[xersanozgen (OP)]

Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?

This is possible.

If you examine and internalize the types of relativity  and light's relativity type; you can distinguish first flaw of SR.

(a) Genuine relativity: A vehicle gets its speed by pushing the road. The speed of this vehicle is defined as “genuine relative” to the road. The contribution of the road is essential. The power is applied to the road continuously for genuine relativity. The upper limit of genuine relative speed is ‘c’ (the value of light’s velocity).

(b) Hypothetical(pseudo/nominal relativity: The changing speed of the distance between two vehicles which are moving on the same road. This speed is defined as “hypothetical relative.” The vehicles do not apply power to each other. The upper limit of hypothetical relative speed is 2c (discussion section3.2).

(c) Momentary/temporary relativity: When a player throws a ball, the ball’s speed according to the player is “momentary relative”. The power has been applied momentarily. After throwing, the motion of the ball is transferred to the type of hypothetical relativity; the player can go anywhere freely. However, it can be said that the ball’s speed is “genuine relative” according to the ground. The ground is the co-reference frame for the player and ball. For genuine relativity, the starting point of the ball is marked on the ground, not by the existence of player (or his/her following positions).


Which one is significant for light (an identified photon)? SR prefers to use merely the concept of “genuine relativity” for the motion of light according to its source and every frame [4]. However, requirements of genuine relativity are not realized for light; the source and photons never apply a power for the motion. Further, the source can go in any direction freely after the photon was emitted, like the player (the increasing/decreasing speed of intermediate distance is the vectorial total of their speeds, but if an observer is an actor in the experiment he never can perceive a larger value than c). Eventually the velocity of a photon according to its source is “momentary relative” and then“hypothetical relative” in the following time.

Please read for more : http://vixra.org/pdf/1903.0044v1.pdf

Note: Please don't be provoked  by the title that is to aruse interest like metaphor.

[Bored chemist]

Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?

This is possible.

He's dead.
Being cleverer than a corpse is not a big challenge.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Being cleverer than a corpse is not a big challenge.

If Einstein would be alive, he could understand his mistake and accept this explanation.

Please, allow yourself for examining and understanding these arguments.

You must prefer to eat the things that are servised instead of beating the servant.

[alancalverd]

Reading a bunch of irrelevant drivel does not make one clever. Understanding relativity might.

[Halc]

This is not a question of the week.  The topic will be moved probably to new theories as it definitely contradicts accepted definitions.

[Kryptid]

If Einstein would be alive, he could understand his mistake and accept this explanation.

What mistake? You haven't pointed out any mistakes that Einstein made. I have no doubt that he would have known about the things you mentioned in the OP. I can't figure out what it is that you are trying to argue.

[Bored chemist]

If Einstein would be alive, he could understand his mistake and accept this explanation.

I suspect that, if he was still with us, he would be embarrassed for you.
He would be aware that every single test of his ideas had shown that he was right.
In some cases that means he's right to about a dozen significant figures.

What evidence do you have that he is anything other than "correct as far as we can tell"/

[xersanozgen (OP)]

If Einstein would be alive, he could understand his mistake and accept this explanation.

What mistake? You haven't pointed out any mistakes that Einstein made. I have no doubt that he would have known about the things you mentioned in the OP. I can't figure out what it is that you are trying to argue.

Thanks for your question.

In special relativity, the concept of "genuine relativity" is considered for the motion of a photon according to its source.

Whereas the 'c' velocity of photon is universal speed of light according to space. The emitting point of a photon must be marked on space (or LCS), not the existence of its source. The source can go anywhere freely from this point after emitting. This is an understandable option and the reality is this. We can find similar phemenon in nature: If we drop a pebble to calm surface of a lake; a ring wave will be became. The expanding speed of ring wave is a value according to the surface of the lake; is not a relative speed according to us/experimentalist.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

If Einstein would be alive, he could understand his mistake and accept this explanation.

I suspect that, if he was still with us, he would be embarrassed for you.
He would be aware that every single test of his ideas had shown that he was right.
In some cases that means he's right to about a dozen significant figures.

What evidence do you have that he is anything other than "correct as far as we can tell"/

I study your reactive attitude. Yes Einstein is my an idole too. Especially for the relation E = mc^2 and Bose-Einstein density. These concepts are usefull for defining our position in universe and life.

Naked scientists have cognitive self confidence. However they can break prejudices and memorizations and they can empierce the secrets of nature.

[Bored chemist]

However they can break prejudices and memorizations

And, if you give us some evidence, we might.
But, until then you are just wasting bandwidth.

