[xersanozgen (OP)]

Are there flaws in special relativity?

None that have been demonstrated by experiment.

Thanks for your interest.

My alternative theory considers  the same experiments that are the base of SR. However the interpretations of them are different. We must can interpret the results of the experiments  independently  without their initial intentions. Besides, the postulates of SR must be revised in accordance with universal scale and as a scientific project. Because our postulates are formed in local conditions.



The primary defect of SR is to assign the light source or local place as essential reference frame for analyzing of light's motion: This is a first approach  in accordance with local/mechanical/traditional habits.

Whereas, the space or LCS (most external reference frame) is co-reference frame  for the motions of everyting (light, source, observer, clusters, universe): This is an inference of universal paradigm (as you (Goc) 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.

[alancalverd]

There are no "intentions" to a good experiment except to measure whatever we set out to. Thus we find (a) that the speed of light in vacuo is independent of its direction of propagation and (b) that light is an electromagnetic wave. Then we discover the relationships between electric and magnetic fields, and Maxwell uses these experimental relationships to show that c is theoretically constant, from which we derive a whole bunch of relativistic predictions that turn out to be true in practice, and some simple laboratory experiments fo determining c without using a light beam and a stopwatch.   

The problem with a "god's eye view" of physics is the absence of any experimental evidence for a god with a fixed point of view, and a bizarre predilection for William of Ockham's pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate which distinguishes science from superstition.   

[xersanozgen (OP)]

1- There are no "intentions" to a good experiment except to measure whatever we set out to. Thus we find (a) that the speed of light in vacuum is independent of its direction of propagation and (b) that light is an electromagnetic wave. Then we discover the relationships between electric and magnetic fields, and Maxwell uses these experimental relationships to show that c is theoretically constant, from which we derive a whole bunch of relativistic predictions that turn out to be true in practice, and some simple laboratory experiments of determining c without using a light beam and a stopwatch.   

2- The problem with a "god's eye view" of physics is the absence of any experimental evidence for a god with a fixed point of view, and a bizarre predilection for William of Ockham's pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate which distinguishes science from superstition.   

1-   Yes, you are right “that the speed of light in vacuum is independent of its direction of propagation”. However some bodies may have hidden postulates (here is the initial intention; probably); for example they still suppose and label the measured value as “genuine relative” speed (at meaning to always move away from its source; to always increase the distance -between the photon and its source- by c) for the velocity of light. Even after 112 years they repeat the defect of SR. The question of commissar Colombo: which is the essential reference frame of light’s speed c how is labeled by coding “relative”; its local source or the space/most externel frame  (LCS)?

2-   No, “God’s eye” has a special importance in light kinematics (thanks to Goc). When an observer/receptor is an actor/component of light experiment, the perception/restriction of his sense of sight can affect upon the interpretation of results like in SR (SR declares the value c is highest velocity; yes an object never travel by bigger speed than c; however the distance between two independent objects can increase by bigger speed than c * ( but   < 2c).


If we have not the theory SR and if we analyze the illusion of space-time, we would find LCS concept as a co-reference frame for light kinematics. LCS concept is simply and effectively to analyze light kinematics and calculate the age of universe ( https://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/77-11-oezgen-ersan-and-isinsu-ersan-light-kinematics-to-analyze-space-time.html )


*  However if an observer is on one of them, he can perceive the events by c.

[alancalverd]

(at meaning to always move away from its source; to always increase the distance -between the photon and its source- by c) for the velocity of light.

Isn't that the definition of velocity? If you change direction you have changed the vector, and velocity is a vector.

SR declares the value c is highest velocity;

Not true. An experimentally verifiable consequence of SR is the impossibility of accelerating a massive object to c, nothing more than that.

[David Cooper]

The problem with a "god's eye view" of physics is the absence of any experimental evidence for a god with a fixed point of view, and a bizarre predilection for William of Ockham's pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate which distinguishes science from superstition.

Don't trip over the use of the word "God" there - it doesn't require anything superstitious for that view to be valid as it simply refers to the view that God would have if such a beast existed. The importance of the God's eye view of things is that it refers to the universe as it actually is; all the distortions caused by viewing from within the universe removed so that the universe can be understood properly.

[alancalverd]

The view of a third party is not "special". If the third observer can see anything, he is part of the observable universe.

