[Yahya]

length contraction ? complete destruction to the atom size

[xersanozgen (OP)]

length contraction ? complete destruction to the atom size

You may be right.
 
Two mass have the same characteristic and scientific integrity. But it is not  just reasonable/correct that to consider and analyze an object/mass (source or moving body) and the light (so, Energy) in a mechanical/relativity problem. A mass/object and energy/light/photon together; in my opinion, this case is not  proper. However the theory SR considers them in a mechanical relation because of just their traveling. 

 

[xersanozgen (OP)]

The theory of Special Relativity has some serious and miscellaneous mistakes. 

We may call  this " SECOND GALILEI EVENT".

If you want to testify for this cognitive revival, please visit  http://www.mrelativity.net/.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

 

WHICH ONE is RIGHT?

How is the path of the light in a moving train?

 
Energy is the origin of everything in universe. Light is also a universal phenomenon and a derivative form of energy. Naturally, we may be asymmetric position about solving the properties of the light. In other words, we can say that the light ridicules on our minds; or "the light challenges to human's mind".


Einstein and the others worked heroically or as Don Quichotte . But while the contradictious inferences must be a signal of incoherence, on the contrary the theory has become idol.


Analyzing the trace/path of light emitted from the base within a moving train is a good example of how both the speculative relativity theory flaws and both light kinematics and human intelligence work in the presence of low resolution.

This analysis should be performed in at least five dimensions. Methodology and hard discipline should be applied. Otherwise we will get fantastic results like special relativity theory.


My submissions are from my published articles ( Physics Essays; General Science Journal; Academia.edu : Özgen Ersan . Please indicate for citation  .

[Colin2B]

We ask people not to advertise books or websites on this forum, but to keep the discussion self contained within the forum.
Thank you

[xersanozgen (OP)]

WHICH ONE is RIGHT?

How is the path of the light in a moving train?

Analyzing the trace/path of light emitted from the base within a moving train is a good example of how both the speculative relativity theory flaws and both light kinematics and human intelligence work in the presence of low resolution.

This analysis should be performed in at least five dimensions. Methodology and hard discipline should be applied. Otherwise we will get fantastic results like special relativity theory.


 

The link of article:


https://www.academia.edu/36057326/Th..._a_Moving_Body

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Interpretation  for twin paradox

The paradoxes (incongruities to causality) signal that there is a mistake in the mentality of the thesis. Karl Popper, in his book "The Logic of the Scientific Research," states: "If a thesis gives the signal when it is constructed with x number of variables, then this thesis should be reconsidered with x + 1 number of variables"; this is exactly what I have already done in this topic and my publications on this subject; special relativity, the motion of the light in 4 dimensions; I studied in 5 dimensions.

The fifth dimension is that analysis must be done in a common and external reference system. The special theory of relativity gave a reference role to the local place or body; this attitude includes the potential for incoherence, just as the "sun is turning around the world" stigmatization.

[Le Repteux]

Hi Xerzanozgen,

In science like everywhere else, pictures are worth thousand words. Have you ever had a look at David Cooper's simulation of the MM experiment? Run it again if you already did and look closely at the way the photon moves in the laser before getting out of it. To stay in the laser while it is moving, light has to travel sideways to the motion, because otherwise, it would hit the walls before being reflected at its ends. We need a background though to see that effect, and that background is the same as an ether because light is moving with regard to it. Nevertheless, we could not measure our speed or our direction with regard to that background with the help of an interferometer or any other instrument because all the particles of the instrument would suffer the same light behavior. No need for the postulate that c is the same whatever the speed of the observer: c doesn't need to be the same, and it is effectively not the same in both directions in that simulation. That postulate is completely misleading and it complicates the understanding considerably.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Hi Xerzanozgen,

In science like everywhere else, pictures are worth thousand words. Have you ever had a look at David Cooper's simulation of the MM experiment? Run it again if you already did and look closely at the way the photon moves in the laser before getting out of it. To stay in the laser while it is moving, light has to travel sideways to the motion, because otherwise, it would hit the walls before being reflected at its ends. We need a background though to see that effect, and that background is the same as an ether because light is moving with regard to it. Nevertheless, we could not measure our speed or our direction with regard to that background with the help of an interferometer or any other instrument because all the particles of the instrument would suffer the same light behavior. No need for the postulate that c is the same whatever the speed of the observer: c doesn't need to be the same, and it is effectively not the same in both directions in that simulation. That postulate is completely misleading and it complicates the understanding considerably.

Thanks for your interest. I read David Cooper's study.

I encounter more study about unvalidity of SR; the last one: Millenium relativity (http://www.mrelativity.net).

Yes, in universe everything has motion and we need an inertial system for cosmological analyses.

