[xersanozgen (OP)]

Dear  Janus and Goc,

Your SR calculation is correct. I want to repeat for other viewers of this topic:

The ship’s speed is 60 % c and it travels toward + x. Two photons (toward +x and –x) is emitted at the moment To = 0  worldsec.

We seek the coordinates of these photons according to the ship at the moment Tı =10 worldsec.

]The results  acoording to the world:

(x’ ;  t’) world  ===> (3 000 000 worldkm; 10worldsec)

(x’’ ;  t’’) world ===> (-3 000 000worldkm; 10 worldsec)

The results according to the ship:

(x’ ; t’) ship  ===>   (1 500 000 shipkm ; 5 shipsec)

(x’’ ; t’’) ship  ===>  ( 6 000 000shipkm ; 20 shipsec)

I have never/any objection for these results. And nobody objects these result in accordance with SR mentality.

BUT; probably, you may distinguish a contradiction too:

How does the clock (in the ship) indicate either 5 shipsec or 20 shipsec simultaneously?

How does the  shipclock or abstract time of the ship work by two (innumerable  for angled positions) different tempos?

Is there time contraction in SR (20 shipsec represents time contraction instead of time dilation)

 The time moment is unique;  10 worldsec, 5 shipsec and  20 shipsec represent the same moment in accordance with the existence of photons.

[Janus]

Dear  Janus and Goc,

Your SR calculation is correct. I want to repeat for other viewers of this topic:

The ship’s speed is 60 % c and it travels toward + x. Two photons (toward +x and –x) is emitted at the moment To = 0  worldsec.

We seek the coordinates of these photons according to the ship at the moment Tı =10 worldsec.

]The results  acoording to the world:

(x’ ;  t’) world  ===> (3 000 000 worldkm; 10worldsec)

(x’’ ;  t’’) world ===> (-3 000 000worldkm; 10 worldsec)

The results according to the ship:

(x’ ; t’) ship  ===>   (1 500 000 shipkm ; 5 shipsec)

(x’’ ; t’’) ship  ===>  ( 6 000 000shipkm ; 20 shipsec)

I have never/any objection for these results. And nobody objects these result in accordance with SR mentality.

BUT; probably, you may distinguish a contradiction too:

How does the clock (in the ship) indicate either 5 shipsec or 20 shipsec simultaneously?

How does the  shipclock or abstract time of the ship work by two (innumerable  for angled positions) different tempos?

Is there time contraction in SR (20 shipsec represents time contraction instead of time dilation)

 The time moment is unique;  10 worldsec, 5 shipsec and  20 shipsec represent the same moment in accordance with the existence of photons.

The answer to your question of how S's clock can read 5 and 20 sec simultaneously is that it doesn't.


To illustrate, lets modify this set up slightly.  The A and S frame have measuring rods extending outward in each direction to a distance of 3,000,000 km as measured by their own frame. At the ends of these rods are clocks which are synchronized according to each frame (as far as the ship is concerned the clocks at the end of its rods read the same as the ship clock and as far as A is concerned the clocks at B and `B read the same as his clock.  The following set of images show events as far as A measures at three different times for A, 0 sec, 5 sec and 10 sec.
Since S and its rods are moving at 0.6c relative to A and its rods, the rods are length contracted and none of the clocks moving with S are in sync with each other, due to the relativity of simultaneity.

The top image is the start of the scenario.
The middle image is after 5 sec has passed for A B and B'. The light pulses are halfway to to B' and B, and the left going pulse has just reached the end of the left rod of S. Since all these clocks are time dilated, the Clock at this end has advanced 4 sec to now read 10 sec. This is just as it should be, as according to S, the light should also reach this end when the clock there reads 10 sec.  Also note that when the clock at A reads 5 sec, it is bit more than 7.5 marks on S's measuring stick from S.(this will be touched on again later).
The bottom image is when the time for A is 10 sec. The light has reached both B' and B, and the clocks at those points read 10 sec. The three clocks moving with S have all advanced 8 sec due to time dilation. Again note where A is relative to S's measuring stick. Also note that B is ten of S's measuring stick marks from S.

