[xersanozgen (OP)]

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

In their field of app? Are there?

 Some academician claims the "life time of muon" experiment to defence SR. Analyzing and conclusion of this experiment relates the result with SR.

But attention please: they considered the relative speed of natural muons according to Earth. Whereas they must consider the difference of the speeds (natural muons with laboratuar muons). Because the lifetime comparison is set with laboratuar muon. The difference of these speeds is nearly zero.

SR has many contradictions. I explained them in my book " Pseudo Science".  Simpliest one: Einstein said that "perpendicular light does not cause time dilation because of zero projection to source's way. Alright, How does the clock (on K') simultaneously indicate the proper time and slowing time ? And, in deed; different dilation ratios of on other angles.

GPS corrections (SR reasoned) is fully maniplation. Because the tolerance of GPS ~70 cm > 0.012 cm (GPS correction).
Please calculate and examine the results.

[Bored chemist]

In their field of app? Are there?

The field of application of SR is the set of cases where there is no gravitational field and also no acceleration
The field of application of GR  is the entire set of cases.

So, once again I am asking you to tell me what evidence you have that SR and GR do not work.

GPS corrections (SR reasoned) is fully maniplation. Because the tolerance of GPS ~70 cm > 0.012 cm (GPS correction).
Please calculate and examine the results.

OK, I will do the calculation.
The relativistic correction to the rates of the GPS clocks is about 39 microseconds per day.
It's composed of about 7 microseconds from SR and about 46 microseconds from GR.

The speed of light is about 1 foot per nanosecond, so an error of 39 microseconds is equivalent to about 39000 feet.
That's about 12 kilometers per day.
The accuracy of GPS in the best resolution is about 0.3 metres

So, you seem to have got some made-up numbers there.

Please try to provide real evidence rather than rubbish you made up.

[Bored chemist]

I explained them in my book " Pseudo Science".  Simpliest one: Einstein said that "perpendicular light does not cause time dilation because of zero projection to source's way. Alright, How does the clock (on K') simultaneously indicate the proper time and slowing time ? And, in deed; different dilation ratios of on other angles.

I am not going to get a copy of your book, so you need to explain what you mean here.

[Halc]

But attention please: they considered the relative speed of natural muons according to Earth.

It can also be considered in the frame of the muon, in which case the speed of Earth relative to the muon is (by definition) the same as the speed of the muon relative to Earth.  With a stationary muon that exists for such a short time, how does Earth get to it before it dies?  The answer is length contraction, not time dilation.  The distance Earth has to travel is significantly contracted, allowing Earth to get there in less time than the half life of the stationary muon.

SR has many contradictions. I explained them in my book " Pseudo Science".  Simpliest one: Einstein said that "perpendicular light does not cause time dilation because of zero projection to source's way."

I don't think Einstein used those words since it seems to make little syntactic sense.  Maybe if more context was given. So if you're going to claim a contradiction, use the actual quote, or give enough context to give meaning to the quote.
You seem to be referencing the accelerated chest example again (the only place where K' was mentioned in this topic) but I don't remember there being a clock (or any mention of dilation) in that example.  It's just an accelerating box with a dot of light on the far wall.

Alright, How does the clock (on K') simultaneously indicate the proper time and slowing time ?

Any clock always indicates its own proper time, by definition.  It means the time relative to itself.  This 'slowing time' seems to be your term for the time relative to something else, like a different frame or device or something. Your watch does not measure my proper time, but it measures yours.

[Bored chemist]

Mixing metric with feet?

"One foot per nanosecond" is too useful and too memorable not to use.
It's within 2% which is good enough for this sort of thing

[Bored chemist]

Just so you know, SR indeed assumes the special case of flat space, so no gravity, but it handles acceleration just fine.  It just requires integration over time and the changing inertial reference frames.  If acceleration is instant or trivially short, even that integration isn't necessary.

Thanks for the clarification.
Since the OP has failed to evince anything at all, it hardly matters here.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

I explained them in my book " Pseudo Science".  Simpliest one: Einstein said that "perpendicular light does not cause time dilation because of zero projection to source's way. Alright, How does the clock (on K') simultaneously indicate the proper time and slowing time ? And, in deed; different dilation ratios of on other angles.

I am not going to get a copy of your book, so you need to explain what you mean here.

