[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?

[Halc]

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

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.

[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.

[Halc]

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.

Neither of the hypotheses of SR is one of the statements listed above.
The first is a metaphysical assertion, and is something that cannot be measured, so there is no point in positing it since it has no falsification test.

[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.

[Halc]

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

Don't understand what you mean by 'universal velocity of light' that 'isotropic quality of measurement experiments indicate'.
You're saying that if measurements are confined to whatever it is you are indicating, SR predicts a different result for these measurements?  If not, in what way is it wrong?

[xersanozgen (OP)]

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

Don't understand what you mean by 'universal velocity of light' that 'isotropic quality of measurement experiments indicate'.
You're saying that if measurements are confined to whatever it is you are indicating, SR predicts a different result for these measurements?  If not, in what way is it wrong?

Thanks for your this question.

If we rank the celestial formations in accordance with their including capacity:

(Einstein's train)

Moon
Earth
Solar system
Galaxy
Galaxies cluster
Süper cluster
...
Visible universe
Multiverse
Outmost/external frame (outer space; vacuum; Light coordinate system: LCS)

The universal velocity of light is the value according to  THE OUTMOST FRAME / LCS.

Our  present experiment can measure just the light's velocity that is at this meaning. we don't measure local relative speed of light; although our intent.

If we adapt the value of source speed according to same frame we can realize a cosmolgical analysis. We don't need relativity method.

[Halc]

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

You're saying that if measurements are confined to whatever it is you are indicating, SR predicts a different result for these measurements?  If not, in what way is it wrong?

If we rank the celestial formations in accordance with their including capacity:

Train
Earth
Solar system
Galaxy
Galaxies cluster
Süper cluster
...
Visible universe
Multiverse
Outmost/external frame (outer space; vacuum; Light coordinate system: LCS)

By 'Multiverse', you seem to refer to distant locations beyond that which is visible.  This excludes other definitions of multiverse such as other inflation bubbles (eternal inflation theory), alternate states (MWI), and alternate structures (universes with completely different physics).

The items above the line are specific objects which can be used as a reference for position or velocity.  The ones below not so.  The first of these (visible universe) is indeed something with a defined volume (or capacity as you put it).  The others not so.  Given a reference, I can superimpose a coordinate system on 'visible universe and multiverse' as you seem to use them, but not on this outermost external frame Light-coordinate-system since a coordinate system based on light lacks a reference.  To say I am moving at c relative to light does not distinguish my speed from any other object, nor does it way which light is the reference (since most light travels at different velocities).

The universal velocity of light is the value according to  THE OUTMOST FRAME / LCS.

Universal speed of light is a constant, so it isn't according to anything.  It just is.
There is no universal velocity of light since velocity differs from one photon to the next, and from one frame to the next for the same photon.

Our  present experiment can measure just the light's velocity that is at this meaning. we don't measure local relative speed of light; although our intent.

Velocity (and speed for that matter), by definition, are a relations, not a properties.  So your comment makes no sense.  Velocity of a given photon is different relative to Earth than it is relative to the sun. The photon in question doesn't seem to have a meaningful velocity that is not relative to something else.

I know there are interpretations that posit an undetectable reference like the aether against which 'actual' velocity is measured, but that's still a relation then.

If we adapt the value of source speed according to same frame we can realize a cosmolgical analysis. We don't need relativity method.

No frame was specified. Sure, you called it an outermost frame, but without a specification of what frame this is, or what kind of frame (inertial, something else), it isn't a frame.  I cannot determine the velocity of a random object.

Anyway, assuming such a frame can be defined (and not saying it can't), how is SR wrong?  You didn't touch on that at all.

Your statement says that if we can only take a subset of measurements, SR would be wrong.  What in SR requires the ability to take these additional measurements?

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Universal speed of light is a constant, so it isn't according to anything.  It just is.
There is no universal velocity of light since velocity differs from one photon to the next, and from one frame to the next for the same photon.

In my opinion and according to an inference of my first study (Light kinematics to analyze space time) big picture may be like multi cellular foam. Anyway, please ignore multiverse. The velocity of light is 'c' according to outmost reference frame (SR does not object this).We human interpret and label the results of experiments in accordance our beginning intentions. I say that, we would intent to measure the speed value according to outmost frame, we would consider by labelling "universal velocity of light".

Our  present experiment can measure just the light's  velocity that is at this meaning. we don't measure local relative speed of light; although our intent.

Velocity (and speed for that matter), by definition, are a relations, not a properties.  So your comment makes no sense.  Velocity of a given photon is different relative to Earth than it is relative to the sun. The photon in question doesn't seem to have a meaningful velocity that is not relative to something else.

