[Halc]

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.

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.

Here's your problem then.  First of all, your terminology has always been wrong.  Speed is not a vector, and velocity is.  You seem to use each term when you mean the other.  Velocity of light is frame dependent, but speed of light is not.

Secondly, you are working with a non-standard definition of 'relative speed or velocity between two objects' by invoking a 3rd frame (the ground) without justification.  The ground is continuously accelerating, so a frame based on it does not foliate spacetime. Both objects and light all move at faster than c in such a frame.
Even if you used an ideal 'ground' in a thought experiment that was not under acceleration, you'd have no way to demonstrate its preference as the frame defining what is actually stationary.
It would also seem that physical measurements cannot be made if there is no 'ground' at hand.  Physics only works here on Earth. Only some fringe religions still hold on to such geocentrism.

You seem to actually be (inaccurately) describing something related to Newtonian mechanics, especially with the arguments in you paper.  This view (which at least doesn't assume 'the ground' to be stationary) does indeed assert that the velocity between A and B can be computed as the vector difference of their respective velocities relative to a 3rd thing such as 'the ground'.  The view has been falsified.

For example, if A is moving along the ground at 0.946c and B is moving at 0.6c in the same direction, the velocity of A relative to B is 0.8c (Einstein), not 0.346c (Newtonian vector difference of velocities) nor 1.546c ('vectorial total of the speeds') as you word it above.

How can you not know these simple things?

I take this back.  You seem to not know the definitions of the most simple terms and your description of physics is a couple centuries out of date.  Take a middle school physics class which may not cover the differences between Newton and Einstein, but it at least gets you a glossary of the terms.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

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.

I had wanted to explain that Galilei relativity principle is not valid for hypotetical/pseudo relativity. This principle is valid for genuine relativity (e.g. a moving car on a moving ship board).

SR uses this principle for becoming inertial frame of the source. And SR claims that the relation of a photon and its source is genuine relativity. Whereas, the relation of a photon and its source is hypotetical relativity like the relation of a ball and a player.

Your other discourses are irrelevant.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

I take this back.  You seem to not know the definitions of the most simple terms and your description of physics is a couple centuries out of date.  Take a middle school physics class which may not cover the differences between Newton and Einstein, but it at least gets you a glossary of the terms.

You will live more than me.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

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

Like what?

Like "time dilation", "FitzGerald contraction", time travel, "twin paradox", etc.

[Kryptid]

Like "time dilation", "FitzGerald contraction", time travel, "twin paradox", etc.

Call it mystical if you want to, but it's still true either way (but only time travel into the future works in reality, so far as we know at least).

[Halc]

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.

...
Your other discourses are irrelevant.

Kindly take care not to put my name on quotes that are not mine.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Natural phenomena and events include relational integrity.

Science uses methodology to analyze them. We humans have  linear thinking; so, we have problems dealing with all factors. For this reason, we isolate some factors and analyze them and then apply the superposition step. We also consider some coefficients in the formulas for other low factors.

In the history of science, some of the main factors may remain hidden (e.g. phlogiston theory for burning event when oxidation is unknown).

Light kinematics contains at least 6-7 main factors. The special theory of relativity has produced inferences only by considering two factors of them (*). These inferences bribed our archetypal mystery enthusiasm and caused admiration.

The benefit of SR is limited by being the first approach to light kinematics.

You can be one of the first witnesses to the second Galilei event by internalizing the clues presented in this topic.


(*) And one of these postulates is wrong. Because SR considers the relation of the photon and its source as concept of "genuine relativity"; whereas the relation of the photon and its source is "hypotetical relativity". You can see the explanations  the types relativity in my first message at this topic or http://vixra.org/abs/1903.0044

In my opinion;  this subject is coded with only one word "relativity" in latin originated languages; so, probably the types of relativity  may be ignored because of this attitude.

[AustinnEp]

Im not sure how J.K.R would put it in the story though. F&G just come up, Oy, Harry We have these special sweets that will put you back in time? She needs the trio to find them probably.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

 

Im not sure how J.K.R would put it in the story though. F&G just come up, Oy, Harry We have these special sweets that will put you back in time? She needs the trio to find them probably.

 

[Bored chemist]

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

Like what?

Like "time dilation", "FitzGerald contraction", time travel, "twin paradox", etc.

Those are real.

Just because you don't understand them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Do you realise that you are arguing against reality?

[xersanozgen (OP)]

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

Like what?

Like "time dilation", "FitzGerald contraction", time travel, "twin paradox", etc.

Those are real.

Just because you don't understand them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Do you realise that you are arguing against reality?

I interested light kinematics and realized a cosmological analysis (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhyEs..26...49E). The defects of SR was emerged like a byproduct of this study.

I wanted to share this new ideas/arguments/clues* on this topic for naked scientists. Naked scientists may examine them; they may want to discuss or ignore. Other messages (by not internalizing and not aiming the arguments) are like polemic and they are not useful.

A new idea can be significant; if it explained with arguments and  reasons. You may interest or not. No problem for me.

