[xersanozgen (OP)]

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.

 Time dilation has been experimentally verified.

Please give me the link of this experiment.

I trust my studies about light kinematics (Already my sharings are a byproduct of this)  and experiments. The essence of light kinematics is transparent for me. Besides there are opposite persons (Millenium relativity); I am not alone about this idea.

Of course, to prefer the outer space for reference role instead of a local object has more significance and effective.

[Kryptid]

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.

That didn't do anything to tell me what you meant by "metabolically". What does this have to do with metabolism?

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.

This does not follow. A person in the K' frame will see the lengths of both arms as the same and thus see that it takes light the same amount of time to reach the end of each arm. In this person's frame, the device isn't moving. There is no reason that contraction should be observed.

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

Special relativity predicts that you shouldn't have detected any deformations in the first place, so your findings are actually in accord with it.

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.

So how do you explain experimental results as being an illusion? How is it that the illusion conveniently matches up precisely with the predictions of relativity?

Please give me the link of this experiment.

I already did. Go back and look at my post about the lithium ion experiment.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

That didn't do anything to tell me what you meant by "metabolically". What does this have to do with metabolism?

 

If time dilation is really occured; the metabolism of moving person/organism  must be slower biologically.

 Reciprocity is an important principle of relativity. Please look at that: the observer move away from peron by a fast train;  he will see the peron's clock at slower tempo while his watch works by proper tempo. Another observer who is stand on peron will see the train's clock at slower tempo according to his watch. While they approach to each other, each one will see the other's clock at faster tempo and when they meet, the clocks will indicate the same time.  We may analyze the twin paradox at the same meaning.

This does not follow. A person in the K' frame will see the lengths of both arms as the same and thus see that it takes light the same amount of time to reach the end of each arm. In this person's frame, the device isn't moving. There is no reason that contraction should be observed.

The example upon arms is good. In according to SR mentality a length (which is parallel to motion direction) must be contracted/decreased (other perpendicular dimensions remains their formations); but, a similar deformation never be happened in our life because of universal motion of the world. It means Fitzgerald contraction is not real. Yes you say that the deformations can be seen by the observer of K frame. This option is not a reason of excitement and scientific significance; not worth talking.

Special relativity predicts that you shouldn't have detected any deformations in the first place, so your findings are actually in accord with it.

As I say; if the theory SR is consist of this, it will become fairy tale for adults. But SR  (with its this meaning) cannot be useful/functional for cosmology and light kinematics.

So how do you explain experimental results as being an illusion? How is it that the illusion conveniently matches up precisely with the predictions of relativity?

I agree, there are visual deformations. The reason of them is the finite/limited value  of  light's velocity. The reason of SR's deformations is relative motions of objects/bodies/frames. Of course, some people may be convinced due to arguments of visual deformations. However we interest nature reality.

 

 

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Quote from: xersanozgen on 07/10/2019 14:41:34
Please give me the link of this experiment.

I already did. Go back and look at my post about the lithium ion experiment.

I could not the see the main text of  lithium-ion experiment. Probably it may be also similar to muon experiment. Because it claims that time dilation is effective for GPS. Whereas the effect of time dilation for GPS correction is not significant according to other force major corrections.

 I had examined an article about lifetime of muons. Some physicans may be victim of their first intends. They had neglected to consider the speed of reference muons.  The speed of the benchmark is ignored, and the hoped result/interpretation is put forward as the cause. So he says "-at the most- it could be because of SR".

At this point, I will say: If the initial acceptance (in the theory, the relation of a photon and its source is supposed like the relation of a car and its road) is incorrect (according to LCS concept the relation of a photon, its source and outer space is like the relation of a ball, player and the ground), its inferences may not match with natural reality. And other innovative ideas and interpretations of experiments may be ad-hoc.

It is important to restructure the postulates with scientific discipline on space related issues. Because postulates generally contain locality. Present postulates are the opinions that are generated  by the repetition of repeated perceptions.

[Kryptid]

but, a similar deformation never be happened in our life because of universal motion of the world.

What is this "universal motion of the world" you speak of? Are you talking about an absolute reference frame? If so, then you are begging the question again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

As I say; if the theory SR is consist of this, it will become fairy tale for adults.

Again, why do you conclude this?

I agree, there are visual deformations. The reason of them is the finite/limited value  of  light's velocity.

