[Bored chemist]

They say that the life time of a candle flame (which has high relative speed) will  increase according to rest candle.

Who are "they" and where do they say this?

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Why should we defer to opinions when we have facts generated by experimental data? Facts are better than opinions.

The determination of "The Sun rotates around the Earth" is an experimental result. However, it means that some alternative mechanisms can be possible in nature.

I personally performed an experiment about Fitzgerald contraction. The result is clear. The length  contaction is not be generated for the universal way/speed of the Earth. The measured value is single and isotropic (it never change because of different directions).

If you say this contraction is  just an apperance; this time The Fitzgerald's interpretation about result of experiment of the Michelson-Morley must be wrong; because he consider that length contraction is really happened. Please lets remember; genuine factor of Einsteins motivation was to verify the the Fitzgerald contraction about SR. He began with accepting the Maxwell's definition for light propagation as introduction of SR article; but he verified eather concept by producting theoretical base in SR.

My experiment indicated that the length contraction is not happened really.

Important notes:

1- I have not an intention to convince anybody with this topic. I just share alternative synthesis. You may note them or ignore. Therefore I cannot the phrase like polemic. Already the members have scientific capacity and questioning concious, strong-willed about free thinking; ıt never be thougth opposite of this  in a scientific forum. Kyrptid's objections (thanks) and my answers will be useful to consider the subject larger.

2- Curious readers of this topic can follow more detailed flaws of SR at that link:

http://www.mrelativity.net/

 

[Bored chemist]

The determination of "The Sun rotates around the Earth" is an experimental result.

What experiment distinguishes it from "The Earth rotates around the Sun"?

I personally performed an experiment about Fitzgerald contraction.

How?

I just share alternative synthesis.

Your alternative is experimentally shown to be wrong.
Why share something that you know is useless?

[xersanozgen (OP)]

SUMMARY

"To understand the special theory of relativity" was included in a book on "To-do list while alive". This statement pointed out the difficulty of understanding the theory as well as the importance of knowing the amazing secrets of nature.

If you distinguish the difference between essence and so-called relativity, you can easily understand both the logic of theory and its flaws.

At present, there are various publications supporting the theory as well as false publications. Inaccuracies usually focus on a few details inference. Their impact remains weak; because they cannot offer integrity, . I've published a summary article (3 pages) that offers compactness and integrity (even postulate review): http://vixra.org/abs/1903.0044

The main axis is the kinematics of light instead of special relativity. When some of the inevitable factors of light kinematics are neglected, you can produce new theories with surprising implications such as special relativity.

On the other hand, this study raises the issue of the management of  mental references in methodology. The science of the future will restructure the postulates by applying scientific discipline.

 It is not enough to refute a theory; a new functional hypothesis should be replaced. This requirement was also provided by my study (Light kinematics to analyze space time: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhyEs..26...49E). This LCS concept allows cosmological analyzes and calculates the current age of the universe; that is, it is functional. As  known, the theory SR does not allow cosmological analysis.

[Bored chemist]

This LCS concept allows cosmological analyzes and calculates the current age of the universe;

Go on then, calculate it.

[Kryptid]

I'll repeat what Bored Chemist said earlier: what experiment did you perform to search for Fitzgerald contraction? It was an actual experiment, wasn't it? Not just a thought experiment?

[Bored chemist]

Let's face it  xersanozgen isn't going to show us anything useful.
He talks of experimental verification of Fitzgerald contraction and calculating the age of the universe, but it's all nonsense.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

I'll repeat what Bored Chemist said earlier: what experiment did you perform to search for Fitzgerald contraction? It was an actual experiment, wasn't it? Not just a thought experiment?

Yes, it is a practical experiment; every one can perform; its budget is very low and easy:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1905.0094v1.pdf

[Kryptid]

Yes, it is a practical experiment; every one can perform; its budget is very low and easy:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1905.0094v1.pdf

If your equipment was in the same reference frame as the conductor, it won't see any length contraction. So of course it won't measure any resistance change...

[Bored chemist]

It's also laughably insensitive.

It's like saying I can prove I don't breathe.
I weighed myself on my bathroom scales, and after 10 minutes, I weighed myself again. The reading was the same.
If I had been breathing I would have lost weight, so I can't have been breathing.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Yes, it is a practical experiment; every one can perform; its budget is very low and easy:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1905.0094v1.pdf

If your equipment was in the same reference frame as the conductor, it won't see any length contraction. So of course it won't measure any resistance change...