Now we'll look at the same events according to S. Here we will show 5 different points of time:
The starting point,
When the light reaches B
When A's clock reads 5 sec
When A's clock reads 10 sec
When the light reaches `B



Top image. Now it is A and its clocks and rods that have the relative motion(to the left), so they undergo length contraction and the clocks are offset from each other due to the relativity of simultaneity.
Next we have the light reaching B, this occurs when S and its clocks read 5 sec.  The Clock at B having started at 6 sec and advancing 4 sec reads 10 sec, just like it did for the last set of images. It is also ten mark away from S by S's measuring stick, which also agrees with above.
The other light pulse has yet to reach B'
Next is when A's clock reads 5 sec. The right light has passed B, but the left light has still not yet reached `B. Note when A's clock reads 5 it is next to the same point of S's measuring stick as it was in the last set of images.
Now we show when A's clock reads 10 sec. Again note that A is next to the same point of S's measuring stick as in the last set of images.
Lastly we show when the light finally reaches `B and the clock at `B reads 10 sec. At this point S's clock reads 20 sec.
So according to S, its clocks read 5 sec when the light reaches B and 20 sec when the light reaches `B.  But just because these two events are simultaneous according to A does not mean that A reads 5 sec and 20 sec simultaneously. (in fact, according to A, when the light reaches B and `B, the clock at S reads 8 sec.)  It just means that these events are simultaneous in one frame but not in the other. This is the whole gist of the relativity of simultaneity, that simultaneity is not absolute, but is frame dependent.  The fact that A measures these events as simultaneous has now priority over the fact that S measures them not to be.  S in turn measures the fact that the light reaches the end of its measuring rods simultaneously, while A says its does not.  Neither frame is more correct than the other.
Neither does this create a contradiction. Because both A and S will agree what happens when any two points of their frames pass each other.  If I were to put clocks at each of the tick marks on both sets of measuring rods, whenever two of those clocks passed each other both A and S would agree as to their respective clock readings.

So no, you have shown a contradiction in SR. (And let's be honest, if Relativity could be proven wrong by such a simple example, it would been dumped decades ago.  Scientists don't make a name for themselves by just going along with the flow, they do it by overturning the boat, and someone would have jumped on this chance long ago.)
 

[xersanozgen (OP)]

So no, you have shown a contradiction in SR. (And let's be honest, if Relativity could be proven wrong by such a simple example, it would been dumped decades ago.  Scientists don't make a name for themselves by just going along with the flow, they do it by overturning the boat, and someone would have jumped on this chance long ago.)
 

Does this argument (simple example) protect or resque the theory SR?

The human perceived that “the Earth is flat” and “the Sun turns around the Earth” for million years.

The theory has analyzed the light on a single direction and moreover according to a local object. This attitude is not normal in accordance with methodology. Yes, it is amazing; does anyone discover the flaw on opposite direction?  I did not encounter like this fault. And therefore, I wrote a book about this subject (Pseudo Science <Under the protection of mysticism>  2003 and 2008):