Thanks for this. Please examine the figure at attachment:

The frames K and K’ are on the beginning point O at the moment T. The photons of a light (like flashing) are emitted on the moment T. These photons will form a spherical surfaceon the moment T’. The source or moving body (the centre of K’) passes over the point A on the moment T’. STR and Lorentz take a photo on the moment T’ and analyze new position
(this is another facilitator attitude). Results give always the value ‘c’ for the velocities the photons P1, P2, P3,….Pi according to points K and K’. Already the aim of STR was this result.

But, there is a serious result which may be overlooked: While the velocity of light is fixed, time values change.    When the parameter is applied with negative sign ( - c ) for the point P₃ in Lorentz equation; the result [ t’ (P₃) > t’ (P₁)] indicates clearly. Similarly, will get ( - v) for inverse option. This condition is valid for that points: K’Pi > R.
 
 The time T' is a unique moment; but according to SR mentality, the clock of K' is required to indicate  T' for the point P₁; T'' for P₂; T''' for P₃; T ⁱ for P _i simultaneously.

A clock (which is taken place in K’ frame) never work by these different tempos simultaneously.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

In general,

Light kinematics includes multidisciplinary, multidimensional factors (perhaps 11 dimensions). When we omit/neglect some of them,   some hypotheses that have fantastic inferences can be produced like SR.

There have been similar events in history. For example, when Darwin published the origin of species, newspapers were filled with counter-articles. they descended to Darwin for evolution concept; even, they wanted to provide catharsis themselves by saying  "rubbish".

[Bored chemist]

There have been similar events in history. For example, when Darwin published the origin of species, ...

Darwin presented evidence.
You should try it some time.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

I don't want to expand since this topic is back to the deaf dialogue (except for new participants)

For those skilled in basic physics, the clues and arguments in this topic will be valuable. The requirements for the analysis of light kinematics are presented in the following article (the essential factors for light kinematics and special relativity: http://vixra.org/abs/1903.0044) as compact and transparent. Some people who internalized this submission  will be witness "the second Galilei event" firsthand.

When light kinematics is considered with current knowledge and methodological requirements, LCS (light coordinate system)^× concept is produced and a method that allows cosmological analysis is obtained (Light kinematics to analyze space time: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhyEs..26...49E). With this method, the age of the universe can be calculated more consistently; the subtleties of the uniform expansion theory and some amazing geometric situations emerge (such that the same formation of different ages can be seen in the same frame).

I have learned that the reader must be neutral in order to properly evaluate this study through those who object to me. In my opinion, proposing early the theory of special relativity without sufficient knowledge and competence and due to bribery of mystery favors has led to a paradigmatic infection and delayed the perfect definition of light kinematics and the possibility of cosmological analysis for more than 100 years (Asknown the SR does not allow cosmological analyses).  In cognitive adventures of humanity, this infection is expected to continue another 3-5 centuries (good news for those who admire the special theory of relativity).

Those who have previously detected / caught some of the contradictory clues of SR in their own analysis will obtain the most catharsis from these studies. They will find peace because a file in their mind has resulted.

^× I performed a cosmological analysis by LCS concept. This study indicated the flaws of SR. So, suggesting a new/alternative theory instead of confuting a theory is more significant.

[Bored chemist]

I have learned that the reader must be neutral in order to properly evaluate this study

You have not provided anything to evaluate.
Are you ever going to provide actual evidence.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Universe and life includes relational integrity. Even, the butterfly effect is mentioned.

Major/essential factors of an event must be considered in definition efforts. You cannot properly  analyze "the burning event"  without oxidation.

Similarly, you cannot properly analyze "Light kinematics" without the types of relativity, multi-sequential reference systems (galaxies, clusters etc)*, the option of co-reference frame, identicalness of parameters,

*  The Galaxies were not known at 1905 yet.

[Bored chemist]

The Galaxies were not known at 1905 yet.

Andromeda was recorded by ancient astronomers.

The rest of you post made no sense.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

THE MANAGEMENT OF MENTAL REFERENCES  1

During my nostalgic visit to the house which I spent my childhood, I saw the rooms small and  I amazed. When I examine this event, I understood that I have got an opinion/prejudice  about the size of the rooms by comparing according to my childhood size.

In the methodology, the rules for management of mental references has not yet been decided.  The precision is left to personal performance.

The orbit of the moon is a circle based on the earth; but if the sun is taken, the main axis is the elliptical helical spring. According to the more outer frames, it becomes like a twisted rope. Which one is right? They are all true accompanied by its references.


