[Kryptid]

We can say that within space there are two light speed dimensions.

Please don't try to inject your own pseudo-science into this already-fringe thread.

[evan_au]

The orbit of the Moon is a circle according to the Earth.

Editorial comment: In English, we would normally say "The orbit of the Moon is a circle relative to the Earth.".

Or perhaps "The orbit of the Moon is a circle according to an observer on the Earth."

Apology: English is a rather irregular language, thrown together from many disparate ingredients...

[xersanozgen (OP)]

If a camera (on the Voyager) flashs and send a photon pack forward, the increasing/decreasing speed of intermediate distance between this photons and the Earth will be the value  c +/- Vu.

Not in Earth's reference frame it won't. The speed of the photon would always be measured as c.

Your that phrase is correct; I agreed too: "The speed of the photon would always be measured as c."  (*)

But this phrase is incorrect: "The photon always moves away with the speed c from its source or any reference frame.


Our brain can distinguish this nuance. Already the weakest point of SR is that : To suppose every measured speed as relative value (escaping speed from its first frame) according to local place (**). Whereas we have an alternative option: we can always measure the universal velocity of light on everywhere.

Einstein said that "Physics rules are the same in everywhere". Yes it is right; but as your phrase: It will measure as the value c on everywhere.

Intermediate distance will increases/decreases with the speed c +/- Vu ; but if we measure the photon's speed we will find the value ' c ' due to known device (double path, uninterrapted photons etc.). I will give a new method to measure local speed in my discussion section.

(*)  Because, -with present experiment- we can measure the velocity of light that is a relative value according to the outer space (not according to its source or other frames).

(**) To label or define every measured speed as relative value according to first frame is a mechanical habit. We have not to use this attitude for universal subjects like Light kinematics without questioning.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

The orbit of the Moon is a circle according to the Earth.

Editorial comment: In English, we would normally say "The orbit of the Moon is a circle relative to the Earth.".

Or perhaps "The orbit of the Moon is a circle according to an observer on the Earth."

Apology: English is a rather irregular language, thrown together from many disparate ingredients...

Thanks for corrections.

[Kryptid]

But this phrase is incorrect: "The photon always moves away with the speed c from its source or any reference frame.

Well, yes. The difference between the speed of a photon and the speed of the light source that emitted the photon can appear to be different from c in my reference frame (so long as I am not the light source in question). But special relativity doesn't have a problem with that, so I still don't know what your argument against special relativity is.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Summary and discussion


The main mistake of special relativity theory is to give a reference role to a local object. When the candidates for reference frame are evaluated according to their coverage capacity - how the sun is superior and more inclusive than the Earth - the light (or light coordinate system: LCS * ) is far superior to the light source or a moving body due to its universal qualities.


In the extension of this basic misconception, accepting every speed in the definition of "exact relativity" and perceiving the photon-source relationship in the context of the car- road relationship is the weakest point of the special relativity theory. However, there is relationship between the two cars on the same road; these cars do not apply force to each other; briefly, this setup may be called as "hypothetical relativity". The relationship between a light source and a photon is in the definition of "hypothetical relativity". After the photon is released, the source can move freely in other directions; the distance between the photon and the source changes with the speed c +/- V_U, but the current measuring device always gives the value c.

*  Light Coordinate System (LCS) Actually, to use co-reference frame foe analyses is gold standard. Relativity method is a seconder solution.

[Kryptid]

The main mistake of special relativity theory is to give a reference role to a local object.

Given that experimental evidence backs up special relativity's predictions, it's not a mistake. It's the observed reality.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

  I still don't know what your argument against special relativity is.

I have not an aim to convince somebody. I am sharing my detections that are in my cosmological analysis project (to calculate the age of universe). Of cource, you may prefer to get or not; your choice.

However, you may examine my explanation about figure 2.

[Kryptid]

Of cource, you may prefer to get or not; your choice.

It's not that I'm choosing not to understand you. It's that your arguments are not something that special relativity has trouble handling. What I'm not understanding is why you think these scenarios you are thinking of don't mesh with special relativity.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

The main mistake of special relativity theory is to give a reference role to a local object.

Given that experimental evidence backs up special relativity's predictions, it's not a mistake. It's the observed reality.

The hypothesis that life derives from rotten meat was sensed from observations. And it was proven by broth experiments in the jar.

[Kryptid]

The hypothesis that life derives from rotten meat was sensed from observations. And it was proven by broth experiments in the jar.