1-   Mysticism likes the brilliant ideas. Mysticism is an  archetypal quality of human.
2-   Human’s cognitive ability is linear and inadequate for universal subjects (especially light).
3-   The theory SR had neglected to analyze the other directions (merely, it suggests the ineffectiveness for   the perpendicular photon) and the operation step of superpose.
4-   Already, when a person did not internalize the SR analysis of single direction by the method of active education, he cannot consider new/next steps.
5-   The theory SR is not a method of therapy or surgical operation that their defects are cropped up immediately. It is exempted from “life anvil”.
6-   The real reason of the illusion of space-time is to be limited/finited value of light’s velocity; not fix  and same value for everything. When the analysis is realized by the base of limited/finited velocity and on LCS; it will be possible without any troubles (I can analyze by this paradigm and I calculated the age of universe)
7-   General affirmation (due to the power of media) gives an excuse to the person who does not understand the theory. And the objections are underestimated by this present paradigm.
8-   There are the realization successes of the human on every subjects. In science history we can see the  concept of Ad-hoc.
9-   In science philosophy (that is my other interest), some requirements are not on agenda yet:
. The management of mental references
. Revising the local postulates according to universal scale by methodology and like a project.
10-    There is a different word for every nuance in English. But the word “relativity” is a single for the subject; whereas the types of relativity is mentioned by me (genuine relativity; nominal/supposed relativity; momentary/temporary relativity; etc). Probably this situation  may restricts  someone’s analysis.
11-   Currently we human remain our traditional habit (that to assign the local object as  reference role)
12-   The young scientists can understand my objections/clues/arguments. Some academician can find reasonable  objection for my football example by carrying the event to space (On the earth the ground became reference frame for the ball, not player; but on space the player can be reference frame for the relative motion of the ball by the reason of effection-reaction. But when he discovered a flaw of my argument; he supposed his answer as a flag and his mind was anchored like a ship. Whereas the concept of effection-reaction is not valid for the light/photon .
13-   First and new scientific approaches may have mistakes. Because human mind is linear and nature has complexity. Some wrong opinions may remain for hundred years in accordance with low requirement or utilization.
14-   The theory SR has other serious defects. For example, in formulas the parameters have units and we require to get provision for these units too (In equations the parameters have not units). But Lorentz transformations give always 300 000 relativeKm/relativeSec and claims that results are equal to 300 000 referenceKm /referenceSec in numerical application. If the units are changeable, the numerical values must not be equal for authentic distance.  We must also get active our attention for this point.
15-   The theory SR had been helpful to revise light kinematics by being a guide hypothesis.

[Janus]

So no, you have shown a contradiction in SR. (And let's be honest, if Relativity could be proven wrong by such a simple example, it would been dumped decades ago.  Scientists don't make a name for themselves by just going along with the flow, they do it by overturning the boat, and someone would have jumped on this chance long ago.)
 

Does this argument (simple example) protect or resque the theory SR?

The human perceived that “the Earth is flat” and “the Sun turns around the Earth” for million years.

The theory has analyzed the light on a single direction and moreover according to a local object. This attitude is not normal in accordance with methodology. Yes, it is amazing; does anyone discover the flaw on opposite direction?  I did not encounter like this fault. And therefore, I wrote a book about this subject (Pseudo Science <Under the protection of mysticism>  2003 and 2008):

1-   Mysticism likes the brilliant ideas. Mysticism is an  archetypal quality of human.
2-   Human’s cognitive ability is linear and inadequate for universal subjects (especially light).
3-   The theory SR had neglected to analyze the other directions and the operation step of superpose.
4-   Already, when a person did not internalize the SR analysis of single direction by the method of active education, he cannot consider new/next steps.
5-   The theory SR is not a method of therapy or surgical operation that their defects are cropped up immediately. It is exempted from “life anvil”.
6-   The real reason of the illusion of space-time is to be limited/finited value of light’s velocity; not fix  and same value for everything. When the analysis is realized by the base of limited/finited velocity and on LCS; it will be possible without any troubles (I can analyze by this paradigm and I calculated the age of universe)
7-   General affirmation (due to the power of media) gives an excuse to the person who does not understand the theory. And the objections are underestimated by this present paradigm.
8-   There are the realization successes of the human on every subjects. In science history we can see the  concept of Ad-hoc.
9-   In science philosophy (that is my other interest), some requirements are not on agenda yet:
. The management of mental references
. Revising the local postulates according to universal scale by methodology and like a project.
10-    There is a different word for every nuance in English. But the word “relativity” is a single for the subject; whereas the types of relativity is mentioned by me (genuine relativity; nominal/supposed relativity; momentary/temporary relativity; etc). Probably this situation  may restricts  someone’s analysis.
11-   Currently we human remain our traditional habit (that to assign the local object as  reference role)
12-   The young scientists can understand my objections/clues/arguments. Some academician can find reasonable  objection for my football example by carrying the event to space (On the earth the ground became reference frame for the ball, not player; but on space the player can be reference frame for the relative motion of the ball by the reason of effection-reaction. But when he discovered a flaw of my argument; he supposed his answer as a flag and his mind was anchored like a ship. Whereas the concept of effection-reaction is not valid for the light/photon .
13-   First and new scientific approaches may have mistakes. Because human mind is linear and nature has complexity. Some wrong opinions may remain for hundred years in accordance with low requirement or utilization.
14-   The theory SR has other serious defects. For example, in formulas the parameters have units and we require to get provision for these units too. But Lorentz transformations give always 300 000 relativeKm/relativeSec and claims that results are equal to 300 000 referenceKm /referenceSec in numerical application. If the units are changeable, the numerical values never be equal for authentic distance.  We must also get active our attention for this point.
15-   The theory SR had been helpful to revise light kinematics by being a guide hypothesis.

