[xersanozgen (OP)]

WEAKEST POINT OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY     

I got an impression that majority don't know the technical essence of SR from my former topic "Do you want to be clever than Einstein?" When the SR's mentality is not known, its flaws cannot  be comprehended. Therefore I prepared an article that tells its essence easily and its effective flaw: Weakest point of special relativity..
 
MOD EDIT: Please post your main arguments here for discussion rather than link out to external sites
Edit: Fixed a typo in the title...

[Origin]

I am not interested wasting my time on a site that that accepts any pseudoscience paper offered.  If you want to say something then why not just say what it is so we can discuss it on this forum.

[Bored chemist]

I got an impression that majority don't know the technical essence of SR from my former topic

The majority got the impression that you don't understand it.
Which is more likely?

Therefore I prepared an article that tells its essence easily and its effective flaw:

I'm glad it's not on this site.

[Colin2B]

...If you want to say something then why not just say what it is so we can discuss it on this forum.

Agreed, I’ve removed the link and expect the OP to summarise the main points here for discussion. However, don’t hold out much hope for rational discussion:

I got an impression that majority don't know the technical essence of SR from my former topic

The majority got the impression that you don't understand it.
Which is more likely?

[xersanozgen (OP)]

I am not interested wasting my time on a site that that accepts any pseudoscience paper offered.  If you want to say something then why not just say what it is so we can discuss it on this forum.

The learning and questioning the root of theory

Probably, Einstein had an opinion that his theory could not be easily understood and therefore he published a book which he described for high school students (1916) [1]. It will be useful to repeat and examine Einstein's mentality through the narrative in this book. Its high implications make it very important to understand and internalize the essence of the theory on the grade of necessary and sufficiently. We may not see its flaw without understanding its technical mentality.

Einstein's simplified statement (Figure 1):

Definitions:
K  : Absolute (Reference) system
K ': Moving (relative) system (linearly in the + x direction with fixed v speed)
Pı: Identified single photon

Flow of events:

At the moment To, K' system and photon Pı start to move from point O.
At the moment Tı, the centre of  K' reaches to point A and the photon Pı reaches to the point B.

The coordinates of photon Pı:
According to the K system  : (x; t)
According to the system K' : (x'; t ')


K...........................................................................K'
.............................................................................L............................................................................⊕       Pı                                           

L

O.........................................................................A.......................................................................... .....B
 
Figure 1- Coordinates of a photon according to different Cartesian systems

The coordinates of an object relative to any system are a routine/usual method of definition. Other/any points or systems can also be selected as reference systems. So far everything is customary, normal or classic in physics.

The stage where Special Relativity theory comes into play:

Einstein says, "When a person in the K system measures the speed of light, he will find the value ‘ c ‘;
x / t = OB / t = c                                                                         (a)
Similarly, when the person in the relative K' system measures the speed of light, he finds the value c  again; so
x '/ t' = AB / t '= c                                                                        (b)
In order to achieve this equation (b), both the AB distance and the time t’ should take the values that the result will be ‘ c ‘, when they are divided. After that, it was solved with math or algebra and determined as Lorentz transformation equations.
In the original text of the theory,  a fictive light source is allegorized on an object which it has uniform motion, and a photon goes away  with the value ' c ' from this light source/object (SR says that the distance between object/source and photon continuously  increases with the value ' c ' of speed).   

[1]  Einstein A., Relativity, The special and general theory,
      http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/30155


Note: Please look at attachment for better figure

[puppypower]

In Special Relativity (SR)  there are three equations; one each for mass, distance and time. Most discussions of SR involve relative reference, which limits SR to only relativistic distance and time. I call this two equation SR.

Relativistic mass, which is often ignored or even reasoned away, was included by Einstein, as a reality check, since it implies an energy balance. An energy balance allows one to show reference priority base on energy. Three equation SR; time, distance and mass, can contradict the relative reference assumptions of two equation SR; time and distance. This is where most of the confusion is.

For example, say we had a particle accelerator. We are going to accelerate radioactive and charged particles with a half life=X. If we give them sufficient velocity, the half life will get longer, due to time dilation.

Before we fire up the accelerator, we divide the radioactive isotope in halves, and place one half in a beaker nearby. This will be the control. If we limit ourselves to relativistic distance and time; two equation SR, then the motion of the two sets of particles becomes relative. However, both will not show a change in half life. This shows the reference are not relative. The stationary beaker will not change half life by pretending to be in motion, due to relative motion arguments.

