[Kryptid]

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.

All I see is a quoting of my posts.

[Bored chemist]

All I see is a quoting of my posts.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

[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.

All I see is a quoting of my posts.

I want to complete the answer.

 I had not given a detail, because LCS mentality is clear and easy.  Assigning a common-reference frame (outer space or LCS) is useful for light kinematics and cosmological analysis. We may see on attached figure:  Initially, an observer (A) and a moving body/clock (B) is on the point O (Their time:T_o). B goes to right side by the velocity 60 % c; A goes to left side by the speed 40 % c.  The observer will see the B/clock on the point B'  and the time of the clock  as T _B'. T_B' = ?

On the moment Tı, the observer will may see the clock at the point B' (due to finite /limited value of light's velocity) although, actually the clock arrived to the point B. And he will may see the time of the clock as T_B'. The photon (which is useful to detect the moment T_B') get the distance B'A  by the velocity of light for the duration of (T - T_B')

The equations:

AB' = OA + OB' = 0.40 c T + 0.60 c T_B' = ( T -T_B') c 

Thus: T_B' = T (0.60 / 1.60)

As seen, visual perceiving does not need an exponential function of parameters. LCS mentality is clear and easy.



The subject of Radar:  We never see any think simultaneously because of the finite/limited value of light’s velocity theoretically. However we have not any problem for nearby objects. So, negligible effects are mentioned.  You are right radar system never gives exact results; but it is functional for our local distances.

Your additional  proofs are not my interest area. I study astronomy, cosmology, light kinematics.  I may say that : SR considers the concept of “genuine relativity” for the motion relation for a photon  and its source like a car and its road (the car never  get speed without road or the mass of Earth). Whereas an alternative option is possible for the motion relation of a photon and its source like a ball and a player on the ground.  The player throws the ball by getting support from the mass of ground and the speed of the ball is relative speed according to the ground not the player. The speed of a photon  is generated  by electro-magnetic  cycle on space.  any  contribution  of the source to light's velocity is not mentioned  without its emitting. So, the source  can go to everywhere after emitting the photon. The following distances cannot calculate by only c; like that the distance of the ball and new position of the player  cannot calculate by only the speed of ball.

If you allow yourself for internalizing this point you may perceive the LCS concept.

The root postulate of SR is not consistent.  So, the other  interpretations  includes  suspicion.

 .

[xersanozgen (OP)]

I may understand the reactions/irritations  and sensitization for the title but it is just to catch interests as a metaphor.

The name of forum "Naked Scientist" had encouraged me to share my syntheses about light kinematics and special relativity. But a technical discussion cannot be sufficiently realized except "Kyrtpid".

The expertise / technique for  polemics,  empty rethorics, misinformations, demagogy, stock answers  probably will may  convince the persons who cannot activate their mental capacity/performance about questioning.  They always need a reference of a different person to belive (not" to know"). But natural  reality never care them.

The most discredited /fault of them is the labelling  a member  as an idiot. It has been  competed  by an argument against to an idea , not by defamation. In forums, while even  the phrase of " you are wrong",or " you don't know"  is a fault; how can be a defamation   say? When will the moderators aware?

If not, it means , I had attributed a high significanse for the phrase  “ naked scientists”

Nevertheless,the Earth rotates around the sun  and its own axis

[Bored chemist]

Therefore the root postulate of SR is not consistent. 

"not consistent" with what?
It agrees with every single experiment ever done.

[Kryptid]

As seen, visual perceiving does not need an exponential function of parameters.

Then it doesn't match experimental results and is therefore falsified.

The subject of Radar:  We never see any think simultaneously because of the finite/limited value of light’s velocity theoretically. However we have not any problem for nearby objects. So, negligible effects are mentioned.  You are right radar system never gives exact results; but it is functional for our local distances.

A policeman's radar gun doesn't make measurements based on delay time. It detects frequency shifts. So a limited speed of light is a non-issue.

Your additional  proofs are not my interest area.

This is a cop-out.

I study astronomy, cosmology, light kinematics.

Gravitational waves, Mercury's orbit and neutron stars are all relevant to astronomy, so you can't use the "not my interest area" excuse for those.

Therefore the root postulate of SR is not consistent.