Wow, that was an quite a bit of text to say absolutely nothing relevant to the validity of SR.

The bottom line is that Relativity is accepted because it works. It provides accurate predictions in real life situations.  If the day comes when Relativity fails to predict the correct results, or someone develops a theory that does a better job in predicting outcomes, then it will be replaced.   But it will take results from a real physical measurement or experiment to cause this.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

 

The bottom line is that Relativity is accepted because it works. 

Thanks for your interest and answers.

I had read a text about benefits of SR. The text was saying the  GPS corrections as most important  usefullness. Somebody (who does not know the essence of SR) may attributes many events to SR. The reason  of GPS correction is the limited/finited velocity of light.

I know a single position to use SR: In cosmology, to reduce the redshifts; that alternative reduction method is indicated by me (   http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhyEs..26...49E     )

The theory  SR is an AD-HOC like Fitzgerald contraction.

The bottom line is:

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


Note for other followers:

To have universality requires to overcome the locality and to look from out of universe,

I just share my synthesis and I have not a liability to convince. Please allow you yourself to distinguish the nuances.

If the adoration/fanaticism obstrucs the science; you must eave the science

[PhysBang]

Note to xersanozgen: your basic mathematical mistakes and your choice of topics make it clear that you do not understand this topic.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Note to xersanozgen: your basic mathematical mistakes and your choice of topics make it clear that you do not understand this topic.

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

Please allow you yourself to distinguish the nuances. Otherwise you may have the position that he always say “the Sun turns around the Earth; because I see this”.

The science requires to be naked or transparent.

If the adoration/fanaticism obstrucs the science; you must leave the science.

[GoC]

You are confusing the two way speed of light with the one way speed of light in SR. Your in the middle of a ship with a distance of 2. Units do not matter this is relativity. You send a signal simultaneous from the ships observer 1 atto second in both forward and backward while going half the speed of light compared to an observer at rest. The forward signal reaches the front mirror at a distance of 2. The backward signal reaches the mirror in 2/3rds. So there is a 1 1/3rd difference between the two mirrors being synchronized (lets use the term in Gods eye). Now on the return trip the forward signal returns in 2/3rds the length to the middle and the backwards signal takes a distance of 2 to reach the middle. They arrive in the middle as simultaneous to the observer in the middle. This will happen at any speed of the ship. The observer at rest would view them as returning to the center as simultaneous. The same time will have passed for each direction of light.

The earth is still revolving around the sun, you will not fall off the earth if you sail to far, SR is alive and well.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

SR is alive and well.

 What may be the reason how powerfully convinces Lorentz, Poincaré, Einstein and you/others? I want to emphatize and apply positive discrimination for your postulates. We must search this case for science philisophy without polemics.

There is a traditional attitude: To interpret the results of an experiment in accordance with initial intention. We can see this attitude on some/much experiments’ report/paper.