I know there are interpretations that posit an undetectable reference like the aether against which 'actual' velocity is measured, but that's still a relation then.[/quote]

- I could not understand this. SR says that a photon moves away by the speed value 'c' from every frame. Please explain different speeds.

If we adapt the value of source speed according to same frame we can realize a cosmolgical analysis. We don't need relativity method.

No frame was specified. Sure, you called it an outermost frame, but without a specification of what frame this is, or what kind of frame (inertial, something else), it isn't a frame.  I cannot determine the velocity of a random object.

Anyway, assuming such a frame can be defined (and not saying it can't), how is SR wrong?  You didn't touch on that at all.[/quote]

- In forums, I don't like to say “you are wrong” or ”are you kidding?”. However, SR and Lorentz insist that the velocity of a photon is the same value according to moving train and Peron/ all sequential frames.

Your statement says that if we can only take a subset of measurements, SR would be wrong.  What in SR requires the ability to take these additional measurements?

- To determine the universal speed (Vu) of the source or the Earth is difficult; but, in analysis we can use it like parametric term.

- The defect of SR and Lorentz is to to use the terms 'c' and 'v' in the same equation/formula. the 'c' is a value according to LCS and the the  'v' is a value according to local place (train or earth). The values of parameters must be decided/calibrated according to same reference frame (this is a requirement in accordance with methodology).

[Halc]

Anyway, please ignore multiverse. The velocity of light is 'c' according to outmost reference frame (SR does not object this).

Concerning what SR might object to, and what we should ignore:
SR does object to 'visible universe' as it is a local theory and under the special conditions that make it 'special', there is no limit to how far light goes, and hence no limit to visibility.  SR is not a model of the actual universe, so it isn't valid to compare it to a model that intends to be one.
SR for instance never asserts that Earth, solar system, galaxy, or any real object, can be used as a reference for an inertial reference frame since no known object is not under acceleration of some kind.  All reference frames based on real objects are accelerated frames, possibly accelerating/rotating frames.

GR (which does model the universe) also objects to 'visible universe' being used as a reference frame since 'visible universe' is defined for an event, and events do not define reference frames.  Said observable universe is the set of all events in the past light-cone of that event, and light cones are not frame dependent.

Velocity of a given photon is different relative to Earth than it is relative to the sun.

I could not understand this. SR says that a photon moves away by the speed value 'c' from every frame. Please explain different speeds.

I said different velocity, not different speeds.  Do you know the difference?  The former is a vector quantity, and quite frame dependent.  A photon might be moving north relative to one frame and the same photon moving east in another, both at speed c of course.  Hence the photon does not define a frame.  It is certainly not valid to say 'the frame in which the photon is stationary'.  The laws of physics fail in such a frame.  It violates Galilean relativity.

If we adapt the value of source speed according to same frame we can realize a cosmolgical analysis. We don't need relativity method.

No frame was specified. Sure, you called it an outermost frame, but without a specification of what frame this is, or what kind of frame (inertial, something else), it isn't a frame.  I cannot determine the velocity of a random object.

- In forums, I don't like to say “you are wrong” or ”are you kidding?”. However, SR and Lorentz insist that the velocity of a photon is the same value according to moving train and Peron/ all sequential frames.[/quote]SR says speed will be measured to be the same.  Velocity will not.  I didn't mention photons in the bit above, so unclear why you think my comment contradicts what SR and Lorentz actually say about a photon (and Lorentz actually goes so far as to say that the speed of a photon is not c relative to a moving train, or relative to a moving planet for that matter).

What I said above was that no frame was defined.  What is the velocity of my mailbox "according to THE OUTMOST FRAME / LCS"?  The mailbox is said random object.  The question has no answer absent a frame, and those words don't identify a frame.
It is also unclear why that needed to be in caps.

- To determine the universal speed (Vu) of the source or the Earth is difficult; but, in analysis we can use it like parametric term.

SR is not a model of the universe, so if you're going to determine the speed of Earth, you need to compare it to GR, the equivalent model.  SR allows only local measurements, and I suspect you're going to violate that.

The defect of SR and Lorentz is to to use the terms 'c' and 'v' in the same equation/formula. the 'c' is a value according to LCS and the the  'v' is a value according to local place (train or earth).

I presume you mean 'c' is a value relative to the LCS and 'v' is a value relative to a local place.  But only the latter define a frame.  'c' is a constant and not relative to any specific thing.  It appears in plenty of formulas that require no frame reference such as E=mc².  If your idea asserts otherwise, that's fine, but LCS as a frame still hasn't been identified.  I still don't know how fast my mailbox is going relative to the LCS.

That aside, you claim SR incorrectly uses c and v in the same formula. That it does. Which formula does not yield the correct empirical result due to this?  If there is none, then you've not demonstrated that it is incorrect usage.

