[xersanozgen (OP)]

My own discussions


4-   Every points of path OB are scanned by the photon itself along the time T₁ – T₀. However, since the experimenter in the K ’system is unaware of his own motion, he is mistaken to determine this distance as AB at the time of T₁. When the detection is incorrect, it is natural that the analysis and the result will be also incorrect. While the photon travels to + x direction and if its source or K' system goes to the direction –x (which is naturally possible), the photon only scans every points of the way OB. We cannot claim that the photon travelled the way DO or DB. (figure 2). If we insist for SR, we find

t'(opposite direction) > t'(same direction)

that if we simultaneously consider both option, the clock of K' system cannot indicate these different times.

K'.........................K......................................................................................Pı
L..........................L.....................................................................................*
D...........................O.....................................................................................B

Figure 2.  If the source goes to the direction – x

5-   SR restricts the thought by isolating the light / photon with its source and analysing their motions only with the method of relativity. If we can isolate a single photon in an experiment on the Earth and if we can detect T₀ and T₁ moments precisely (L: distance between light source and photon detector):

(T₁ - T₀). c - L = V_U. (T₁ - T₀)                            (c)

We may use this equation  (c). If the motion of the world is parallel to the photon and in the same direction, the photon’s arrival point will be translated a little due to the V_U speed of the world according to the LCS and the travelled length by the photon will be different than L.

[Kryptid]

Do you have evidence from way out in space?

As a matter of fact, I do. The Hulse-Taylor binary neutron star system is 21,000 light-years away. Its orbit is decaying due to gravitational radiation and is decaying at the rate predicted by relativity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulse%E2%80%93Taylor_binary

The existence (and properties) of gravitational waves in itself is a prediction of relativity that was confirmed by LIGO and VIRGO (and, of course, those came from deep space): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gravitational_wave_observations

The gravitational redshift predictions of relativity have been tested using the black hole at the center of our galaxy and it passed the test: https://www.livescience.com/66031-einstein-relativity-works-around-black-hole.html

And, of course, there is the first test of relativity that involved gravitational lensing of light around the Sun. The results were consistent with relativity but not with Newtonian physics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens#History

Since we are within a strong gravitational field, Einstein's relativity applies.

That would be true for general relativity but not for special relativity. Special relativity was formulated without gravity being involved at all.

My own discussions


4-   Every points of path OB are scanned by the photon itself along the time T₁ – T₀. However, since the experimenter in the K ’system is unaware of his own motion, he is mistaken to determine this distance as AB at the time of T₁. When the detection is incorrect, it is natural that the analysis and the result will be also incorrect. While the photon travels to + x direction and if its source or K' system goes to the direction –x (which is naturally possible), the photon only scans every points of the way OB. We cannot claim that the photon travelled the way DO or DB. (figure 2). If we insist for SR, we find

t'(opposite direction) > t'(same direction)

that if we simultaneously consider both option, the clock of K' system cannot indicate these different times.

K'.........................K......................................................................................Pı
L..........................L.....................................................................................*
D...........................O.....................................................................................B

Figure 2.  If the source goes to the direction – x

5-   SR restricts the thought by isolating the light / photon with its source and analysing their motions only with the method of relativity. If we can isolate a single photon in an experiment on the Earth and if we can detect T₀ and T₁ moments precisely (L: distance between light source and photon detector):

(T₁ - T₀). c - L = V_U. (T₁ - T₀)                            (c)

We may use this equation  (c). If the motion of the world is parallel to the photon and in the same direction, the photon’s arrival point will be translated a little due to the V_U speed of the world according to the LCS and the travelled length by the photon will be different than L.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what the flaws in our experiments are. You can't tell us that they are flawed and then not tell us how they are flawed. If your claims aren't testable, then they aren't science.

[pensador]

Yet a single photon is independent of Einstein's rules. It has no gravitational field.

Photons do gravitate, it has been observed, it is a fact.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

K'.........................K......................................................................................Pı
L..........................L.....................................................................................*
D...........................O.....................................................................................B

Figure 2.  If the source goes to the direction – x

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what the flaws in our experiments are. You can't tell us that they are flawed and then not tell us how they are flawed. If your claims aren't testable, then they aren't science.

If we examine the figure 2 (Please look at attachment), we can clearly comprehend the flaw of SR. Because, when the source goes to opposite direction of the photon, the distance of DO does not be included of the photon's way. The photon never scans the way DO. Photon  passes over every points of OB way after emitting. So, "exact/genuine relativity" cannot be mentioned. Please remember the relationship of car and road.

Please share those experiments' articles and links. I 'll interpret them.