So if you think there are inherent flaws in the experiments testing special relativity, how about pointing out those flaws? Be specific. I want to know what particular aspect of the experiments were done incorrectly. Why don't we start with time dilation experiments like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ives%E2%80%93Stilwell_experiment ?

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Do we analyse everythings which have speed by SR mentality? For example brain's thinking speed or PC's processing speed. If we continuously push the "a " button its writing speed on the monitor does not get an addition from train's speed like light.

My own discussions:

1-   The formations in universe are ranking at hiererchical order in accordance with their capacities. Moon, Earth Sun, Galaxy, local cluster, super cluster.... universe...multiverse, space (LCS). The value of light’s velocity ( c ) is a relative speed according to outmost reference frame (LCS). The speed v (of local place, a train or source)  is belonging to a most  internal frame. c and v are never used in a same formula; the speed value of the train must be adapted according to the reference frame of light's velocity: Vu.

2-   SR allows to accept the same value of light’s relative velocity according to every sequential frames; Earth, Solar system, galaxy, ....., Universe, outer space. Its argument is “Physics rules are the same in everywhere”. This argument is valid; but at that form:  “The present measuring experiment gives the same value ‘ c ‘ on everywhere”. Because this specific experiment can measure just universal speed of light; not local relative speed according to its source. We must can distinguish the serious difference of meaning (nuance) between those phrases "it is measured" and "it always moves away with the speed c from its source"

3-   The special theory of relativity wants the uniform motion of the K’ system as an initial requirement. This condition is the Galilean relativity principle and applies to the relativity of objects that have mass. When we release a pebble freely in a train travelling at constant speed and linearly, its path is a vertical line that combines the point where the pebble falls and the tips of our fingers; because the pebble has a horizontal initial velocity value which is transferred from the train due to its mass. But since there is no measurable mass of light, there is no horizontal speed transmitted to the photon from the speed of the train or its source. For light kinematics, we have not an argument for applying the Galilei relativity principle to a moving body for inertial frame role; however, uniform motion of the source may solely simplify the analysis.

4-

[jerrygg38]

Xersanozgen
The speed v (of local place, a train or source)  is belonging to a most  internal frame. c and v are never used in a same formula; the speed value of the train must be adapted according to the reference frame of light's velocity: Vu.
GG: The importance of the speed of the photon is that is the standard. Photons always travel at C in a vacuum. If you take the geometric mean of C-V and C+ V you get Einstein's formula for length and clock speed. What does that mean? Space and time take into account the C and V. The space time package does care about the C and V.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Xersanozgen
The speed v (of local place, a train or source)  is belonging to a most  internal frame. c and v are never used in a same formula; the speed value of the train must be adapted according to the reference frame of light's velocity: Vu.


GG: The importance of the speed of the photon is that is the standard. Photons always travel at C in a vacuum. If you take the geometric mean of C-V and C+ V you get Einstein's formula for length and clock speed. What does that mean? Space and time take into account the C and V. The space time package does care about the C and V.

Yes, photons travels with the speed value c in vacuum. I have not any doubt.

But, the distance between an identified photon and its source increases/decreases with the speed c +/- V_u. Please consider the source as a photo/camera-flash instead of a Star. After flashing, the dead flash or the source  has not to follow this photon; it can freely go to opposite direction or  other every direction.

This (After flashing, the dead flash has not to follow this photon) is a natural phenomenon that our brain can distinguish.

[Kryptid]

Do we analyse everythings which have speed by SR mentality? For example brain's thinking speed or PC's processing speed. If we continuously push the "a " button its writing speed on the monitor does not get an addition from train's speed like light.

My own discussions:

1-   The formations in universe are ranking at hiererchical order in accordance with their capacities. Moon, Earth Sun, Galaxy, local cluster, super cluster.... universe...multiverse, space (LCS). The value of light’s velocity ( c ) is a relative speed according to outmost reference frame (LCS). The speed v (of local place, a train or source)  is belonging to a most  internal frame. c and v are never used in a same formula; the speed value of the train must be adapted according to the reference frame of light's velocity: Vu.