SR had considered a moving body/source for reference frame of light's motion. Lorentz had additionally considered an outer sequential / tandem reference frame. Both of them have a postula that the velocity of light is relative (*) value according to everything referring to measurement experiments.

They and other academicians cannot overcome a dogma that a measured speed is a relative parameter according to local place or its first reference frame; in fact  we can measure the velocity of light that is relative according to most external frame (space or LCS). Results are the same value and isotropic: that is a powerfull evidence for this.

(*) Genuine relative. (Please look at "relativity types" of that paper : http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/6600 )

[Le Repteux]

What is isotropic is the two way speed of light, not the one way, but that precision is not part of the postulate and it should, otherwise it leads to incongruities. The one way speed of light is impossible to observe anyway, so to consider it is isotropic is only an ad hoc assumption.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

What is isotropic is the two way speed of light, not the one way, but that precision is not part of the postulate and it should, otherwise it leads to incongruities. The one way speed of light is impossible to observe anyway, so to consider it is isotropic is only an ad hoc assumption.

I would must preferred that expression : The results of light's velocity measurements are the same for every directions; also, in M-M experiment the fringes are the same on every directions. This reality verifies the hypothesis that we can measure the velocity of light according to exclusively  outmost external frame. Present measuring experiment  (double path, uninterrupted light etc) cannot measure local relative value of light's velocity (*).

 Besides, there is an important point that is overlooked: when the light is used by uninterrupted form in experiments,   we cannot guaranteed the requirement that test object must be identified. For example, in MM experiments two photon packets (interferential) may not be the halves of the same light packet. In fact, each one of them has been emitted at different times in accordance with the lengths of their way.

(*) To consider every measured speed as relative value (according to local place) is an habit of mechanical physics. Lorentz, Einstein and others had considered and labelled the velocity of light as "genuine relative" according to local frame or source/moving body and they had used Galilean relativity principle for inertial role of moving body (uniform motion).

[Le Repteux]

The primary postulate of STR is that the speed of light has the same value in any inertial frame. This postulate must be revised to include the concept that ”the velocity of light is measured by the same value ‘c’ on everywhere”, because the present  measuring system can only measure the universal value of light’s velocity, as opposed to its local and relative speed.

That's an exert of the conclusion of your paper on the defects of relativity. In the phrase ”the velocity of light is measured by the same value ‘c’ on everywhere” , I don't understand the "on everywhere". Can you say it differently please?

[xersanozgen (OP)]

   ”the velocity of light is measured by the same value ‘c’ on everywhere” , I don't understand the "on everywhere". Can you say it differently please?

If we measure the velocity of light with present experiment in moving train or on the Earth and on the Sun or Galaxy...... universe, multiverse and outmost space, we will find the value c.

Measurements give always the same value c on everywhere and for every directions.

[Le Repteux]

OK! Then what you should write is "everywhere" or "everywhere in the universe", not "on everywhere". It's too bad there is not good translating software yet, otherwise it would be a lot easier to communicate. I'm french Canadian, so I had the chance to be in contact with English language quite often during my life, but I still make a lot of mistakes.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Thanks.

I have a study about "Light Kinematics and calculating the age of universe" in a Canadian journal (Physics Essays 26.1 2013).

We human measure the velocity of light; but some of us may load exaggerated meaning to this action like Einstein, Lorentz and others. The action is "to measure"; but they interpret as "to go away from local source"; whereas there is a serious/significant nuance between two options.

[Le Repteux]

I read your paper on the defects of relativity and I agree with it, but I have a completely different viewpoint on light. I consider that light drives the motion instead of only considering that it gives us the opportunity to measure it.  I discovered that idea while I was trying to analyze how doppler effect would propagate between two bonded atoms while they would be accelerated. I realized that, because of the limited speed of the information, to stay synchronized, they would have to move one after the other step by step to nullify the doppler effect produced on their bonding energy. In other words, that molecule would not move as a whole, but each one of its atoms would move step by step with regard to the photons produced by the other atom, and all the atoms composing all the objects that we see would do the same thing. Things would not move as a whole, and if we could see their atoms, we would see that they are actually making some steps to justify their different motions. It didn't take long before I realized that the first atom to be accelerated had to resist its acceleration, because as soon as it would be forced to move towards the second atom, it would immediately produce doppler effect on its light. I had always thought that mass had something to do with constant motion, so I didn't have any problem to consider that resistance as mass. Later, I realized that the total mass of that atom would be due to the photons its components would also exchange. David Cooper taught me to make simulations, so you can take a look at them to understand what I mean. Notice that all the particles that you will see would not be able to move if they would not exchange photons. In these simulations, it is the doppler effect carried by the photons that drives the motion, which sheds a completely new light on that effect.