[puppypower]

The weakest point of special relativity is Einstein developed the theory with three equations, one each for mass, distance and time. However, the lion's share of practical applications only use two equations; distance and time. This creates a problem.

An analogy can be seen below in the following image. The image of a ball below looks 3-D to the eyes. However, if you touch the ball; computer screen, is actually 2-D. I call this mind affect a spatial illusion. It looks 3-D to the mind, while only being 2-D in terms of reality. You will need the sense of touch, to see through the illusion. If tor only use two eyes, you can be easily fooled. 

As a more practical example, say you had two rockets, moving at relative velocity V. One rocket has mass=M and the other rocket has mass equal 2M. If we assume there is no absolute reference, but reference are relative, how do we do an energy balance? The kinetic energy will be twice as much for the second alternative as the first. If you arbitrarily pick one of the other, since both are relative and there is no absolute reference, you either create or take way energy from the universe.This will require fudge factors that are based on fantasy.

A spatial illusion can fool the mind. Spatial illusions are 2-D but uses shadows and highlights to create the illusion of 3-D. The highlights and shadows stage the scenario and theory a certain way to help create the 3-D affect out of 2-D. The highlights can be observational data, while the shadowing is connected to the denial of truth, such as energy conservation needs or relativistic mass is not real or needed. 

Many people sense that something is not quite proper. But the skinny is, three variable SR versus two variable SR. Three variable SR can create spatial theory, while two variable SR creates spatial illusion theory, unless you use very specific scenarios such as twins or equal mass so the energy balance is normalized. 

[xersanozgen (OP)]

The weakest point of special relativity is Einstein developed the theory with three equations, one each for mass, distance and time. However, the lion's share of practical applications only use two equations; distance and time. This creates a problem.

 Yes you are right; Einstein only had used  two factors, while light kinematics requires minimum eight factors. Illusionists  use excessive isolation for their shows. Of course, Einstein had not similar intention; he was a hunter of amazing/brillant  events.

Karl Popper said that: If you find an amazing or spectacular /exciting result  by using  x factors, you have to repeat your analysis with x+ 1 factors.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

My own discussions

6-   The most effective defending against this study which reveals the inaccuracy of SR's first postulate, may be to address player-ball analogy in space conditions:  when the football player and ball are isolated in space conditions; we have to consider Newton's third law (For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction). If the player throws a ball, while the ball goes to a direction, the player also gets a motion at opposite direction (in  proportion of the player and the ball's masses)  and if the method of relativity is considered; -that is, assuming the player as inertial frame - the distance between the ball and the player changes with the ball's speed. In essence, exact/genuine relativity is realized. This is true; this explanation may convince some people. But, we have to distinguish the essence of event: the action-reaction principle is valid between masses and applying a force is mentioned. Neither the source nor the photon does not push the other.  Photon never need to apply a power for its motion. Also the source never apply a force to the photon. When the photon is released, it travels on the bed of the electromagnetic cycle by energy. The role of the source is to release the photon; it has not any contribution for photon's motion. Since there is no measurable mass of light, the effect is not subject to the action-reaction principle. If a relative speed is defined for light/photon, this is the value according to space or LCS.  The source can be freely transferred to the new position just like the footballer after releasing the photon. At the releasing moment, the source just has passed over the releasing point of the photon that is marked at LCS.   

7-   SR insistently uses the "exact relativity" type; that is, (claiming that the distance between the photon and the source always increases with the speed of c) SR imposes an imperative that the source always follows the photon.  There is never an event like this in nature; contrariwise,  our camera can go freely to anywhere after the flashing. Another example: when the Earth travels in the opposite direction in its orbit around the sun, the relative speed of Voyager 1 or 2 according to the Earth transfers to type of "hypothetical relative"  instead of  "exact relative" (Earth's speed on its orbit is ~ 30 km/sec; Voyager's speed according  to the Sun  is ~ 15 km/sec), when the relationship of motion between Voyager and the world are isolated (when the big picture is ignored), the state of approaching the world can be realized.