[Halc]

We can find similar phemenon in nature: If we drop a pebble to calm surface of a lake; a ring wave will be became. The expanding speed of ring wave is a value according to the surface of the lake; is not a relative speed according to us/experimentalist.

Problem is that they did the same test with light, and unlike the waves on the lake (the speed of which is still unrelated to the speed of the pebble), the light waves move at constant speed relative to anything at all, including multiple observers not stationary relative to each other.  The SR theory follows from that observation.  Your idea does not.  If you disagree, suggest an experiment to demonstrate the difference, a falsification test if you will.
Bored-Chemist made a similar request, and I notice your reply to that doesn't provide one.
ago.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

In this analogy; the ring wave represents the light; a point of the  ring represents a photon; the experimentalist represents the light source (please look at the att. fig. 3). The surface of the lake represents the space.

The source can go to anywhere, after flashing/emitting. It never follow the photon and genuine relativity is not mentioned.

[Bored chemist]

We didn't ask for pictures.
We asked for evidence.
Do you have any evidence that indicates that GR is actually wrong?

[xersanozgen (OP)]

We didn't ask for pictures.
We asked for evidence.
Do you have any evidence that indicates that GR is actually wrong?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332902408_An_Experiment_for_Lorentz_-Fitzgerald_Contraction

[Bored chemist]

We didn't ask for pictures.
We asked for evidence.
Do you have any evidence that indicates that GR is actually wrong?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332902408_An_Experiment_for_Lorentz_-Fitzgerald_Contraction

Well, OK, thanks for providing that.
It's evidence of a sort.
However, given that what they found was that the resistance of a length of wire didn't change by more than the resolution of their experiment (1 part in 250 or so) then they showed that the relativistic contraction was no more than 1 in 250.

The earth's orbital velocity round the galactic centre is about 230 km/s
And, if this online tool
https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059837
 is right the expected contraction (and thus change in resistance) is about 0.3 parts in a million.

So, they did not see a contraction but the expected contraction is about 10,000 times  smaller than they could expect to measure.

So they have proved, at best, that GR is not wrong by a factor of more than ten thousand.

That's a pretty useless experiment.

do you have any meaningful evidence to show that GR is wrong?

[Halc]

We didn't ask for pictures.
We asked for evidence.
Do you have any evidence that indicates that GR is actually wrong?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332902408_An_Experiment_for_Lorentz_-Fitzgerald_Contraction

Well, OK, thanks for providing that.
It's evidence of a sort.

It isn't since principle of relativity asserts that all local physics experiments work identically in one frame as the other.  Had the (admittedly local) experiment produced a frame dependent result as it suggests, then the theory would have been upended and a local method of demonstrating absolute position identified.

So, they did not see a contraction but the expected contraction is about 10,000 times  smaller than they could expect to measure.

They shouldn't expect any measured difference at all, per the premises of the theory.  The linked experiment verifies Einstein's view and yes, fails to falsify (due to precision limitations?) whatever view this Özgen Ersan guy holds, left unstated.

[Bored chemist]

Good catch.
What I should have said  is that, if the ether existed, the experiment would still be ten thousand times too insensitive to detect it.
So, it's a rubbish experiment.

[Halc]

What I should have said  is that, if the ether existed, the experiment would still be ten thousand times too insensitive to detect it.

It was proposing detection of length contraction, not detection of ether.  Not even the etherist crowd denies length contraction, nor do they predict different results for the experiment, given perfect instruments.
Hence me not being able to tell what theory he's using that apparently predicts otherwise.

So, it's a rubbish experiment.

With that I agree.

[Kryptid]

Whereas the 'c' velocity of photon is universal speed of light according to space.

Its velocity in a vacuum is c according to any observer, not just "space" (whatever that means).

The source can go anywhere freely from this point after emitting.

So? What difference does that make? No matter how the source moves, the source will always observe that same photon as moving at c in a vacuum. Nothing has violated special relativity here.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

do you have any meaningful evidence to show that GR is wrong?

My message was about SR. You suggest GR; I understand that you believe that GR indirectly supports SR.

As known, SR is subject to a special condition (uniform motion; Galilei relativity principle); so, if the source goes linear and at fixed speed, the equations are valid.

GR has been proposed to disable this condition. Einstein identified the acceleration with gravity and used its effects on the movement of light (bending) and gained repution by proving the gravitational lens during the eclipse.

Gravitational lens are a reality.

However, in my opinion, if there is no acceleration, the light bends again with the same logic; please see the attached figure.