 If the experimentalist wants to measure the relative velocity of the light according to the experiment place or its source and if he hopes a value like v +/- c ; however,  if he always finds the value c; how will interpret this result?

The light moves away from its source by just its velocity c  (without any addition by its source’s speed). And it is accepted implicitly that the velocity of light is a relative value according to its source/moving body ( they are assigned as the reference frame; of course we have arguments for this: the light is sent by its source, and we know  by our daily trials that the local places and us are always our reference frames).

It is a possible option that to study to interpret the results of experiments without their initial intentions. Probably, we can use this option for every experiments.

What can be else?

to be contiuned...

[xersanozgen (OP)]

You are confusing the two way speed of light with the one way speed of light in SR. Your in the middle of a ship with a distance of 2. Units do not matter this is relativity. You send a signal simultaneous from the ships observer 1 atto second in both forward and backward while going half the speed of light compared to an observer at rest. The forward signal reaches the front mirror at a distance of 2. The backward signal reaches the mirror in 2/3rds. So there is a 1 1/3rd difference between the two mirrors being synchronized (lets use the term in Gods eye). Now on the return trip the forward signal returns in 2/3rds the length to the middle and the backwards signal takes a distance of 2 to reach the middle. They arrive in the middle as simultaneous to the observer in the middle. This will happen at any speed of the ship. The observer at rest would view them as returning to the center as simultaneous. The same time will have passed for each direction of light.

The earth is still revolving around the sun, you will not fall off the earth if you sail to far, SR is alive and well.

Your example is like “light clock” and “light clock” is a perfect argument to defend the theory SR. Besides, the velocity of light is fix and a clock needs fix vibratory object; therefore the light is reasonable choice and a light clock always gives time dilation.

“Light clock” convinces many followers. But, we can discuss this mental experiment in-depth like commissar Colombo.

  Light clock has same tempo for positive/negative going directions because of square of the parameter v. However, the going direction results different tempos in accordance with parallel or perpendicular positions of the mirrors:


t’ (parallel) = t / (1 – v^2/c^2) ^1/2      (please attention: It is mentioned the square root of denominator)

t’ (perpendicular) = t / (1 – v^2 / c^2)           


But, would  Einstein like this argument?   

[xersanozgen (OP)]

What can be else?

 

 
In mechanical relativity, the speed of any object is relative according to a local place/mass absolutely. We call this by coding “reference frame”. In mechanic the Earth is the essential reference frame automatically (how that the fishes may not discern the water or sea).


Is there an event that its speed is not impressed by its source’s speed? Yes, we can find examples for this: If a pebble falls to surface of a lake; it causes a circle wave. The expanding speed of this ring wave is never impressed by the experimentalist’s speed (for standing or running positions). At following times the distance (between his new position and a point of circle wave) is not calculated by just the expanding speed of the circle wave (whereas, the theory SR allows similar calculation) In this lake analogy, the circle wave represents the light, the surface of the lake represents the space, the experimentalist represents the source. Similarly in football game the distance (between the new positions of the ball and the player on the moment T2) is not calculated by the just the ball’s relative speed according to the ground. On these samples the surface of the lake and the ground of the stadium and space  are co-reference frames for the motions of ring wave/ball/light and experimentalist/player/source. 

We always find the same value for the light’s velocity. We can label this result as its relative speed according to local frame or its source; if we intend to measure local speed.

However, this result can be also labeled as universal speed of the light; if we intend to measure the universal velocity.  In my opinion, the key requires to overcome the locality.

[GoC]

The Lorentz contraction is just a derivative of Pythagoras caused by motion and viewing an object from a past position in the observers present. Simultaneity of relativity.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

“Light clock” convinces many followers. But, we can discuss this mental experiment in-depth like commissar Colombo.