The values of parameters must be decided/calibrated according to same reference frame (this is a requirement in accordance with methodology).

I'll agree that mixing reference frames leads to trouble, but since SR never mentions the LCS, it does not mix its references with this (undefined) frame.

You seem to be just another absolutist giving yet a different name to the aether (the LCS: Lake/Creek surface), something Einstein found to make no empirical difference, so he, being more clever, left off this needless 3rd postulate of the existence of a medium for light.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

1-Yes, the essential condition of SR is inertial frame (uniform motion). This a Galilean relativity principle; but, this principle is valid for genuine  relativity. However itis not valid for hypotetical relativity (for example, if a player has uniform motion and when he throw a ball, the distance between the player and the ball does not change by the ball's speed. It is smilar status for a photon.

2- Light coordinat system (LCS) is a virtual/hypotetical frame. For analyses the surface of a page can be used as LCS and we have a possibility cosmological analysis. LCS or outmost frame is co-reference frame for photon and its source. So, we can get over some confusing of relativity method.

3- I have not a problem about outmost frame. For theoretical analyses, a sheet of paper (A4) is sufficient.

4- SR claims to advance the physics for universal scale.

5- Nature never care our possibilities. Yes we cannot know universal speed of local things /train/ earth. However I improved a method (Light kinematics to analyze space time ( http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhyEs..26...49E)

6- We human have a habit to consider tangible things for reference frame. Light is a universal reality. We may/must consider the light itself for competent reference frame.

6- Lake surface is an analogical experiment for the relation of a photon and its source. It  indicates the advantage of a common reference frame. And it easily explains that the velocity of light is independent from the speed of its source.

[Halc]

1-Yes, the essential condition of SR is inertial frame (uniform motion).

It says no such thing.  SR works fine with alternate frames.  It's gravity that it doesn't cover.

for example, if a player has uniform motion and when he throw a ball, the distance between the player and the ball does not change by the ball's speed.

By definition, the rate of change of distance between the player and the ball is the ball's speed relative to the player.  If you get a different speed, you're specifying against a different frame than the one in which the player is stationary.  How can you not know these simple things?

2- Light coordinat system (LCS) is a virtual/hypotetical frame. For analyses the surface of a page can be used as LCS and we have a possibility cosmological analysis.

Sounds to me like specification of a frame in which  the surface of a page is stationary, which seems to have nothing to do with something related to a coordinate system based on light.  Why surface?   Does the page define a different frame than does the surface of a page?

Still don't know the speed of my mailbox because there are a lot of pages, most of which are stationary in different frames.  Maybe you mean the surface of a page in my mailbox, in which case the box is reasonably stationary.

4- SR claims to advance the physics for universal scale.

I don't think that claim appears in the theory. Perhaps you mean there isn't a scale limit, in which case I agree.  Perhaps you mean it is a model of the universe, in which case it is easily falsified.

5- Nature never care our possibilities. Yes we cannot know universal speed of local things /train/ earth.

Sounds like SR is quite useful then and this LCS idea isn't at all since none of speed, location, current time, distance, energy nor a host of other values can be known.

6- We human have a habit to consider tangible things for reference frame.

Physicist tend to use reference frames, and may or may not identify a tangible thing that is say stationary in the frame.  But most humans are not in the habit of discussing relativistic physics.

Light is a universal reality. We may/must consider the light itself for competent reference frame.

But I don't have a velocity relative to light.  It's not just that I don't know it, it's that the concept is meaningless.  So it's not a 'competent' reference frame, as you put it.

6- Lake surface is an analogical experiment for the relation of a photon and its source. It  indicates the advantage of a common reference frame. And it easily explains that the velocity of light is independent from the speed of its source.

Light doesn't behave like waves on a lake.  Sound does, but not light.
No theory claims that light speed is dependent on speed of the source, so I agree with that much.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

By definition, the rate of change of distance between the player and the ball is the ball's speed relative to the player.  If you get a different speed, you're specifying against a different frame than the one in which the player is stationary.  How can you not know these simple things?

 Yes the resultant speed of the ball is vectorial total of the speeds of the player and the ball according to ground. We use two speeds. SR uses only one of speeds by considering Galilean relativity principle. Whereas, even if  the source (the player) has uniform motion;  we cannot use the player as an inertial frame.   

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Sounds to me like specification of a frame in which  the surface of a page is stationary, which seems to have nothing to do with something related to a coordinate system based on light.  Why surface?   Does the page define a different frame than does the surface of a page?

LCS or a sheet of paper can be used as a common reference frame for photon and its source like the ground for the ball and the player.

[Bored chemist]

But the inferences of this opinion include mystical/fantatic results.

Like what?