light source. As will be understood, the source (experimenter) can go every direction independently
while the light (ring wave) is escaping from the emitting point (which is marked on the surface of lake). If the
experimenter (when he has a motion) drops serially the pebbles in standardized conditions, it means it is like
“continuous light” on natural status. The starting point or the centre of ring wave is marked on surface of the lake, not
with entity of the source/experimenter. STR accepts that the light source itself is always starting point for the photon’s
motion. Space or vacuum (LCS) does not point an entity or concrete frame; actually (by abstract thought in math.), the
light is a super reference frame itself. It is possible on a sheet of paper and is sufficient for analyzing instead of
LCS. The surface of the lake is co-reference frame for ring wave and the experimenter/source; similarly space or LCS
is co-reference frame for the light and other objects. The expanding speed of the ring wave is not relative value
according to source (experimenter). To consider the relativity concept about speeds (between object and its reference
frame) is not necessity and valid for the relation of light and its source. Direct relativity is essential and significant in
mechanics, but not in light kinematic.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

In order to argue against Relativity you must first fully understand the principles of the theory. What you have have done is argue against a straw-man version of your own making.   You will get nowhere by basing your argument on an erroneous interpretation of the theory. 

I work to answer the messages. but I did not understand your argument. Please present a figure.

Janus,

I am still working your analysis. 

Please just like analyze this position: The photon goes toward east; the ship goes toward west. Other values are the same.

[GoC]

That phrase is wrong : " The velocity of light is always the same value ( c ) according to everything"

No, this is not wrong, this is correct.

That phrase contains the nuance: The velocity of light is always measured  the same value ( c) by the present measuring experiment.

This is also correct.

Substantially, we must consider the increasing or decreasing speed of the distance between the defined photon and its emitting point on LCS. 

This is incorrect. The only way to measure is local and freezing of position. You are trying to suggest a preferred frame. There is no preferred frame. You cannot measure something of which you are a part. You are a part of the motion of the universe.

SR says that a photon always moves away from its sources. Is this correct for the next moments of flowing time?

Please think in four and more dimensions.

 

In our universe there is only 3 dimensions and motion which we assign to a cycle for timing measurement. If there are other dimensions in your belief system they have not been discovered. Unreal numbers in math are just that, unreal quantities.

SR says that a photon always moves away from its sources. Is this correct for the next moments of flowing time?

Light is independent of the source so the source can move but the photon event remains from the position in which it was created. Consider one attosecond for a flash event in a ship going half the speed of light and say its in a ship with a distance of 1. The photon starts in the back of the ship and travels to the front of the ship where there is a mirror. The photon travels a distance of 2 to reach the front of the ship. In the return direction the photon travels 2/3rds distance. So the round trip was 2 2/3rds distance for the photon (vs. at rest being 2 but there really is no at rest its just relative). Now the ship moved through space 1/3rd distance without the photon and the forward position of the ship is 1/3rd further in space when the photon reaches the back (contraction of view for the observer at rest anyone?). So the ship moves 1 1/3rd relative distance while the reflective light moves 2 2/3rds relative distance. This was with the ship moving 1/3 its relative distance without the reflective light.

Now lets look at the perpendicular physical position of the event and mirror. Light cannot move perpendicular to motion if light is independent of the source. So the event position has two legs of a right triangle one leg is 1 relative distance while the second leg is 0.5 relative distance. This creates a 30,60,90 triangle where the photon travels the hypotenuse. Simple Pythagoras cos 30 = 0.866025 which is the same as the Lorentz contraction where the increased distance of the hypotenuse path exactly matches the reduction in tick rate. The clock only ticks 0.866025 of a second for every second vs. at relative rest. It simple geometry of motion.
Perpendicular light and motion is impossible. So if your basis is perpendicular movement of light with motion (which is the basis of SR) than you start off with an error in your thinking.

SR is fine and well living in relativity.