You already tried that argument and it didn't work. The equation you offered predicted a linear relationship between velocity and red shift, whereas relativity predicts an exponential one. Relativity's prediction is the one with experimental support. You tried to save the equation by claiming that you have to use "universal velocity" instead of relative velocity, but that makes the problem worse. If we did live in a world with an absolute reference frame and red shift was dependent upon absolute velocity, then the radar guns used by police officers would have to be continually calibrated throughout the day and year to reflect that change in velocity over time due to the Earth's rotation and orbit.

If what you are claiming instead is that we have to measure the difference in the universal velocity of the car and the universal velocity of the radar gun, then that simplifies right back to relative velocity again. It doesn't matter if the Milky Way galaxy was sitting still or moving at 50% the speed of light in some absolute frame: the red shift detected by the radar gun would be the exact same because it's measuring relative velocity. That was known long before special relativity was even conceived of.

Time dilation is also far from the only observable prediction of relativity.

An illusion caused by the finite speed of light cannot explain the observation of quadrupolar gravitational waves.
An illusion caused by the finite speed of light cannot explain the observation of mass-energy conversion.
An illusion caused by the finite speed of light cannot explain the precession of mercury's orbit.
An illusion caused by the finite speed of light cannot explain the decay rate of neutron star's orbits.

Probably it may be also similar to muon experiment.

It can't be. Lithium ions aren't unstable like muons are.

They had neglected to consider the speed of reference muons.

I already pointed out to you that we can make very cold muons for which time dilation is negligible. Even in that particular case, knowing the kinetic energy and mass of the muons allows one to calculate their velocity. You can then calculate from that velocity and the observed decay rate what the resting decay rate should be (as predicted by relativity). If relativity is correct, then the predicted decay rate of those resting muons can be used to accurately predict the decay rate of moving muons.

[Bored chemist]

 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...

Well, there might be "people who consider the theory of SR on dogmatic   pattern like a religion."
There are also scientists.
Scientist use SR because it agrees with what happens in the real world. Do you see how that is different?

"They cannot perceive alternative hypotheses because of their blinders."
I can perceive an alternative hypothesis with no problem at all.
I can also consider the implications of such a hypothesis.
And I can compare those implications with experimental data.
And, if the hypothesis does not agree with reality, I reject the hypothesis.

Any scientist would do that.

So what are you doing here?
.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Quote from: xersanozgen on Yesterday at 10:38:11
but, a similar deformation never be happened in our life because of universal motion of the world.

1- What is this "universal motion of the world" you speak of? Are you talking about an absolute reference frame? If so, then you are begging the question again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Quote from: xersanozgen on Yesterday at 10:38:11
As I say; if the theory SR is consist of this, it will become fairy tale for adults.

2- Again, why do you conclude this?

Quote from: xersanozgen on Yesterday at 10:38:11
I agree, there are visual deformations. The reason of them is the finite/limited value  of  light's velocity.

1-   In universe, everything has a motion. The world has also its motion according to Sun, galaxy, local cluster, ........etc.

We use the earth as a co-reference frame for physical and other events. However , If we want to analyze the motion relation  of  Earth and a celestial  object (e.g. Fornax cluster) we must use  an outer/common reference frame how  includes both of them. And  -as a first step- we have to consider the centre of local cluster as the equivalent partner of  Fornax.

 

2-   If claimed deformations are visual; that space-time is also an illusion; SR does not impose/effect the life. Even, it cannot transform the astronomical parameters to respected/ useful / simultaneous values.



3- Your other sharings can be important; I ' ll examine and study.

[Bored chemist]

If claimed deformations are visual;

They are mathematical and physical.

[Kryptid]

1-   In universe, everything has a motion. The world has also its motion according to Sun, galaxy, local cluster, ........etc.

We use the earth as a co-reference frame for physical and other events. However , If we want to analyze the motion relation  of  Earth and a celestial  object (e.g. Fornax cluster) we must use  an outer/common reference frame how  includes both of them. And  -as a first step- we have to consider the centre of local cluster as the equivalent partner of  Fornax.

And all of that motion is relative (except for acceleration).

2-   If claimed deformations are visual; that space-time is also an illusion

As Bored Chemist said, they are physically real.

SR does not impose/effect the life.

That depends on what you mean by "affect".