*  They have technical analysis. So, the claims are not just claims.

[Kryptid]

I interested light kinematics and realized a cosmological analysis (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhyEs..26...49E). The defects of SR was emerged like a byproduct of this study.

I wanted to share this new ideas/arguments/clues* on this topic for naked scientists. Naked scientists may examine them; they may want to discuss or ignore. Other messages (by not internalizing and not aiming the arguments) are like polemic and they are not useful.

A new idea can be significant; if it explained with arguments and  reasons. You may interest or not. No problem for me.

*  They have technical analysis. So, the claims are not just claims.

That article is hidden behind a paywall. Not exactly useful for debates.

So are you arguing that time dilation is not an observable phenomenon or what?

[xersanozgen (OP)]

So are you arguing that time dilation is not an observable phenomenon or what?

Not exactly. Because, there are some visual time deformations that are caused because  of  light's velocity is not infinity:

For example, a moving train has a clock at  back wall; we can see it from peron.
1- If the train moving away from us we will see that the clock's tempo works slower altough the clock works normal.
2- If the train stops at far place we will see the clock that it works normal but delayed
3-If the train come up us we will see that the clock works faster altough it works normal.
4- When the train come to peron we will see the train's clock and our watch are equal.

However these slow and fast tempo of the clock are not linked to SR.

[Bored chemist]

Why do you call real, observable phenomena like time dilation " mystical/fantatic results."?

[Halc]

For example, a moving train has a clock at  back wall; we can see it from peron.
1- If the train moving away from us we will see that the clock's tempo works slower altough the clock works normal.

By how much?  You need to quantize what the observer will see given a speed and a distance, else we can't distinguish one theory from the other.  Both SR and your assertions agree on points 1-3.

2- If the train stops at far place we will see the clock that it works normal but delayed
3-If the train come up us we will see that the clock works faster altough it works normal.
4- When the train come to peron we will see the train's clock and our watch are equal.

This (#4) is the only quantized statement, and SR does not predict it.  The experiment was first performed in 1971 (Hafele–Keating) and the two clocks were not equal, as predicted by relativity, and thus falsifies your not-even-Newtonian assertions.  The experiment is performed every day these days.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Why do you call real, observable phenomena like time dilation " mystical/fantatic results."?

When we look to sky, we see the celestial objects that each one of them is not at its simultaneous position and its real age. Whereas we can see all of them in the same plan/frame although the sight is an space-time illusion. The reason of this illusion is the value of light’s velocity is not infinity; theoretically, we cannot see anything simultaneously. But somebody may link this illusion to SR.

And somebody may link to SR my virtual/visual experiment too. Whereas the inferences of this experiment are caused with the reason of finite/limited value of light’s velocity. SR bases on the fixed value of light’s velocity.  A serious nuance is mentioned. However, many people interpret/suppose these some visual deformations are reasoned by SR (*) and they can be convinced. In my opinion, they don’t know the essence of SR. As if the fallacies and rationalisations (making something reasonable) protect the SR.

 Nobody gets  offended. It goes on like this. Much people never desist from SR; because it has a confusing potential .


Much people don't know the essence of SR or they have second-hand knowledge.  Perhaps, I would convince Einstein, If he would be alive.

(*) the deformations of  SR's dimension units are genuine. Please remember Fitzgerald contraction.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

This (#4) is the only quantized statement, and SR does not predict it.  The experiment was first performed in 1971 (Hafele–Keating) and the two clocks were not equal, as predicted by relativity, and thus falsifies your not-even-Newtonian assertions.  The experiment is performed every day these days.

 Atomic clocks are directly effected by gravity. Yes they are quite sensitive. But, even if they are not move, their tempo change because of  gravity. So, this quality is not link to SR and GR. The boiling degree of water varies with height.
Similarly, Atomic clocks' tempo changes with altitude.

On the other hand, you are right for amount of time difference; because the observer has universal speed according to LCS. So, the photon's traveling way is changing in accordance with this speed. I said "equal" for first step of explanation.

[Halc]

SR does not predict it.  The experiment was first performed in 1971 (Hafele–Keating) and the two clocks were not equal, as predicted by relativity, and thus falsifies your not-even-Newtonian assertions.

Atomic clocks are directly effected by gravity. Yes they are quite sensitive. But, even if they are not move, their tempo change because of  gravity. So, this quality is not link to SR and GR. The boiling degree of water varies with height.
Similarly, Atomic clocks' tempo changes with altitude.

Indeed, clocks at higher altitude have a higher 'tempo' as you put it.  But in the H-K experiment, the one with the altitude and the greater speed ran at a lower tempo, as predicted.  The negative effect due to its increased motion was greater than the positive effect from the altitude.

I see empirical facts do not come into play in your choice of beliefs.

[Kryptid]

The boiling degree of water varies with height.

That's because of air pressure, not gravity.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

The boiling degree of water varies with height.

That's because of air pressure, not gravity.

Pressure is correct.