The idea that we have a distorted view has no foundation. We see what we see, and our mathematical model predicts what we see next. If there were any unaccounted distortion, SR wouldn't work.

[David Cooper]

The view of a third party is not "special". If the third observer can see anything, he is part of the observable universe.

The idea that we have a distorted view has no foundation. We see what we see, and our mathematical model predicts what we see next. If there were any unaccounted distortion, SR wouldn't work.

The mathematical model generates the god's eye view from the distorted views that we see, and that's why the god's eye view is valid. To reject it is to reject the model.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

1- Isn't that the definition of velocity? 
 

2- Not true. An experimentally verifiable consequence of SR is the impossibility of accelerating a massive object to c, nothing more than that.

 1- Yes, we have habit to label a speed according to its first source; here is the hidden postulate. Whereas the reference/comparison frame of the ball's speed is not the moving player (even if he has an uniform motion). If you consider the player you will have some troubles on mechanical analysis. The reference frame for the ball's speed is the ground of stadium. Analyses must be realized by ground not the player (although, the player is the first frame for the ball). We must learn by this example, that  the ground is a co- reference frame for the ball and other actors. Similarly, the source is the first frame for light; and we must distinguish about essence reference frame of light. In my opinion, it is space or most external frame (LCS); we must prefer the space for light kinematics. Space or LCS is co-reference frame for the light and other actors (source, observer, etc.)

2- Yes I confirm your answer too; "an object does not accelerate upto c".  I did not mean this option. The distance between two independent object can increase by bigger speed than c (on God's eye). But the images always come to an observer by the speed c.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

The mathematical model generates the god's eye view from the distorted views that we see, and that's why the god's eye view is valid. To reject it is to reject the model.

Yes, here is wisdom.

We can perform to analyze light kinematics in accordance with God's sight on any sheet of paper. I realized this ( https://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/77-11-oezgen-ersan-and-isinsu-ersan-light-kinematics-to-analyze-space-time.html  )

[xersanozgen (OP)]

The problem with a "god's eye view" of physics is the absence of any experimental evidence for a god with a fixed point of view, and a bizarre predilection for William of Ockham's pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate which distinguishes science from superstition.

Don't trip over the use of the word "God" there - it doesn't require anything superstitious for that view to be valid as it simply refers to the view that God would have if such a beast existed. The importance of the God's eye view of things is that it refers to the universe as it actually is; all the distortions caused by viewing from within the universe removed so that the universe can be understood properly.

If the light has infinite value for its velocity, we would see everything at simultaneous positions and by their current ages. While I analyze space-time I need at this meaning of "God's eye".

[xersanozgen (OP)]

  Isn't that the definition of velocity? 

Thanks alancalverd.

 The argument of hidden/covert postulate is important for SR. To understand and internalize the argument “hidden postulate” will be like second Galilei event.

Also, the nuance/difference of “genuine/prominent relativity”, “nominal/notional relativity”, “temporary/momentary relativity” etc must be internalized. They are the simple subjects of fundamental physics. We cannot ignore these realities for the sake of mysticism or fantastic inferences like SR.

[alancalverd]

There's nothing fantastic or inferential about SR. We simply begin with Maxwell's equations (which are expermentally verifiable),  derive a mathematical account of what happens, then test it experimentally. And it works.

[puppypower]

Are there flaws in special relativity?

None that have been demonstrated by experiment.

The Theory of Special Relativity is not flawed. Rather the problem is most applications do not usually include all three terms; relativistic mass, distance and time. We tend to focus on distance and time; space-time and ignore relativistic mass. This result can be an energy balance problem that may be not be obvious.

As an example, say you are on a moving train. Someone sitting at the station watches you go by. You see the station appear to move, while the other person sees the train moving, Based on your train reference, you can do calculations and make predictions with the relative assumption and distance and time.

Let me now add the mass considerations. The train has X amount of mass, while the station has Y mass. Based on both references, there is a discrepancy in the amount of kinetic energy, even though both see the other moving at the same velocity. The mass will influence the amount of kinetic energy seen using relative velocity V. The kinetic energy is not relative to reference, since both can't be correct and also be different.