  Light clock has same tempo for positive/negative going directions because of square of the parameter v. However, the going direction results different tempos in accordance with parallel or perpendicular positions of the mirrors:


t’ (parallel) = t / (1 – v^2/c^2) ^1/2      (please attention: It is mentioned the square root of denominator)

t’ (perpendicular) = t / (1 – v^2 / c^2)           


But, would  Einstein like this argument?   

The light travels in an analog tv tube by tube together. The light travels inside an analog tv tube together by it. Also the system of mirrors carry a packace of light similarly. Besides, the device/mechanism of measurement for the velocity of light is similar apparatus. The photon takes longer way than 2.L (< L1 + L2 = 2.L / (1 - v^2 / c^2) and the time of travel is t' = t / (1 - v^2 / c^2). So this mirrored measuremet apparatus works as a light clock. Therefore, this measurement system cannot measure the relative/local speed of light according to its source.

As understood, light clock carries the light by going and coming. Whereas the theory SR considers the light at single going path. Light clock has time dilation for perpendicular motion. SR does not contain time dilation for perpendicular position.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

The Lorentz contraction is just a derivative of Pythagoras caused by motion and viewing an object from a past position in the observers present. Simultaneity of relativity.

The primary defect of SR is to assign the light source or local place as essential reference frame for analyzing of light's motion: In accordance with local habits.

Whereas, the space or LCS (most external reference frame) is co-reference for the motions of everyting (light, source, observer): the inference of universal paradigm (as you said: "lets use the term in Gods eye")


All efforts to defend SR are futile successes of rationalization. Because, to assign the space or LCS (Light Coordinate System) and to consider the finiteness (*) of the velocity of light can solve/analyze light kinematics without SR. Please try and confirm.

Of course we must thank Einstein for his theory that presented a possibility to arrive an alternative theory.

(*) The reason of illusion of space -time is just the finiteness of light's velocity. This reason and the concept of LCS can explain and analyze light kinematics sufficiently.

[puppypower]

Special relativity deals with relative reference and velocity. It does not deal with an energy balance, except indirectly through the relativistic mass term, which is usually ignored. The problem is less the fault of SR, and more the fault of the traditional interpretation of SR, which fixates on velocity, d/t and space-time but ignores relativistic mass.

As an example, in the twin paradox, one twin is set into motion and when he returns he is younger than his other twin who remained stationary. While they were in motion, we can apply relative velocity, with both references seeing the same thing. Yet in the end, both references do not develop the same final state. This disproves the relative assumption since both do not end the same way.

What we think we see, due to relative reference, does not add up always add to the final reality; reference differences. This discrepancy is due to the lack of an energy balance during application. If you did an energy balance, only the twin with the added kinetic energy should age slower. Mass/energy is not relative, but is often ignore by traditions which insist on relative references via velocity. 

The reason the traditions developed as they did was because the most important use of SR is inferring the age and speed of the universe; red shift. At the same time, we will never physically get close enough to directly measure any of these distant objects. The idea of an energy balance does not even register since the state of universal relativistic mass and energy can't be verified.

We are stuck at the twins in motion stage, but assume we will never get to  see one twin aging slower, to know what we are doing is not adding up; out of sight and out of mind. This approach became the tradition which continues to rub some people the wrong way, while never being changed, since the needed change would add a monkey wrench to the way we assume the universe.

If you can't do an energy balance, it is easy to violate energy conservation and not even know it. Eventually, contradictory observational data appears which requires adding energy and mass to the universe, which is not seen, but is needed. One such addendum is dark energy and dark matter to reflect the need to improve the energy balance due to improper SR application. We can't see dark energy in the lab, but we need it to improve the energy balance in a relative assumption go space-time that ignores relativistic mass, with mass not relative to reference.

[guest39538]

Hello, I have read some of the posts in this thread by the poster, can somebody please explain what he is on about as I can not for some reason decipher what he is on about?

Also I have read one sentence from the opp that is correct but for reasons for which he does not understand in which I do . 

