0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

My message was about SR.

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.

Quote from: xersanozgen on 23/07/2019 12:32:35Gravitational 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.

Quote from: xersanozgen on 23/07/2019 12:32:35My 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.

But this habitual opinion is not valid for light.

Quote from: Halc on 23/07/2019 15:07:15For 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'). "

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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 ?

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

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?

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.

Quote from: xersanozgen on 24/07/2019 09:24:45 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.

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

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