 My friend said we've fallen to repeat. OK; never mind; I can tell you more detail for you and other readers.

The Michelson-Morley experiment did not support the ether hypothesis. Thereupon Fitzgerald made a very clever / rescuer/refreshing prophecy; if length contection occurs due to the universal movement of the world, this experiment cannot falsify the ether hypothesis. Young scientists of the period adopted this brilliant idea. In addition, a city legend was on the agenda: "An experimenter who proves his Fitzgerald contraction, will win the nobel prize." One of these young scientists was Einstein.

If you examine the process, in the M-M experiment, you can understand that the contraction must actually occur in the K' system so that the number of fringes does not change. That is, the special theory of relativity is based on the fact that deformations occur by metabolically and actually. My experience proves that conractions are not generated  in the K' frame; because the measurements are isotropic.

The contradictions led some to think that deformations can only be perceived visually from the outer K-frame. This new/rescuer hypothesis is also a prophecy or rationalisation (at the meaning of psycological defect); soothe the SR supporters. However, a phenomenon that does not really occur and is perceived only by the external observer is not meaningful to science. SR is not this.

On the other hand MM experiment had proved that the lights always come to an eye by the velocity ' c '. In device of experiment, the lengths of two photon packets' path are different; but they arrive to the screen simultaneously; because these two photon packets are not the halves of a same light. Each one of them is emitted at different moments. Nobody claims for same moment; because the light source is  continuous open. In experiment it never be used a Kerr obturator.

 Note: The possibililty of time travel is mentioned if the time dilation is realized in  K' frame. If you say the time dilation are visually perceived by only The observer of K system; in this case the legend of time travel becomes a myth/fairy tale.

[Bored chemist]

You forgot the important point.
Unless the change in length is significantly more than the resolution of the meter you shouldn't expect to see anything.

How fast does something have to travel before it contracts by 0.4% ?

[Kryptid]

If you examine the process, in the M-M experiment, you can understand that the contraction must actually occur in the K' system so that the number of fringes does not change.

Are you defining K' as the reference frame of an observer moving with the apparatus or moving relative to the apparatus? In the frame of an observer co-moving with the apparatus (that is, the apparatus is at rest according to this observer) no contraction can be measured by said observer whereas in the frame of an observer that is not co-moving with the apparatus (that is, the apparatus is moving according to this second observer) a contraction will be observed.

That is, the special theory of relativity is based on the fact that deformations occur by metabolically and actually.

What do you mean by "metabolically"?

My experience proves that conractions are not generated  in the K' frame; because the measurements are isotropic.

Then I presume that what you call the K' frame is the frame where an observer is at rest relative to the apparatus. In such a case, no contraction is expected to be measured in the first place.

However, a phenomenon that does not really occur and is perceived only by the external observer is not meaningful to science.

It if wasn't really occurring, it couldn't be observed by anyone. Yet it can be, so we know that it's really happening.

If you say the time dilation are visually perceived by only The observer of K system; in this case the legend of time travel becomes a myth/fairy tale.

There you go with the non-sequitur again. What makes you say this? Time dilation has been experimentally verified. That demonstrates that your reasoning is flawed. We know that observers in different reference frames will measure different rates of the passage of time because we've actually measured it. When reasoning clashes with reality, you throw out the reasoning, not reality. You don't have to like it, but you can't pretend that your reasoning ability somehow overrides reality itself. Although length and duration can appear different to different observers, the total space-time interval will be agreed upon by all observers regardless of reference frame.

How fast does something have to travel before it contracts by 0.4% ?

About 8.9% the speed of light: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/length-contraction

[Bored chemist]

About 8.9% the speed of light: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/length-contraction

Thanks, so the next question is "Are we going that fast?".
Well, clearly the answer is "WRT what?"

It's about the right ballpark for Earth's orbital velocity. So, you might (just) detect the change over the course of a year, but would anyone in their right mind try to publish a paper saying "the resistance didn't change from 251 ohms to 252" ?

What's particularly stupid is that, with virtually the same equipment, you can easily improve the sensitivity by a hundredfold or more.