[xersanozgen (OP)]

As an example, in the twin paradox, one twin is set into motion and when he returns he is younger than his other twin who remained stationary. While they were in motion, we can apply relative velocity, with both references seeing the same thing. Yet in the end, both references do not develop the same final state. This disproves the relative assumption since both do not end the same way.

Twins must have same age ABSOLUTELY.

In accordance with reciprocity principle (ın space condition) we may choice any one of twins for the role of relative actor or reference frame.   If you confirm the theory SR, If person A has a high speed according to person B, when we suppoze that  person A is rest (inertial/reference frame), at this time  the person B has same speed according to person A. Both them are exposed to time dilation and their ages will become the same.

 

The reason the traditions developed as they did was because the most important use of SR is inferring the age and speed of the universe; red shift. At the same time, we will never physically get close enough to directly measure any of these distant objects. The idea of an energy balance does not even register since the state of universal relativistic mass and energy can't be verified.

Yes, SR is used to reduce redshifts; the theory SR considers  the value  c  for the top limit of all speeds that this suggestion is inadequate.

Because the top limit is  2.c especially for nominal/supposed relativity. The radius of a light sphere increases by the velocity  c and the diameter of light sphere increases by 2c unavoidably.

 

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Hello, I have read some of the posts in this thread by the poster, can somebody please explain what he is on about as I can not for some reason decipher what he is on about?

Also I have read one sentence from the opp that is correct but for reasons for which he does not understand in which I do . 

He is an alien.

[puppypower]

Say we take a star of mass, M, moving at velocity v. The star can appear to red shift or blue shift, relative to us, based on whether it is moving away or moving toward us. On the other hand, its kinetic energy will be exactly the same, in both directions, since kinetic energy is 1/2MV2. The squaring of the velocity; V2, cancels out the vector (plus or minus) that defines the red or blue shift of the light, we see coming from the star.

The light we use to measure motion, and the mass of the object, behave differently, relative to reference. When we observe the universe, we intercept actual photons from old events. However, we don't get actual matter and mass samples from the same events. The velocity vector is important to the light we collect, but it does not tell the whole story of matter, which we can't collect and which is not vector dependent. In the example, the potential energy of the mass is the same in any direction, relative to the observer, but its energy emissions are not.

Einstein made provisions with his relativistic mass term. But how do you measure relativistic mass, directly? We can't for things at a distance. We do it through calculations, based on the photons, we collect, which are vector dependent. We try to define an invariant with a variant. The full observation should be space-time plus mass, not just space-time, since space-time is reference biased, while the mass is not. This makes a difference, and is why we now have dark matter and dark energy. This is an unconscious attempt to explain the mass connection.

You can see the importance of the mass by looking at General Relativity and gravity. In the star example, its mass is concentrated in the center of gravity due to the pressure imposed by gravity. This causes its local space-time to always layer, expanding way from center toward the perimeter. This layering direction of the space-time well, is not relative to observer. It is always the same direction of layering, because it is led by the invariant, mass. It is based on the potential energy of the mass. It does not arbitrarily reverse, if we use a trick reference.

In the twin paradox, one of the twins is set into motion using a rocket that burns fuel for propulsion. There is actual energy used to gain motion. The stationary twin pretends to move in their imagination, since no energy was actually used for them.

The moving twin, due to the expenditure of energy, gains potential energy in its mass and matter as relativistic mass via kinetic energy; younger twin. The relativistic mass change, like with gravity, is leading the change in its local space-time. The twin with the relative reference created with active imagination, does not experience any real change in its relativistic mass, because no real energy was added. So their space-time remained the same; older twin.

Relativistic mass is the key variable in SR, since it reflects the potential of the mass, which is absolute, which like in GR, influences the local space-time profile. But we can't yet measure relativistic mass in a direct way. This results in space-time gaining more priority and the cart leading the horse. This can sort of work going downhill but has problem going up the hill. If the horse leads, he go up and down the hill and make turns.

 

[alancalverd]

Are there flaws in special relativity?

None that have been demonstrated by experiment.