2-   SR allows to accept the same value of light’s relative velocity according to every sequential frames; Earth, Solar system, galaxy, ....., Universe, outer space. Its argument is “Physics rules are the same in everywhere”. This argument is valid; but at that form:  “The present measuring experiment gives the same value ‘ c ‘ on everywhere”. Because this specific experiment can measure just universal speed of light; not local relative speed according to its source. We must can distinguish the serious difference of meaning (nuance) between those phrases "it is measured" and "it always moves away with the speed c from its source"

3-   The special theory of relativity wants the uniform motion of the K’ system as an initial requirement. This condition is the Galilean relativity principle and applies to the relativity of objects that have mass. When we release a pebble freely in a train travelling at constant speed and linearly, its path is a vertical line that combines the point where the pebble falls and the tips of our fingers; because the pebble has a horizontal initial velocity value which is transferred from the train due to its mass. But since there is no measurable mass of light, there is no horizontal speed transmitted to the photon from the speed of the train or its source. For light kinematics, we have not an argument for applying the Galilei relativity principle to a moving body for inertial frame role; however, uniform motion of the source may solely simplify the analysis.

4-

I asked where the error in our experimental setups to test special relativity are. I don't see you even attempting to address that.

[jerrygg38]

Xersanozgen says:Naked 3.10.20 1 pm
But, the distance between an identified photon and its source increases/decreases with the speed  c +/- Vu. Please consider the source as a photo/camera-flash instead of a Star. After flashing, the dead flash or the source  has not to follow this photon; it can freely go to opposite direction or  other every direction.
This (After flashing, the dead flash has not to follow this photon) is a natural phenomenon that our brain can distinguish.
GG: Relativity is great up to a point. When we compare two moving platforms that are relatively slow moving, relativity works great. We run into problems when we look at the relative velocity of two photons moving in opposite directions. What is the speed?
If we observe the photons from a higher light speed dimension the speed is
S = C + C = 2C For your example the speed between the platform and the photon is
S = C + V or
S = C – V
Two particles traveling toward each other at 0.9C will have a relative velocity of 1.8C.
Things will get complicated when the gravitational fields of the large groups of particles interact with each other.  This will tend to force the closing speed to approach C.
   In any event in my opinion you are correct. Sometimes ordinary physics applies and sometimes Einstein’s relativity applies. The die heart Einsteinian people like to go far out in space and declare that relativity works. Yet we live on a slow moving planet and everything we observe is from this slow moving planet. Two spaceships far out in space will most likely not find Einsteinian rules and regulations.
   

[Kryptid]

Two spaceships far out in space will most likely not find Einsteinian rules and regulations.

Do you have actual evidence to support this claim? Because there is certainly evidence against it.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

GG: Relativity is great up to a point. When we compare two moving platforms that are relatively slow moving, relativity works great. We run into problems when we look at the relative velocity of two photons moving in opposite directions. What is the speed?
If we observe the photons from a higher light speed dimension the speed is
S = C + C = 2C For your example the speed between the platform and the photon is
S = C + V or
S = C – V
Two particles traveling toward each other at 0.9C will have a relative velocity of 1.8C.
Things will get complicated when the gravitational fields of the large groups of particles interact with each other.  This will tend to force the closing speed to approach C.
   In any event in my opinion you are correct. Sometimes ordinary physics applies and sometimes Einstein’s relativity applies. The die heart Einsteinian people like to go far out in space and declare that relativity works. Yet we live on a slow moving planet and everything we observe is from this slow moving planet. Two spaceships far out in space will most likely not find Einsteinian rules and regulations.
   

1- A star's photons (which are emitted at The moment) generate a spherical surface that its radius increases with c. The diameter of this sphere increases with 2c. But if an observer is included into the event (on a photon), he cannot see other tip of diameter; he will always see the centre of sphere.
2- In my study (Light kinematic to analyze space time) the speed of the Earth (With local group cluster or Virgo super cluster) is high:   V_U = ~ 0.60 c

[jerrygg38]

Kryptid said:
Do you have actual evidence to support this claim? Because there is certainly evidence against it.
GG: Do you have evidence from way out in space? All evidence is based upon what we observe here. Therefore there is no valid evidence of what the two spaceships will observe. Things change when the spaceships exist in a common gravitational field.

[jerrygg38]

Xer says:
1- A star's photons (which are emitted at The moment) generate a spherical surface that its radius increases with c. The diameter of this sphere increases with 2c. But if an observer is included into the event (on a photon), he cannot see other tip of diameter; he will always see the centre of sphere.
2- In my study (Light kinematic to analyze space time) the speed of the Earth (With local group cluster or Virgo super cluster) is high:   VU = ~ 0.60 c

GG: That would mostly be true for an observer limited to C. From an infinite light speed plane, he would see the entire sphere. From a light speed C plane, he would not see the center but  what slowly appears as a surface plane to him.

It seems to me that we are slowly slowing toward light speed C. Since we are within a strong gravitational field, Einstein's relativity applies. Yet a single photon is independent of Einstein's rules. It has no gravitational field.