The half life change, in one set of particles, is connected to the energy input of the accelerator and therefore the relativistic mass of the particles. The material in the beaker cannot alter it's half life simply by pretending it is the moving reference, even if the Doppler shift visuals say so. That is an illusion created by  using two of three variable in SR. You need all three valuables, including relativistic mass, to see the hidden wires and therefore reality. 

Relativistic mass, like rest mass, is a measure of energy via E=MC2. Only the reference with real energy will have relativistic mass.

When SR is applied to outer space, to explore the universe, such as via universal Red shift, we can only use 2 of 3 equations; distance and time, by default. We cannot directly measure relativistic mass with a telescope. We are stuck at the relative reference illusion, by default. We do not have the half life affect to show the hidden wires. This allows the illusion, that there is no center of the universe, even though the BB started from a center.

In summary, two equation SR is often all you can do, such as in space, but it can create illusions. Three equation SR is always better and more realistic, but this is not always practical. The student often has problems since very few teachers make a distinction between 2 and 3 equation leading to initiative confusion.

My theory is the 2 equation SR used by astral physics does not allow a good energy balance and this is coming back to bite them. There is a need to add dark energy and dark matter, neither of which can be seen in the lab to know they are real. But they are needed to help close an energy balance due to other observations. This duct tape is an artifact of two equation SR.

[Kryptid]

The stationary beaker will not change half life by pretending to be in motion, due to relative motion arguments.

The only reason for that is because the scientists in the room with the beaker are in the same reference frame as the beaker. So there would be no (or very little) difference in velocity and therefore negligible time dilation between the scientists and the beaker. In the reference frame of the radioactive particles travelling near the speed of light in the accelerator, their own half-life is normal whereas the half-life of the particles in the beaker is longer due to time dilation.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

There are two important points to consider in this account of the theory:

1- The uniqueness of the photon (due to its existence): The defined photon, which we use as a subject, is unique in the universe, its existence and instant position is unique. Everyone agrees, including Einstein, Lorentz, Poincaré, etc.

2- The person in K' system is not aware that he is moving with v speed. How the Earth travels - in its orbit around the sun - by a speed of ~ 108 000 km/h and we are not aware of this motion; The K’ system should be considered similarly. Einsten had used the set of Peron (for K system), train (for K' system) sampling for easy explanation; the train is windowless, vibrationless and quiet; it is essential to indicate from the beginning.

Another important detail about methodology: In analyses we must consider to  direct the photon by a perforated filter.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

There are two important points to consider in this account of the theory:

1- The uniqueness of the photon (due to its existence): The defined photon, which we use as a subject, is unique in the universe, its existence and instant position is unique. Everyone agrees, including Einstein, Lorentz, Poincaré, etc.

This statement defies relativity and QM.  Einstein for one would not say this, and neither would any physicist who knows the works of Bell. Lorentz would not have said it for other reasons, and I'm insufficiently familiar with Poincare's position to say if he'd actually agree to such a statement.

Point is, dropping names doesn't supporting all the nonsense in this thread. No known physicist said that.

Your opinion is interesting.

Because everybody can comprehend this. when we observer the Sun the photon pack that carries a view ( of Ti moment)  is unique. Professional verifing is not necessary. You may think a photo camera and its flashing. This photon pack  is unique. (While photon pack of a flashing travels, the camera and its -dead-  flash device may not follow this photon pack).

I mentioned about identified unique photon; because, generally the "light" is used as a subject in texts, this coding may remind of continuous current of photons and may cause confusing. Also, Lorentz transformations considered a unique photon in its analysis.

[Kryptid]

Einsten had used the set of Peron

What is a "Peron"?

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Einsten had used the set of Peron

What is a "Peron"?

Sorry.

Peron/Perron : The platform of railway station

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Weakest point of Special Relativity

The identified photon travels/scans the OB distance in the time t (the K reference system must be considered to be an absolute stationary space); and the relation of  x / t = c   is a natural and unproblematic result.

To have x' / t' = c in the relative system K', the photon must take the AB distance in less time than t because the AB distance is shorter than OB. But it is not enough to reduce the numerical value of times. In order to obtain the result c in the division process, it is necessary to increase the numerical value of distance too. Slowing of the tempo of time (the growth of the unit of second: time dilation) to ensure that the time is reduced in numbers; to increase the numerical value of distance, unit of meter must be shorter (Fitzgerald contraction). The Lorentz transform equations change these units of dimensions . 

Key point of SR mentality


SR has extraordinary inferences. Therefore we must carefully examine its technical essence and we have to be sure for first and every step. There are some points against the logic and causality in the mentality of SR that has been adopted so far: these are generally tolerated by “subjective reasoning” (rationalization).

