[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

In the history of science, some of the new definitions have encountered reactions. The best known of them is the Copernicus / Galilei event. Galilei had tried to tell the orbital and axial rotation of the earth. Another is the phologiston event. The definition of phlogiston made without considering oxidation which is the main factor, had to take refuge in a peculiar inference as negative weight against natural reality.

Karl Popper said that, if d number of factors can not be obtained a rational result in the analysis;  the analysis must be repeated  by d  + 1 number of factors should be repeated. It can be expressed as follows: If a nature event contains n major factors, but if the analysis is considered with n - 4 factors, this analysis can give fantastic inferences.

Light kinematics includes 6 main factors; theory SR considers only two factors, and one of them is wrong (Light's velocity is a relative value according to space; not according to its source).

The attitudes of the interlocutors against new definitions can generally be related to their cognition, goals and cognitive self-confidence:

- He/she examines the arguments, evaluates with active learning and starts to produce innovative ideas based on this new axis.
- Takes note of the new definition, decides whether or not to remember in subsequent cases.
- Takes note; although he does not confirm the new definition. 
- Does not interest with the new definition conflicting with existing memorization information.
- He has prejudice; he never leave negative attitude; tries to refute/devalue arguments.
- He never examine new ideas; tries to devalue the person instead of the new definition.
- He directly rejects the new definition with scrutiny and superficial and stereotypical words.
- He may has loyalty for his opinions, by his chauvinist / fanatic  attitude.

Which of them would be a scientific approach, and which of them is preferred by Naked scientist forum Kings and Gods? 

[Bored chemist]

My message was about SR.

OK, do you have any evidence that SR is wrong, other than the  known issues with SR to which GR is the solution?

i.e. do you know of any evidence that SR fails when considering zero-gravity, non-accelerated systems?

[xersanozgen (OP)]

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.

For the second time you put out an example that suggests a violation of Galilean principle of relativity.  You have two 'cabinets' (the ones on the left and right), neither accelerating, and being considered in a frame where V is 0 on the left one and V is nonzero on the right, and they get a different result.
If the same boxes were to be considered in a frame where the one on the right is the stationary one, then the different result means there is an experiment that can be done to determine which of the two boxes is actually moving, which violates principle of relativity.

So your assertion is once again falsified, and you're not being anywhere near as clever as Einstein.  Neither am I, but I'm at least clever enough to see the flaw in your drawing.

If you read GR (https://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Einstein/Einstein_Relativity.pdf) Page 88.

"However, we obtain a new result of fundamental importance when we carry out the analogous consideration for a ray of light. With respect to the Galileian reference-body K, such a ray of light is transmitted rectilinearly with the velocityc. It can easily be shown that the path of thesame ray of light is no longer a straight line whenwe consider it with reference to the acceleratedchest (reference-body K'). "

Two elevator cabinet at left on figure represents Einstein's idea. The figure at right indicates that the light's path becames inclined thougt zero acceleration; even in accordance with Einstein's idea again.

However I can understand the possibility about confusing; because, in my opinion the light keeps its horizontal path in elevator cabinet. If you have interest for this:

https://www.academia.edu/36057326/The_Path_of_Light_on_a_Moving_Body

[xersanozgen (OP)]

My message was about SR.

OK, do you have any evidence that SR is wrong, other than the  known issues with SR to which GR is the solution?

i.e. do you know of any evidence that SR fails when considering zero-gravity, non-accelerated systems?

The explanation about "types of relativity" is sufficient evidence. Einstein had considered the concept of "genuine relativity" for light's motion. Yes, he thought that measurement results  of light's velocity is a powerfull knowledge. In mechanics, speed measuring results give genuine relative value according to local frame. But this habitual opinion is not valid for light. We can measure the value of universal velocity for light. We can not measure local relative speed of light. Yes our intution was local speed; but, the measuring experiment  always gives universal velocity of light. The evidence: the measurement results are isotropic. To understand/interpret the inference of measurement experiments is possible.

[Bored chemist]

The explanation about "types of relativity" is sufficient evidence.

No more so that teaching schoolchildren to do simple division before teaching them to do long division is evidence that division does not work.

You can use SR in the special cases where there is no acceleration and no gravity but if either or both of those are present you need to use GR.

But this habitual opinion is not valid for light.

That's the point of relativity. Light is weird. It always has the same speed in vacuo.

We can make measurements and do calculations using SR or GR as appropriate; and they agree.

So, once again, what evidence do you have that either SR or GR is wrong (in their field of application)?