Non-sequitur. You absolutely can calculate the distance between yourself and some other object using light. If I'm in a spacecraft with a radar, it sends out a continuous pulse of radio waves that travel at the speed of light. The computers aboard know when each pulse was sent and when each pulse was received back. If a pulse impinges on an asteroid and is received back, the total travel time is now known. Since the speed of light is known, this means that the total distance is known as well. By measuring the change in total distance over time (by measuring subsequent travel times), you can know the relative velocity between the ship and asteroid. Alternatively, the presence (or lack) of red shift can tell you the same thing. Knowing both the total travel time and the relative velocity will tell you the distance. This holds whether you are sitting still, moving towards or moving away from the asteroid.

In the case where you aren't moving directly towards or away from the asteroid, but are moving at a right angle to it, you can use the angle that the radio pulse was received from to determine the direction that the asteroid is moving relative to the ship. That information, combined with the other information mentioned above, will still tell you the change of distance to the asteroid over time in your reference frame.

[SarahConnor]

Therefore the root postulate of SR is not consistent. 

"not consistent" with what?
It agrees with every single experiment ever done.

You dunna sound like you know wat u talking about either . you must in some way find him to be some sort of imminent threat towards science. You should leave him alone , he sounds like he has put in lots of work to produce such a great write up.

And besides , this forum is full of sh1t dick eds. Go fk yourselves , cya

[Bored chemist]

you must in some way find him to be some sort of imminent threat towards science.

His habit of posting nonsense is a threat to a science website.
Your's isn't any better.

[Colin2B]

And besides , this forum is full of sh1t dick eds. Go fk yourselves , cya

Another adolescent fool bites the dust.

[Emilelix]

If you could constantly accelerate at the rate of 1g you would theoretically be travelling at the speed of light in about 1 year.  Could you then just keep accelerating at that rate without ever cracking the speed of light?

[Halc]

If you could constantly accelerate at the rate of 1g you would theoretically be travelling at the speed of light in about 1 year.  Could you then just keep accelerating at that rate without ever cracking the speed of light?

You;'d be going about 0.77c (Earth frame) after 1 year of 1g (time measured on the ship).
After 2 years ship time  (7.5 years Earth time), you;d be going about 0.968c relative to Earth.  In 3 years, 0.996c

No amount of acceleration would get you to speed of light.

[Bored chemist]

If you could constantly accelerate at the rate of 1g

Then, even ignoring relativity, the power requirement would rise continuously.
Sooner or later you run pot of power.

[Halc]

If you could constantly accelerate at the rate of 1g

Then, even ignoring relativity, the power requirement would rise continuously.
Sooner or later you run pot of power.

A G force is a unit of proper acceleration, not a unit of frame-dependent acceleration.  One can accelerate at 1G indefinitely given a continuous force on an unchanging proper mass.  In rockets, the mass gets lighter as it goes, so the power needed actually goes down over time.

So in my example, the guy between years 2 and 3 experiences 1G of acceleration the whole year on his watch, but from the inertial frame of Earth (or whatever he left behind), he's only increased his speed by 0.028c and taken years to do it.  That's a frame dependent acceleration of less than a tenth of a meter per second, but it's still 1G of proper acceleration.
I didn't do the arithmetic to get the actual figures here.

So if what you say is true about frame-relative acceleration:  One cannot accelerate an object at a steady 9.8 m/sec/sec (increasing G force) because the relativistic mass would go up with its speed in that frame and yes, eventually it would require infinite power to apply the force to an arbitrarily high mass.

[Janus]

If you could constantly accelerate at the rate of 1g you would theoretically be travelling at the speed of light in about 1 year.  Could you then just keep accelerating at that rate without ever cracking the speed of light?

Assuming you had a ship that maintained a proper acceleration of 1g.  It starts at rest with respect a buoy floating in space.
After 1 year, as measured by the ship, it would be moving at 0.77c relative to the buoy.
After 2 years, it would be moving at 0.97c relative to the buoy
after 5 years, 0.99993c
8 years, 0.9999998c
12 years, 0.99999999996c
...
For someone at rest with respect to the buoy:
after 1 year you would be moving at 0.72c
2 years, 0.9c
5 years, 0.9816954499c
8 years, 0.9927286443c
12 years, 0.9967486193c

In neither case would the ship velocity relative to the buoy follow a strictly v=at pattern, though at the very begin it would be very close. ( for example if you just consider the first 10 days of buoy time, the difference only works out to be ~0.04%)

[Bored chemist]

One can accelerate at 1G indefinitely given a continuous force on an unchanging proper mass. 