[guest45734]

Is this link of any interest ref the speed of light https://phys.org/news/2015-03-einstein-scientists-spacetime-foam.html#nRlv
and forget to look at this link https://phys.org/news/2007-10-gamma-ray-physics.html#nRlv

[xersanozgen (OP)]

   I discovered that idea while I was trying to analyze how doppler effect would propagate between two bonded atoms while they would be accelerated.

How is the light move in water or fiberoptic cable?   In my opinion a photon or quant/energy is absorbed by an atom and emitted again by this atom; therefore its speed decreases. But when the water or fiber cable has a motion, which value does the velocity of light get?

SR is interested in light's motion in vacuum.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Is this link of any interest ref the speed of light https://phys.org/news/2015-03-einstein-scientists-spacetime-foam.html#nRlv
and forget to look at this link https://phys.org/news/2007-10-gamma-ray-physics.html#nRlv

English language generates a special word for every nuance; however in Latine languages  had coded  this phemenon by a single word: "Relativity".

Even in classical physics relativity has types for different meaning:

Genuine/natural relativity:  The speed of a car  according to its road is "genuine relative". Top limit is  "c".

Nominal/artificial/notional relativity: The speed of a car according to anothe moving car is "nominal relative". Top limit is "2c".

Momentary/temporary relativity : when a ball is ejected by a player, the speed of the ball according to player is "momentary relative".

For detailed explanation: III. Types of relativity  http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/6600

The primary postulate of SR is that: the velocity of light according to its source is "genuine relative"; whereas the velocity of a photon according to its source or local place is "nominal relative" or "momentary relative". Human mind must/may overcome this shallow knowledge/postulate.

Therefore SR is first approachment for light kinematics and contains flaws and the efforts for confirming SR is AD-HOC.

[Le Repteux]

How does the light move in water or fiberoptic cable?   In my opinion a photon or quant/energy is absorbed by an atom and emitted again by this atom; therefore its speed decreases. But when the water or fiber cable has a motion, which value does the velocity of light get?

SR is interested in light's motion in vacuum.

In my simulations, light travels in vacuum too, but you are right, when it hits a particle, it cannot be re-emitted instantly, thus some time should be added to the light clocks each time a photon hits a particle, which means that in my twins simulation, the clock that is traveling should be less retarded by that phenomenon than the clock at rest because the photon hits the particles less often. I wonder if that phenomenon would not help me to dampen the contraction I get while letting the first particle get closer to the second one during acceleration. I give it a speed, then I let that information get to the second particle by doppler effect, and I wait till the photon is back with no doppler effect in it to increase its speed again. I get so much contraction this way that the time is contracted instead of being dilated. To get less contraction, I have to find a way to slow down the particles a bit during their acceleration, but this way has to be a real mechanism, not an ad hoc number just to fit the data.

In fact, what I have to find is the precise way my particles resist to acceleration. For the moment, I use the time the photon takes to travel between the particles. During that time, the speed of the first particle cannot increase, and since the force is still there, it has to resist to it. That only counts for the mass due to the bonding energy of those particles though, not the mass of each particle measured separately. The mass of each particle is due to the bonding energy of their own components, which are exchanging much more energetic photons compared to the ones the particles are exchanging, so the reason why those components resist so much to be accelerated might not only be the time those photons take between them, but also their energy. In that mechanism, the relation between energy and time is evident: the less the photons take time between the components, the more the frequency of that interaction is high, and the more the intensity of the light is important too because the sources of light are closer to one another. So my idea that mass is due to the time the photons take between the particles still holds, but I have to back it with the idea that the particles resist to less energetic photons than the ones their components exchange, and that they increase their speed only once during the time their components increase theirs millions of times.

Now, I have to find a way to add those information to my mechanism. Maybe I should make a simulation of the whole process, showing simultaneously the components' steps and the particles' steps. This way, we could see how one long step between the particles is in fact composed of a lot of shorter steps between their components, and how that longer step is in fact made of a long acceleration followed by a long deceleration, to which each one of the shorter steps has to resist individually. The particles and the components getting contracted at the same time would avoid either of them to observe that contraction, but I can't see how the contraction between the components could reduce the contraction between the particles, and that's what I'm trying to discover. There is a difference in the kind of steps each scale has to execute though: the step from one particle is made of the steps from two components, so I have to figure out how only one photon at the particles' scale can influence the motion of two particles at the components' scale. That photon is made of the light emitted by two components, so that when they are inline and that their steps are synchronized, thus when they are on constant motion, almost all the light is absorbed by interference, whereas when they are accelerated, they get pushed out of sync, so some light escapes from the system.

Thanks for permitting me to think that out Xer, it's easier to think when we're not talking to walls. :0) It may look as if my simulations were not related to relativity, but they are. They're all about what would be going on between sources of light if light was not instantaneous.