On the other hand, how would you measure the mass of each, if they are both in relative motion? From a practical and experimental POV, you cant make always use the relativistic mass, since it is not easy to measure. Therefore, it is left out for the time being. However, doing so can violate energy conservation, resulting in inference assumptions that may be totally consistent with one reference, but which is not real based on energy conservation. Without relativistic mass, you can see a mirage. A mirage is when the light from an object is in a different place than the mass of the object, If we go by the light, and ignore the mass, we can see the object in the wrong place, with others seeing the same thing. This may appear to need extra energy.

In the train example, say I assume the station was moving. We estimate it has mass, Y, and then we calculate the kinetic energy and from that we calculate the amount of fuel needed to achieve that speed and momentum for that mass. So far, this is all by the book.

In reality, the train burnt the fuel and was placed on motion due too this. The amount of energy needed is lower since the station is a large stone building. Using the relative assumption, the moving station caused me to add extra energy to the universe. But since everyone on the train appears to see the same mirage, which is consistent with space-time only calculations, it becomes the law which cannot be questioned.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

There's nothing fantastic or inferential about SR. We simply begin with Maxwell's equations (which are expermentally verifiable),  derive a mathematical account of what happens, then test it experimentally. And it works.

I did not say opposite Maxwell's inferences. My alternative theory is based to maxwell; not aether.

But if we may activate our cognitive attention; SR supposed/considered that  the local place or moving body is as an aether and it claims that the distance -between the photon and its source- always increases by c (it means  "genuine/direct relativity" or aether hypothesis; whereas there are some different options for relativity).

It is interesting, SR also confirms Maxwell's inferences; however, the conlusions of SR endorses the aether hypothesis and Fitzgerald contraction etc.

If I want to emphatize for SR and Maxwell; I may say that:  How is the beginning point of the elektro-magnetic circuit/cycle of Maxwell marked?

The answer of SR:  The source, moving body, local place, everything are the marking objects. If the source has uniform motion this quality of the source is kept.

Concept of LCS : The begining point must be marked on space (the source passes over this point at the emitting moment). Yes it is impossible practically (*); but the analysis are possible   on a sheet of paper.

(*) probably, SR wants to use the source/moving... to mark the beginning point instead of  a physical object or perceptible reference because of this impossibility.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Are there flaws in special relativity?

None that have been demonstrated by experiment.

The Theory of Special Relativity is not flawed. Rather the problem is most applications do not usually include all three terms; relativistic mass, distance and time. We tend to focus on distance and time; space-time and ignore relativistic mass. This result can be an energy balance problem that may be not be obvious.

As an example, say you are on a moving train. Someone sitting at the station watches you go by. You see the station appear to move, while the other person sees the train moving, Based on your train reference, you can do calculations and make predictions with the relative assumption and distance and time.

Let me now add the mass considerations. The train has X amount of mass, while the station has Y mass. Based on both references, there is a discrepancy in the amount of kinetic energy, even though both see the other moving at the same velocity. The mass will influence the amount of kinetic energy seen using relative velocity V. The kinetic energy is not relative to reference, since both can't be correct and also be different.

On the other hand, how would you measure the mass of each, if they are both in relative motion? From a practical and experimental POV, you cant make always use the relativistic mass, since it is not easy to measure. Therefore, it is left out for the time being. However, doing so can violate energy conservation, resulting in inference assumptions that may be totally consistent with one reference, but which is not real based on energy conservation. Without relativistic mass, you can see a mirage. A mirage is when the light from an object is in a different place than the mass of the object, If we go by the light, and ignore the mass, we can see the object in the wrong place, with others seeing the same thing. This may appear to need extra energy.

In the train example, say I assume the station was moving. We estimate it has mass, Y, and then we calculate the kinetic energy and from that we calculate the amount of fuel needed to achieve that speed and momentum for that mass. So far, this is all by the book.

In reality, the train burnt the fuel and was placed on motion due too this. The amount of energy needed is lower since the station is a large stone building. Using the relative assumption, the moving station caused me to add extra energy to the universe. But since everyone on the train appears to see the same mirage, which is consistent with space-time only calculations, it becomes the law which cannot be questioned.

Wellcome and thanks for your efforts.

I don’t want to repeat my syntheses at above as an answer.

However, SR is a simple geometrical (or  “way- speed- time” problem for light) based theory; it does not contain mass, energy or other things. Yes the theory SR cannot  be understood easily; but, it is not complex, if we generate  well-directed mental references. To arrogate/impute high/advanced meanings is not required.