Well, OK, yes, near Earth satellites (nearly) do this all the time.
But, in practical terms, they don't get very far.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

 Why don't aliens get direct contact?

If we discover a world-like planet and wanted to relate to living intelligent organisms, we would want to run a series of tests to understand their cognitive capacities. One of them could be special theory of relativity. Theory is somehow introduced into their lives/paradigms by a young scientist like Einstein and developments are followed.

Is it possible that such a test was being applied to us? I wrote a science fiction story on this theme (einsteinRF@Cosmos.net). It is very interesting and surprising that human cognitive capacity has not been able to distinguish a simple nuance (about the essence of relativity*) for over 100 years.

 (*) Essence: Taking deeper meaning into account; that is how relativity occurs; which factors are involved. For example:
1- The car gains speed by applying force to the road and pushing the road and the value of the speed is exactly "genuine relative" to the road. When the road friction is over, the car is now transferred to the oblique throw state with the previous speed being the first speed.
2- In our measurement of the speed of light, we habitually label the result value relative to the current environment. However, the method of measuring the velocity of light is similar to that of a light clock (mirrored dual path, continuous photon current); the experimenter intends and supposes that he is measuring with a single identified photon; whereas, it is possible to start with photon x and finish the experiment with photon y. Similarly, the light is also continuous in MM test. When the photons pack half X and the photons pack half y meet on the screen**, the experimenter assumes that the single light pack halves are interfering. This (**) different option could be ignored. While the isotropic results of the measurement and MM tests are present and pointing out that we can just measure the velocity of light on a universal scale; it is not scientific to still accept and process as relative value to local objects.
3- Is to understand the relation a player, a ball and the ground difficult? The ground is a co-reference frame for the motion analysis of the player and the ball.  The ball's speed is a relative value according to ground not the player. When the ball represents the photon; the player as light source; the ground as outer space/LCS; light kinematics will become transparent and functional.  These clues are not too difficult to consider.

We have to analyze the essence and kinds of relativity. When we distinguished the kinds of relativity and decided to choice the correct one (hypothetetical relativity like the relation a ball/player/ground) for light’s motion, our scientific vision/wisdom will improve on universal scale.

To be continued...

[xersanozgen (OP)]

In this title, the error in the root postulate of the theory and the local flaws are shared ( http://vixra.org/abs/1903.0044 ). Once these are internalized, the theory and subsequent inferences, supporting interpretations of some experiments will transfer to position of ad-hoc. The theses (against the necessity of really occurring of theory's deformations) claim that the deformations are visual.  If it is visual, the different time inference of the parallel and perpendicular lights cannot be explained (the clock can show a single time). It really stands naked that it doesn't really occur (like biological / metabolic / electrical resistance). Rationalisations (self deception, psychological resistances, stock answers, vulgar attacks instead of ideas, etc.; we can see all kinds of misinformation. In the end, all you have to trust is your personal cognitive capacity. If not, nobody gets upset.

 SR is not indispensable in our daily lives. It is not a medical treatment. This means that the test of life is strictly limited. What is the target of using the relativity method when there is an easy and consistent gold standard method, such as the common reference system method, and then ignoring / neglecting the checks / verifying  with the common reference method? This should be considered.

I'm not the only voice on this. You can find many other counterparts on Google (Prof. Lutz Kayser, millennium relativity etc.)

http://vixra.org/abs/1503.0187

http://vixra.org/abs/1501.0226

http://www.mrelativity.net/


You can find other objections on Google. However,  these objections are generally partial. If you want a compact one:  Essential Factors of Light Kinematics and Special Relativity  http://vixra.org/abs/1903.0044


 In the natural approach, it is more functional to use a common reference framework and this method is the gold standard. When the relativity method is used, the result obtained should be verified by this gold method. If a physicist knows the methodology of analyzing light kinematics, he should use a single, defined photon and prioritize space conditions / big picture (continuity of light is confusing). SR's main goal was to confirm the Fitzgerald contraction. Because of this motivation, the theory preferred to enter to light kinematics by using relativity method and local reference frame. The interestingness of the inferences dazzled the eye and the logic; and caused high admiration it as if it had revealed a difficult secret of nature.