When expressing the speed of our car we do not need to specify what it is based on. Because we know that the measured speed value is based on the current environment*.

The special theory of relativity also applied this habitual  presupposition for the speed of light without questioning.

(*) However, it must be important to question what we measure,  especially for objects that are not objects.

To be continued.

[Bored chemist]

To be continued.

Why?

[xersanozgen (OP)]

What presupposition?  The speed of light measured relative to Earth is the same as the speed of light measured relative to the sun, or relative to any other frame.  That's not true of anything else.

It is not a presupposition of relativity, it was an empirical observation.

Well, that's right. Yes, wherever (and in all directions) we measure, we find the same value, and this is an experimental result.

This result supports two hypotheses:

1- Light always moves away from the measurement site / source with c speed.
2- With the current experiment we can measure the universal speed of light; We cannot measure the local relative speed.

SR considered the first option without questioning.

The second option is also possible.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

THE MANAGEMENT OF MENTAL REFERENCES  2

During scientific studies, each step requires interrogation and assurance within the framework of the discipline and methodology system. This interrogation was neglected for the speed of light  measurements (which speed are we measuring?); eventually, it has been directly adopted according to the local environment, according to the source. However, the measuring device is completely light-specific. It cannot measure the speed of something else and is different from other speed meters. At least because of this difference, " which type of speed can this experiment measure? ”should be questioned. But the intention was c +/- v; we used the result in the same definition. Well, can we do this interrogation now? Naked scientists can do;  romantic scientists never want to do.

 According to the special theory of relativity, the speed of light is the same in every inertial frame. That is, when outer space is used as a reference frame, the speed of light is c. In fact, the measurement test only measures this speed. We find the same value everywhere and in every direction. This result is an empirical evidence that we only measure velocity in the void medium.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

On the forums, participants are generally stuck to the measurements of light speed: Any object must move away with its measured speed. This is an  our inured opinion.

Of course, this point is an usual attitude for all people.

In our local experiences, we label the measured value of speeds as the amount of the way from the current environment per unit time; and we do not have any problems; we generally use the measured value without questioning (we skip this step); because we already know our intention. We  do not question the definition step and we use the value as relative speed according to object's first reference frame. it may not seem strange  to us to define the measured speed of light as the rate of moving away directly from its source.

Einstein and others exactly consider like this.

NOBODY needed to question which type of light’s velocity can be measured (in addition, measurement system/experiment was specific for the light : mirrored double path, uninterrupted photons, etc). The measured value has been directly accepted at the meaning of relative speed according to its source/local place.

Light is a universal phenomenon like energy and we can/must consider universal scale. We may understand to need for defining thr speed of objects (that we send into outer space) according to common reference frame with other celestial bodies instead of defining them according to the Earth.

We should be able to question which speed of light (local or universal) we measure.

On the other hand, There are also local events and phenomena for  the question "what speed?  For example, in a football game, when a player shoots, we know that the speed of the ball is relative to the ground. We know that for a moment after the shot, the distance (between the new positions of the player and the ball) cannot be calculated only by the speed of the ball; because the player moves to the new position freely after hitting the ball. However, the special theory of relativity is based on the fact that the photon is always moving away from its source with the speed c, ignoring this football sampling. Wrong assumption, that's it.

The photon relationship with the light source is like the player and ball relationship; the speed of the ball relative to the ground (Ground is the common frame; the player is not an analyzing frame). Similarly the source is not an effective reference frame for light kinematics. LCS (light Coordinate System) or outer space is a perfect operation/analyze frame for light kinematics and LCS concept allows the cosmological analyses.

Relativity method causes confusing for light kinematics.

[Kryptid]

However, the special theory of relativity is based on the fact that the photon is always moving away from its source with the speed c

In the reference frame of the source, it is.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

However, the special theory of relativity is based on THE FACT / THE SPECULATION  that the photon is always moving away from its source with the speed c.

In the reference frame of the source, it is.

Yes, you are right; we can say that the measured value of  a speed is velocity of maving away. But the inferences of this opinion include mystical/fantatic results.

When the light is mentioned; we may consider/question which type of velocity (local or universal) can measured.

If we can measure only/just universal velocity of light (that, isotropic quality of measurement experiments indicates this); the theory of SR is wrong.