Even, it cannot transform the astronomical parameters to respected/ useful / simultaneous values.

I don't understand this sentence.

[SarahConnor]

He was an idiot , like this test.l

[SarahConnor]

1-   In universe, everything has a motion. The world has also its motion according to Sun, galaxy, local cluster, ........etc.

We use the earth as a co-reference frame for physical and other events. However , If we want to analyze the motion relation  of  Earth and a celestial  object (e.g. Fornax cluster) we must use  an outer/common reference frame how  includes both of them. And  -as a first step- we have to consider the centre of local cluster as the equivalent partner of  Fornax.

And all of that motion is relative (except for acceleration).

2-   If claimed deformations are visual; that space-time is also an illusion

As Bored Chemist said, they are physically real.

SR does not impose/effect the life.

That depends on what you mean by "affect".

Even, it cannot transform the astronomical parameters to respected/ useful / simultaneous values.

I don't understand this sentence.

I am so going to burn your university down to the ground , all of them


Am see grave they say now

[Kryptid]

That's definitely not a good start for you. You should shape up before you get banned for threats and insults.

[SarahConnor]

That's definitely not a good start for you. You should shape up before you get banned for threats and insults.

Insults what you on about ?

Guess you dunna understand my lingo .

Thought you scientists meant be  clever and know stuff like lingo da !

Sad man, was hoping for some convo 🙁

[Colin2B]

Insults what you on about ?

Guess you dunna understand my lingo .

Thought you scientists meant be  clever and know stuff like lingo da !

Sad man, was hoping for some convo 🙁

Scientists understand lingo very well. Making threats to burn down a university is not convo, but can be classified as a terrorist threat, especially if the writer misrepresents their identity!
I suggest you smart up if you want to remain a member here.

[SarahConnor]

Insults what you on about ?

Guess you dunna understand my lingo .

Thought you scientists meant be  clever and know stuff like lingo da !

Sad man, was hoping for some convo 🙁

Scientists understand lingo very well. Making threats to burn down a university is not convo, but can be classified as a terrorist threat, especially if the writer misrepresents their identity!
I suggest you smart up if you want to remain a member here.

ya wat?

Nerr man , let's burn some rubber does not mean let's burn some paper . You error in reading man , not like I'm speaking a martian language 🙄

[SarahConnor]

Anyway , I'm smarter than Einstein

[Bored chemist]

Anyway , I'm smarter than Einstein

Only marginally, and he's dead.

[SarahConnor]

Anyway , I'm smarter than Einstein

Only marginally, and he's dead.

Well I appreciate your comment but I'm alive and kicking and consider  all the intricate physical details.  I expect harsh critics from any new forum I venture on .  I've no means of proving I'm smarter than Einstein and I have already raised concerns on this forum and I suspect you now think I'm a troll?

[xersanozgen (OP)]

 

Einstein had said that “It is harder to crack prejudice than an atom.”

I'll answer Kyrptid' s message 183 and finish my answers.

I understood I am on  wrong address to share alternative ideas about light kinematics.
 

[xersanozgen (OP)]

You already tried that argument and it didn't work. The equation you offered predicted a linear relationship between velocity and red shift, whereas relativity predicts an exponential one. Relativity's prediction is the one with experimental support. You tried to save the equation by claiming that you have to use "universal velocity" instead of relative velocity, but that makes the problem worse. If we did live in a world with an absolute reference frame and red shift was dependent upon absolute velocity, then the radar guns used by police officers would have to be continually calibrated throughout the day and year to reflect that change in velocity over time due to the Earth's rotation and orbit.

If what you are claiming instead is that we have to measure the difference in the universal velocity of the car and the universal velocity of the radar gun, then that simplifies right back to relative velocity again. It doesn't matter if the Milky Way galaxy was sitting still or moving at 50% the speed of light in some absolute frame: the red shift detected by the radar gun would be the exact same because it's measuring relative velocity. That was known long before special relativity was even conceived of.

Time dilation is also far from the only observable prediction of relativity.

An illusion caused by the finite speed of light cannot explain the observation of quadrupolar gravitational waves.
An illusion caused by the finite speed of light cannot explain the observation of mass-energy conversion.
An illusion caused by the finite speed of light cannot explain the precession of mercury's orbit.
An illusion caused by the finite speed of light cannot explain the decay rate of neutron star's orbits.