[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?

[Halc]

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.

[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)?

[Halc]

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.

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'). "

I was talking about the left and right figure, not the middle figure, which attempts to depict the affects of acceleration.  You quote above concerns only that case.

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.

That's where you're wrong.  Such an inclination would violate the principle of relativity.  Read what I wrote above, which explains why it cannot be inclined like that, at least not without discarding that principle.

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

The article speaks of a different case where the light source is moving relative to the cabinet.  In that case, the dot on the far wall moves upward steadily, not remaining fixed in place.  This is not surprising.  Yes, you can tell that a light source is moving relative to you by looking out the window.  Your depiction of the light being inclined like that simply chooses a moment when the moving beam angle is not perpendicular.
The experiment does not detect a stationary cabinet, it merely detects the cabinet being relatively stationary with the light source, not because the dot is directly across, but because the dot isn't moving.

The case I'm talking about (and which seems equivalent to your pictures) is a pair of ships side by side (not particularly close, but neither ahead of the other) moving really fast, and communicating by light signals aimed perpendicular to each ship.  Those signals pass through a little window in the near wall and hit the detector directly across on the far wall, not a ways down like your diagram depicts.  Given no deflection angle, the ships have no local evidence that they're actually moving fast.

Yes, if they were both accelerating in sync, the light would not land directly acrosss, but would bend down like the middle diagram depicts.  A laser aimed directly across would in fact miss the light-window-hole in the other ship.  They'd have to adjust their aim according to the distance separating them.  All this would be the same whether they were moving significantly or not, or even if their velocity was negative.

[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.

[Halc]

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

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.

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.

Mixing metric with feet?  Painful, but not inaccurate.

[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.