 Weakest point of SR can be explained easily:

When we remember again what was happening: At the moment To, K' and the photon of Pı set off from point O, after a period of time, at the moment Tı, the K' system reached to the point A; also, the photon Pı has reached to the point B.

We can see everything clearly from outside the K system.

But the theory SR says that: The person in the K' system perceives himself as immobile and uses the c value he finds when he measures the speed of light (he says "there is experimental evidence; I measured it"). In other words, if he measures the way of photon on the moment Tı (which will be the AB), he will think that the AB distance should be travelled by the speed c in a time between Tı - To. It will have to bend x' and t' to achieve this (x' / t' = c equation). Theory SR considers and analyses the photo of Tı instant; K' experimenter ignores the movement of OA way, because he is not aware his own motion on universal scale. But the outsiders (K system person) perceive the incident clearly; they cannot use a method like self-deception, they have no such luxury.

to be continued..

[Kryptid]

Sorry.

Peron/Perron : The platform of railway station

Huh. I had never actually heard of that before.

But the theory SR says that: The person in the K' system perceives himself as immobile and uses the c value he finds when he measures the speed of light (he says "there is experimental evidence; I measured it"). In other words, if he measures the way of photon on the moment Tı (which will be the AB), he will think that the AB distance should be travelled by the speed c in a time between Tı - To. It will have to bend x' and t' to achieve this (x' / t' = c equation). Theory SR considers and analyses the photo of Tı instant; K' experimenter ignores the movement of OA way, because he is not aware his own motion on universal scale. But the outsiders (K system person) perceive the incident clearly; they cannot use a method like self-deception, they have no such luxury.

Both the person in the K' reference frame and the person in the K reference frame will get correct measurements. Length contraction and time dilation allow the results to be translated from one reference frame to the other. Neither is more or less correct than the other.

[puppypower]

Special Relativity has three parameters, one each for mass, distance and time. The relative reference approach only uses two of the three variables. We are concerned with velocity; d/t, space-time (d,t) distance (d) and time (t). The third variable, relativistic mass, which allows one to do an absolute energy balance, is not included in two variable SR analysis. The two parameters SR analysis never stresses momentum (mv),  kinetic energy (1/2MV2)and energy (E=MC2) balances They are only concerned with the visuals in space and time. This leads to confusion since two and three parameter SR analysis are like comparing apples to oranges.

There is nothing wrong with the theory of SR. Each of the three parameters has been proven in the lab. The problem is more connected to the practical limitations of observational data, This often reduces SR to two measurable parameters. We cannot directly measure relativistic mass (m) the same way as energy (d,t). Mass and relativistic mass is typically inferred and calculated from visual energy signal affects.

When two reference frames measure the speed of light via photons, since photons are energy and not mass, this special case gets to ignore relativistic mass. The two parameter approach for SR is  valid in this unique case. The twin paradox is another a special case, since the idea of twins assumes identical mass. When we deal with observation systems that contain variable mass, then relativistic mass needs to be involved to get the correct energy balance. This is not always possible to measure, due to practical limitations.

When we look at the universe, we are dealing with the energy emissions from massive objects. However, the signals we get are all connected to energy, since energy moves faster than mass. Mass and energy divide. We indirectly infer mass and momentum, but cannot measure it directly as relativistic mass. This practical limitation in the raw data reduces the SR to two parameters, which then can lead to problems, such as an uncertainty in the universal energy balance. We use two parameter SR to infer the relativistic mass so we can simulate three parameter SR, without a direct measurement of relativistic mass. This follows the philosophy of science, but it falls short of the target. 

Say we have a train with a passenger A,  His spouse B is waiting at the train station for the train to arrive. If we do a two parameter SR analysis either frame can assume they are stationary or in motion. Your imagination can go wild since the light energy will reinforce what you think you see. That part is real.

If we had to add relativistic mass and make this a three parameter SR analysis, each relative reference scenario will come up with a different energy balance. A moving train that weighs 10,000 tons will have more kinetic energy than a spouse who weighs 120 pounds,  if both have velocity=V. At that point, knowing that 1000 gallons of diesel fuel was used, two parameter relative reference assumption does not pan out. However, as long as we do not know that amount of fuel used, we can pretend, since the visual signals in space and time make it ambiguous.

SR is fine, however data collection and the philosophy of science often require we apply SR in a way, that is not in touch with the reality of the needs for energy conservation. To change this will require a way to directly measure relativistic mass in distant objects.

[Kryptid]

SR is fine, however data collection and the philosophy of science often require we apply SR in a way, that is not in touch with the reality of the needs for energy conservation.