SR is a first approach for the motion of light and in my opinion it must/can be revised/advanced in accordance with precision considerations. However we must thank to SR that it had been useful for accuracy of light kinematics

{ The Light as a Super Reference Frame
 

Abstract: Light kinematics and the special relativity can be reviewed accompanied with more dimensions,
factors, conditions and especially revision of postulates. The Special Theory of Relativity gives the reference role to a
moving body or its fictive light source. We analyzed reverse/opposite arrangement: The light is assigned as a
reference frame and the other/local actors (moving body/source/observer) undertake relative roles. This revise/new
concept is supported by the same experiments that they are effective for special theory. And new method is more
functional for light kinematics and it allows cosmological analysis by providing the simultaneity and equivalency.}

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

SR considers the light at single position (moving/going away). It does not mention about oncoming position. I want to present a mental experiment like your train-perron example:

We consider two moving trains that they have big visible clocks. If the trains move away from each other, the observers (in the trains) perceive the clock of the other train by lower tempo. Inverse position, if the trains approach to each other, at this position the observers perceive the clock of the other train by faster tempo. Although these clocks works normal tempo and the trains have uniform motion.

Does these results interpret by the theory SR ??

[xersanozgen (OP)]

To review the SR analysis may be explanatory to distinguish its flaws (Please don’t regress; it is not complex, you may see that it is so simple astonishly.

S…………………………………………………S'’……………………………...P’

O…………………………………………………A………………………………B
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ LCS

1-   The source of light (S) and the photon (P) are on the point O at the moment Tı.
2-   The source of light arrives to the point A and the photon arrives to the point B at the moment T2.
3-   OA = v.t      (t = T2 – T1) ;  OB = c.t  ;
4-   AB = OB – OA = c.t – v.t = (c – v).t  , BUT, we or SR believe that the velocity of the light is a fixed value according to its source; because we want and hope to measure  its relative velocity at the meaning “  c +/- v  ”; we get that the result is always the value  “  c  “, so the escaping speed of the light is always  “ c “.
5-   Thus, the length of AB must be  c.t  (we had determined that the value of c is fixed)
6-   C = AB / t  = fixed value = 300 000 km/s ;  what can we do to achieve this equation? We can/must increase the numerator and decrease the denominator. 

[GoC]

Are A + B inertial? Or is B fixed?

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Are A + B inertial? Or is B fixed?

SR mentality uses local places for analyzing; therefore  A and B fixed points according to SR. Rigid stick is mentioned at some text. Probably the Earth is supposed as a fixed frame. If the source has uniform motion, it is considered as an inertial frame and SR allows to use the source as a marker for the points of operation/analyzing.

The concept of LCS: The points O, A, B are fixed points on LCS absolutely according to alternative theory. The source, observer and the photon have their own motions on LCS. The relative velocity of photon is the value c according to LCS. The speeds of other actors (source, observer, everything) must be also considered the values according to LCS for scientific integrity.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

To review the SR analysis may be explanatory to distinguish its flaws (Please don’t regress; it is not complex, you may see that it is so simple astonishly.

S…………………………………………………S'’……………………………...P’

O…………………………………………………A………………………………B
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ LCS

1-   The source of light (S) and the photon (P) are on the point O at the moment Tı.
2-   The source of light arrives to the point A and the photon arrives to the point B at the moment T2.
3-   OA = v.t      (t = T2 – T1) ;  OB = c.t  ;
4-   AB = OB – OA = c.t – v.t = (c – v).t  , BUT, we or SR believe that the velocity of the light is a fixed value according to its source; because we want and hope to measure  its relative velocity at the meaning “  c +/- v  ”; we get that the result is always the value  “  c  “, so the escaping speed of the light is always  “ c “.
5-   Thus, the length of AB must be  c.t  (we had determined that the value of c is fixed)
6-   C = AB / t  = fixed value = 300 000 km/s ;  what can we do to achieve this equation? We can/must increase the numerator and decrease the denominator. 

SR had applied this ranking/analyzing by using S' (the presence of the source) instead of the point A (Please remember football analogy; the player has freedom to go anywhere, after he sent the ball; similarly the source does not have to follow its  any photon after emitting.

SR does not consider the concept of  co-reference frame. This neglecting has  a serious potential of confusing.

[guest39538]

Just a quick one from me, what is the theory of special relativity?