[xersanozgen (OP)]

In SR and Lorentz mentality, the units of parameters (length and time) is changed to keep the fixity of light's velocity. So, rail.km, rail.second and train.km, train.second are mentioned. And the standarts of these units are different.

When we use SR and Lorentz transfomations we always find the value of velocity of Light as:

c = 300 000 rail.km / rail.second (original velocity of Light)

and

c = 300 000 train.km / train.second (relative velocity of light)

Now, please actice your cognitive performance; are these values or "traveling amount on unit time" equal? Is numerical equality sufficient?

Whereas the theory SR accepts as primary / apriori postulate that the fixity of light's velocity.


Intrinsically / fundamentally / authentically, this requirement has not been realized in SR and Lorentz.


When the units are different, the numeric values must be different for equality of the action.


If the fixity of light's velocity (travelling ability of the light) is the primary target, it must be that: for v = 60 % c

300 000 rail.km/rail.second = 468 750 train.km /train.second

[xersanozgen (OP)]

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 my opinion, there is no the aether (*), already light does not need a material medium like gas or air for its motion. However the light can be carried by some mirrored apparatus; but this setting is not an aether.

An important flaw of SR is to consider the light by uninterrupted form. An identified unique photon must be analyzed on light kinematics and as you said by attitude of tracing the process steps for every atto seconds. to consider some moments of motion/action  may be confusing and misleading. Unfortunately, Doppler effect and interference are not mentioned for a single photon.

(*) of course the vacuum is not exactly empty; even we can say that every where is full of photons. Does photon soup work as aether?

[Le Repteux]

Whether there is really a medium or not, I think we both agree that light moves as if there was one. In my simulations, I can assimilate the screen to a medium in which light travels. Relativists can't do that, otherwise they would be forced to admit that light doesn't travel at the same speed in all directions. I'm pretty sure that they put a hand over their eyes when they encounter such a simulation.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

 

Some theses can be discredited because of new or revised paradigm.  There are many examples in science history. Also the theory SR is a living / actual  example,

SR had not perceived the biggest picture and assigned  the local things (source, moving body) for reference role. Therefore it is fully wrong.

The subject of SR is an IQ test anymore for humanity. Thanks to Einstein for his powerfull step for more  advanced light kinematics.



 

[Le Repteux]

You're probably using a translator software, because I can hardly understand what you say. So you probably hardly understand what I say too. Your papers are a bit better, but they also contain a lot of mistakes. You should have them reviewed by a human translator. To be understood on the forums, you must know enough english to be able to correct the translator software, otherwise it is almost impossible to discuss. Try to learn more english, there is a lot of good language software on the net.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

 


Some theses can be discredited because of new or revised paradigm.  There are many examples in science history. Also the theory SR is a living / actual  example,

SR had not perceived the biggest picture and assigned  the local things (source, moving body) for reference role. Therefore it is fully wrong.

The subject of SR is an IQ test anymore for humanity. Thanks to Einstein for his powerfull step for more  advanced light kinematics.

 

[xersanozgen (OP)]

David Cooper taught me to make simulations, so you can take a look at them to understand what I mean.

We may see that the theory SR had neglected "simulation" or "tracing" the photon step by step for every atto second.

If we reconsider SR analysis, while the photon goes to + x, the photon passes over the points on the KA (not on the K'A) for the time T.

To analyze the event upon a photo that is taken at the moment T will be misleading.

[Le Repteux]

In my simulations, for the photons to travel at c in any direction with regard to us, they have to travel at c with regard to the screen, because the screen is at rest with regard to us, but this way, they cannot travel at c with regard to any moving object on the screen, so even if it is impossible to measure their speed in only one direction, it is false to pretend that it would be c if we could, and that's what the relativists pretend. Those simulations help us to study relativity, but they also help us to know what is going on between bonded particles, so they might help us to link relativity theory to quantum theory. Unfortunately, relativists cannot study them without first questioning relativity, and they cannot do that without risking their jobs. That's how things work at any scale: it takes time for a change to happen in any system, including in my simulations, and it also takes chance, so let's go on pushing until chance pushes on our side.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

In my simulations, for the photons to travel at c in any direction with regard to us, they have to travel at c with regard to the screen, because the screen is at rest with regard to us, but this way, they cannot travel at c with regard to any moving object on the screen, so even if it is impossible to measure their speed in only one direction, it is false to pretend that it would be c if we could, and that's what the relativists pretend. Those simulations help us to study relativity, but they also help us to know what is going on between bonded particles, so they might help us to link relativity theory to quantum theory. Unfortunately, relativists cannot study them without first questioning relativity, and they cannot do that without risking their jobs. That's how things work at any scale: it takes time for a change to happen in any system, including in my simulations, and it also takes chance, so let's go on pushing until chance pushes on our side.

I want to emphase again:
A source set free an identified photon at the moment To. At the moment Tı, the distance between this photon and the source is L = (c + / - V) (Tı - To) according to us. (V = the speed of the source according to universal scale or outmost external frame)

But Einstein and other relativists claim that  L = c (Tı - To) for this distance. Their argument is the measurement of light velocity; because they find the value c (they label/accept this value c as genuine relative speed according to the source (as if they are uninformed about nominal/comparized/"so-called"/pseudo relativity); and they suppose that the source keeps its inertial position. Whenas the source has always an universal motion. 