Conservation of energy is relative to the reference frame. In any given frame, the amount of energy measured will always be the same. Between frames, it can differ (for exactly the reasons you pointed out in your train example). Neither is more correct than the other.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

 Due to our ability to look from outside the K system, we can see clearly what is going on: Photon Pı has actually passed all points of the OB way in the Tı - T0 period; there is no abnormality.

 The person in the K' system attempts to interpret an illusion (he thinks that the AB way is taken by c speed instead of OB way). If he is not aware that the view from the internal and actually relative system to the whole / event will may be caused wrong perceptions (such as "The Sun is rotating around the world"), probably his conclusions will also be wrong. To give a reference frame role to an object (which is in local and actually relative motion) causes wrong perceiving and decision. We had learned this due to Copernicus and Galilei.

The essence of the event: The perception of the relative system (K') experimenter is wrong. Why can we continue to analyse this as if it were real, while those in the K system and the outer consecutive system also comprehend this mistake? Answer: “I find the c value when I measure the speed of light in the train. When the person in the K system also measures the speed of the same photon, he will find ‘c‘ again. Then the relative velocity of the light is c according to all systems”.


Is there another option? Yes it is possible and SR had not discerned this option:

[Kryptid]

If he is not aware that the view from the internal and actually relative system to the whole / event will may be caused wrong perceptions (such as "The Sun is rotating around the world")

The Earth orbiting the Sun is a case of accelerating motion, which (unlike inertial motion) is not relative. So it's a false analogy.

The perception of the relative system (K') experimenter is wrong.

Wrong according to who? Relativity says all inertial frames are equally valid.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

If he is not aware that the view from the internal and actually relative system to the whole / event will may be caused wrong perceptions (such as "The Sun is rotating around the world")

1- The Earth orbiting the Sun is a case of accelerating motion, which (unlike inertial motion) is not relative. So it's a false analogy.

The perception of the relative system (K') experimenter is wrong.

2- Wrong according to who? Relativity says all inertial frames are equally valid.

1-In the big picture, the world revolves around the sun and its own axis. In the order of universal structures, the world takes place in a subset of the sun. So the sun is the reference system; the world is in relative motion. Observing from the internal or relative object to the reference object causes false perception, and we think the sun revolves around the earth. Wrong perception and false stigma.

There is a similar error in the special theory of relativity. The local and actually relative object (light source/train) has been made as a reference frame and the light's motion is analyzed according to the source/train/Earth. There is potential for wrong perception. Already the K' person  cannot know that the photon had travelled the way OA (please look at the fig.1); he considers only AB way. Light is a universal reality like energy and the most external frame (space or LCS) must be used as reference system  (Of course, in this case, the value of the speed of the source/train/Earth/ a star will be used at the universal scale).

2- Yes SR says this. It is Galilean relativity principle. If an object has uniform motion, this object can be used as an inertial frame. Yes this is correct; but for objects which have mass. Because relative objects get have a beginning speed from these masses. However light has not a measurable mass and the light never take a speed from its source.

[Bored chemist]

In the big picture, the world revolves around the sun and its own axis. In the order of universal structures, the world takes place in a subset of the sun. So the sun is the reference system; the world is in relative motion. Observing from the internal or relative object to the reference object causes false perception, and we think the sun revolves around the earth. Wrong perception and false stigma.

None of that makes sense.
Some bits are plainly wrong like "we think the sun revolves around the earth".

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Is there another option? Yes it is possible and SR had not discerned this option:

We can measure just the universal speed of light by present experiment (mirrored double path, uninterrupted light etc.); we cannot measure local relative speed and other kinds of relative speeds. The measurements for every direction give the same value; this reality is a powerful evidence for this option.

 Initial or root pre-acceptance (postulate) causing special relativity theory and subsequent foamings: To label each measured speed as "genuine relative" to the current local environment (Whereas, an alternative definition was possible: "hypothetical relative"). This attitude is a stigma resulting from our local experience in mechanics. Since this theoretical misconception is at the postulate level, it reduces the inferences and verification experiments to the ad-hoc level.
 Whereas the person in K’ or Lorentz, Einstein and others, wherever they are measuring; in fact, if they knew that they could measure the speed of light only and always universal value (that is, according to the space), they would not be exposed to this wrong perception. It is interesting to ignore this option even when the evidence  is available. Another flaw for SR is to ignore the types of relativity; There are varieties such as "exact relativity", "hypothetical relativity" and "momentary relativity" [2]. "Which one of them applies to light?" This may be questioned; but, relativity types never considered in SR, they has not been studied; a process such as choosing the appropriate one for light has not been applied.