That tells me that the experimental designer is incompetent, so I'd be very wary of accepting their results.

It will be interesting to see if the OP knows how to do the experiment better so please don't give him any clues just yet.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

What do you mean by "metabolically"?

Let's take two candles (A; B) and burn them at the same time. Then, one of them (B) moves away by the train.

When the candle  A completes its life and extinguishes; we see B still on fire. Because the photon that determines the moment of  B's finishing has not reached us yet, and needs time to travel  the distance BA. So,  to see the B's ending moment will delay. This perception does not change even if the train stops there or continues its movement. That is to say, we may think that the the lifetime of the candle B  increased due to SR's time dilation. However, in this experiment, both candles live at the same normal tempo (metabolically). Their proper times/tempos are the same. If there is a confusion; suppose the train comes back and meets us while the candle continues to light. In this case we will see that both candles ended at the same moment. It means In this fiction, time dilation is not metabolically realized.

[Bored chemist]

The important question is what happens if you send the candle away in its journey, but bring it back before the candle burns out?
Long ago they used candles as clocks. We can imagine a perfect candle clock - it's got lines marked on it to say how long it takes to burn. So there's a line at 1 hour, at 2 hours and so on.

Now imagine we set two candles burning- one on a train and one at the station.
But we also set two  atomic clocks running next to the candles.
And we set to video cameras to record what the clocks say.

And we send the train away and then bring it back before the candle burns out.
The two videos (one of each candle and clock) look the same.
Both candles burn down to the 1 hour marker at 1 hour (as measured on the atomic clock).

But when we compare the two clocks after the return journey, they no longer agree.

That's time dilation
It's not to do with the fact that it takes a photon some time to get to you from a distant clock. That would explain why a distant clock always seems to run slow- a  clock on the moon would seem to be about 2 seconds late.
But the interesting thing is that the clock is also wrong when you bring it back.

Do you see the difference?

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Are you defining K' as the reference frame of an observer moving with the apparatus or moving relative to the apparatus? In the frame of an observer co-moving with the apparatus (that is, the apparatus is at rest according to this observer) no contraction can be measured by said observer whereas in the frame of an observer that is not co-moving with the apparatus (that is, the apparatus is moving according to this second observer) a contraction will be observed.

 As if you and I say same things. I understood, you say that the observer of K' never aware the deformations; or SR's deformations can be perceived by only the observer of outer frame K.

But, in MM experiment, Fitzgerald contraction (for the light's path on moving direction) must be really happened for the result of exp. (Same number of fringes). It means, the observer of K' frame perceives the contraction. Can you internalize the nuance?

[xersanozgen (OP)]

 dear Bored chemist,

I know that there are people who consider the theory of SR on dogmatic   pattern like a religion. They cannot perceive alternative hypotheses because of their blinders.

I hope, perhaps they may allow theirselves to note other opposite/alternative ideas. Forums are useful for this.

A scientific forum must encourage to discuss the new theories.

I guess your attitudes were  to represent them. Thanks for your efforts.

My best regards...

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Then I presume that what you call the K' frame is the frame where an observer is at rest relative to the apparatus. In such a case, no contraction is expected to be measured in the first place.

 We are a at point that has high potential about confusing and misunderstand.Perhaps we have to follow chronology.

1- Fitzgerald claimed the length contraction may be possible for a moving body without outer observer.

2- Lorentz generated mathematically transformation equations (not physical formulas) for this brillant idea without outer observer.

3- Einstein performed a publication and registrated by being inspired from Lorentz.

4- Some people confused and they found a solution by accepting the option of outer observer's visual perception. 

Outer observer's visual perception cannot provide the predictions about "time travel", time dilation", twin paradox", etc. They are just visually detections. Metabolical/Physical or biological realizations are not mentioned.

In my opinion, SR predicts/claims genuine deformations for moving body. My electrical resistance experience does not prove/support this inferences of the theory.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

It if wasn't really occurring, it couldn't be observed by anyone. Yet it can be, so we know that it's really happening.

Some people accepts that an experiment and visual detection are the same. Some events and perceptions led us for this opinion.

Of course we generally use visual sense. However we have to be interrogator; otherwise, all of tricks of magicians and illusionists would be supposed reality and  somebodies would take seriously.