We measure always the universal velocity of light (not local relative speed) due to present measurement experiment.

I can suggest a method to measure the pseudo relative speed of light compared its source:

We must set two analog cinema camera at interval  distance L. We remote them with equal length cable. We can determine the start and finish moments for a single photon  (photon will mark a line to surfaces of both films. The first points of these lines gives the start (To) and finish (Tı) moments. And:

L / (Tı - To) =  c + / - V 

This experiment must be set for different directions, simultaneously. Min. and max. values can be interpreted .

Note: This experiment was published in my book (Özgen Ersan "Pseudo Science" ISBN 978.9944.0402.0.4   2008) Please indicate citation.

[Le Repteux]

I agree that we only measure the universal velocity of light, but I don't understand your experiment. Could you elaborate a bit?

[xersanozgen (OP)]

I agree that we only measure the universal velocity of light, but I don't understand your experiment. Could you elaborate a bit?

AB  = L


Settings:

Point A: The light source (laser)
              Kerr obturator
              Analog cinema cam

Point B: Analog cinema cam

Point C: Remote buttons  and cable relating (AC = BC)

Process (night conditions)

1- Cameras and laser are worked.
2- A reference point is marked on film bands by a button.
3- Obturator allows a photon packet.
4- Both cameras tape one apiece light lines.
5- First points of light lines on the films' are used to calculate/determine the start (To) and finish (Tı) moments.
6- V = [L / (Tı - To) ] - c  : Universal velocity of the Earth (the projective value on AB).

For precision the speed of films must/can be increased or the bigger distance can be preferred.

[Le Repteux]

In which direction is the photon sent? I think I need a diagram.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

In which direction is the photon sent? I think I need a diagram.

A -----------------------------------------------------> B

[Le Repteux]

I think I understand: the cameras would film the photon while it is passing by, so you think you can measure the speed of the earth through space this way because you use the speed of light only in one direction. But the light signals CA and CB are sent in opposed directions, so they don't have the same speed. If I made a simulation of your experiment, and if I gave the right contraction rate to the apparatus, it would give the same null result as the simulation I made of the Michelson/Morley experiment. Not because the speed of light is the same in any direction, but because it is the same when we measure it going in opposed directions, and that we can't make an experiment with light without the light (or the light signal) having to move in opposed directions. If you are looking for a way to show that SR is wrong, I think you should learn to make simulations. It's a lot easier than I thought it was. My simulation of the MM experiment shows very clearly that light is not going at the same speed in both directions. The problem is that it cannot be measured directly, but the Sagnac interferometer is an indirect way to measure it, and there is no need for a simulation to show how it works.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

  But the light signals CA and CB are sent in opposed directions, so they don't have the same speed. 

This problem can be solved  by cable connecting; of cource the length of cables must be equal.

[Le Repteux]

Of course that the lengths of the cables have to be equal, but the speed of the signal is not the same in both cables. The signal is faster in the left cable than in the right one if the earth is traveling from left to right for instance. It's very easy to see that speed difference in my simulations. Take a look at that one for example, it is a standard twins paradox simulation. Open it with Microsoft Edge if you want a fast display.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

I think that the motion or speed of electrons is not like photons. If it is a problem; two syncronized atomic clocks can be used at the A and B and their displays can be recorded on films's band.

In M-M experiment one of the two photon packects (that they arrived to interference screen at the moment T₃) had began to its motion at the moment T₁, and the other had began to its motion at the moment T₂.

Did you consider this point?

[Le Repteux]

The speed of an electromagnetic signal is the same as the speed of light, so no need to change the experiment.

The two photons of the MM experiment come from the same photon that has been split in two at the same two way mirror, so at T1, they were necessarily at the same place at the same moment. Am I missing something?

[xersanozgen (OP)]

1- The speed of an electromagnetic signal is the same as the speed of light, so no need to change the experiment.

2- The two photons of the MM experiment come from the same photon that has been split in two at the same two way mirror, so at T1, they were necessarily at the same place at the same moment. Am I missing something?

1- In my opinion, it is not possible for the electric current to behave like light in a copper cable or be influenced by the world's universal speed. The cables will send commands at the same time.

  2- I am sorry YES; or  No.............This is a humanly and a general misconception / one of false facts. The experiment has been repeated thousands of times and with more precision, but this error has not been distinguished. Interesting.


I want to share this information: In experiment, light is used in continuous form. It is a mistake to think that the halves of the same photon packet has entered, and unfortunately the human mind allows this fault.

It can be perceived that the moment of releases are different, when the two lights' paths backward from T₃ are traced with constant light speed.T₁ ≠ T₂ and they interfrence at the moment T3.

[Le Repteux]

1- In my opinion, it is not possible for the electric current to behave like light in a copper cable or be influenced by the world's universal speed. The cables will send commands at the same time.

Unless the signal has a mass, it cannot travel at the same speed in both directions. Electrons have a mass, but they can't propagate the signal because they are much too slow when they travel in a cable. The signal is considered to be propagating by induction, which is similar to the way light propagates. If you would change your electric cables for fiber optic ones, we could more easily analyze how the signal propagates.

I want to share this information: In experiment, light is used in continuous form. It is a mistake to think that the halves of the same photon packet has entered, and unfortunately the human mind allows this fault.

Photons can now be sent one at a time, so if researchers observe an interference, it must be because they do split in two at the first mirror.