Of course, in this table there will be those who do not want to give up their idol. We have seen similar efforts in this topic. When it is said that the deformations should be real and not determined by experiment; they said deformations can be visually detected by an outer observer. When it was said that visual deformations was an illusion and lacked scientific meaning, this time, physical and biological changes were put forward again. To sum up, people have success about rationalisation (deceive oneself). 

Humanity has experienced about "big picture" before: the world is flat, the world is the center of the universe, the sun rotates around the world, and similar opinions. In all of them, it is wrong to accept/assign the local environment or object as a reference frame and to give a relative role to other major formations. The Special Theory of Relativity is also a candidate for being one of them. I think it's too late because of positive discrimination, and probably it will come to agenda of the questioning of those who cause this delay.

Of course, natural realities, energy based physics and the concept of relational integrity will be  force major instead of earthcentric paradigm.

[Halc]

One can accelerate at 1G indefinitely given a continuous force on an unchanging proper mass. 

Well, OK, yes, near Earth satellites (nearly) do this all the time.
But, in practical terms, they don't get very far.

One can accelerate indefinitely at 1G in the same direction given said continuous proper force.

[Kryptid]

In this title, the error in the root postulate of the theory and the local flaws are shared ( http://vixra.org/abs/1903.0044 ). Once these are internalized, the theory and subsequent inferences, supporting interpretations of some experiments will transfer to position of ad-hoc. The theses (against the necessity of really occurring of theory's deformations) claim that the deformations are visual.  If it is visual, the different time inference of the parallel and perpendicular lights cannot be explained (the clock can show a single time). It really stands naked that it doesn't really occur (like biological / metabolic / electrical resistance). Rationalisations (self deception, psychological resistances, stock answers, vulgar attacks instead of ideas, etc.; we can see all kinds of misinformation. In the end, all you have to trust is your personal cognitive capacity. If not, nobody gets upset.

 SR is not indispensable in our daily lives. It is not a medical treatment. This means that the test of life is strictly limited. What is the target of using the relativity method when there is an easy and consistent gold standard method, such as the common reference system method, and then ignoring / neglecting the checks / verifying  with the common reference method? This should be considered.

I'm not the only voice on this. You can find many other counterparts on Google (Prof. Lutz Kayser, millennium relativity etc.)

http://vixra.org/abs/1503.0187

http://vixra.org/abs/1501.0226

http://www.mrelativity.net/


You can find other objections on Google. However,  these objections are generally partial. If you want a compact one:  Essential Factors of Light Kinematics and Special Relativity  http://vixra.org/abs/1903.0044


 In the natural approach, it is more functional to use a common reference framework and this method is the gold standard. When the relativity method is used, the result obtained should be verified by this gold method. If a physicist knows the methodology of analyzing light kinematics, he should use a single, defined photon and prioritize space conditions / big picture (continuity of light is confusing). SR's main goal was to confirm the Fitzgerald contraction. Because of this motivation, the theory preferred to enter to light kinematics by using relativity method and local reference frame. The interestingness of the inferences dazzled the eye and the logic; and caused high admiration it as if it had revealed a difficult secret of nature.

Of course, in this table there will be those who do not want to give up their idol. We have seen similar efforts in this topic. When it is said that the deformations should be real and not determined by experiment; they said deformations can be visually detected by an outer observer. When it was said that visual deformations was an illusion and lacked scientific meaning, this time, physical and biological changes were put forward again. To sum up, people have success about rationalisation (deceive oneself). 

Humanity has experienced about "big picture" before: the world is flat, the world is the center of the universe, the sun rotates around the world, and similar opinions. In all of them, it is wrong to accept/assign the local environment or object as a reference frame and to give a relative role to other major formations. The Special Theory of Relativity is also a candidate for being one of them. I think it's too late because of positive discrimination, and probably it will come to agenda of the questioning of those who cause this delay.

Of course, natural realities, energy based physics and the concept of relational integrity will be  force major instead of earthcentric paradigm.

You're just repeating the same (debunked) claims and misconceptions as before. The experimental results show that relativity is a valid theory. We have detected gravitational waves with the properties predicted by relativity. We have seen neutron star orbits decay at the rate predicted by relativity. We have measured E=mc² to be correct to extremely high precision. Relativity successfully explains the anomalous precession of Mercury.

[PmbPhy]

Do you want to be more clever than Einstein?

This is possible. .

Sure.