 

[jerrygg38]

Naked 3.12.20 10 am
Discussion with Kryptid:
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Yesterday at 09:40:31
Do you have evidence from way out in space?
Kryptid: As a matter of fact, I do. The Hulse-Taylor binary neutron star system is 21,000 light-years away. Its orbit is decaying due to gravitational radiation and is decaying at the rate predicted by relativity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulse%E2%80%93Taylor_binary
The existence (and properties) of gravitational waves in itself is a prediction of relativity that was confirmed by LIGO and VIRGO (and, of course, those came from deep space): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gravitational_wave_observations
The gravitational redshift predictions of relativity have been tested using the black hole at the center of our galaxy and it passed the test: https://www.livescience.com/66031-einstein-relativity-works-around-black-hole.html
And, of course, there is the first test of relativity that involved gravitational lensing of light around the Sun. The results were consistent with relativity but not with Newtonian physics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens#History
GG: All these important experimental data are from objects that have strong gravitational fields and that are picked up by our gravitational field. They show that Einstein is correct in his describing function equations. Yet they do not prove that the universe works according to Einstein.
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Yesterday at 09:50:57
Since we are within a strong gravitational field, Einstein's relativity applies.
Kryptoid: That would be true for general relativity but not for special relativity. Special relativity was formulated without gravity being involved at all.
GG: Unless we could go to outer space and conduct tests there, there is no evidence that what Einstein says is true. In Engineering school describing functions are used to solve complex non-linear systems. These are best fit equations which produce good results. In my opinion Einstein’s work is a mathematical describing function solution to a very complex problem. Most likely it is the best that can be done but it is not the true answer.

[Kryptid]

If we examine the figure 2 (Please look at attachment), we can clearly comprehend the flaw of SR. Because, when the source goes to opposite direction of the photon, the distance of DO does not be included of the photon's way. The photon never scans the way DO. Photon  passes over every points of OB way after emitting. So, "exact/genuine relativity" cannot be mentioned. Please remember the relationship of car and road.

And, again, this isn't something that special relativity has a problem with...

SR imposes an imperative that the source always follows the photon. 

No it doesn't. The source can move however it likes. It's just that length contraction and time dilation will always occur in the source's reference frame such that the velocity of the emitted photon is always measured as c by the source.

Please share those experiments' articles and links. I 'll interpret them.

Here's one: http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/Publikationen/2009/Eisele%20et%20al%20Laboratory%20Test%20of%20the%20Isotropy%20of%20Light%20Propagation%20at%20the%2010-17%20Level%202009.pdf

and that are picked up by our gravitational field.

What is "picked up by our gravitational field" supposed to mean?

Yet they do not prove that the universe works according to Einstein.

Which is just as well, because science isn't about proof. It's about evidence.

Unless we could go to outer space and conduct tests there, there is no evidence that what Einstein says is true.

And what is your reasoning that going into outer space would make any difference? Like I said, special relativity makes predictions that didn't involve the gravitational field of objects at all. They have been found to be extremely accurate with experiments on Earth. Are you really trying to suggest that Earth's gravitational field somehow, coincidentally, perfectly changes the values of experimental data so that it matches up with a theory that doesn't even include gravity?

[jerrygg38]

Naked 3.12.20 6 pm
Discussion with Kryptid:
GG: and that are picked up by our gravitational field.
Kryptid: What is "picked up by our gravitational field" supposed to mean?
GG: Space as I see it is composed of a blend of the gravitational field and the electromagnetic fields. Without the fields nothing can pass through space.
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Today at 13:17:38
GG: Yet they do not prove that the universe works according to Einstein.
Kryptid: Which is just as well, because science isn't about proof. It's about evidence.
GG: Ok.
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Today at 13:17:38
GG: Unless we could go to outer space and conduct tests there, there is no evidence that what Einstein says is true.
And what is your reasoning that going into outer space would make any difference? Like I said, special relativity makes predictions that didn't involve the gravitational field of objects at all. They have been found to be extremely accurate with experiments on Earth. Are you really trying to suggest that Earth's gravitational field somehow, coincidentally, perfectly changes the values of experimental data so that it matches up with a theory that doesn't even include gravity?
GG: I do not see space as an independent entity apart from the fields. If you can get rid of the fields then you could erase the universe. The Earths field is connected to all the other fields but if you move very far apart from a minimum amount of gravitational field, a spaceship would self-destruct into nothingness. The only thing left would be light speed Cs photonic dot-waves. That is what we would find way out in space.

[Kryptid]

GG: Space as I see it is composed of a blend of the gravitational field and the electromagnetic fields. Without the fields nothing can pass through space.

And I'm guessing, as is usual for you, this is an assertion devoid of evidence.

GG: I do not see space as an independent entity apart from the fields. If you can get rid of the fields then you could erase the universe. The Earths field is connected to all the other fields but if you move very far apart from a minimum amount of gravitational field, a spaceship would self-destruct into nothingness. The only thing left would be light speed Cs photonic dot-waves. That is what we would find way out in space.

Ditto about the "devoid of evidence" thing. Thanks to IceCube, we have been able to detect neutrinos from an extragalactic source four billion light-years away: https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/pt.6.1.20180712a/full/ So obviously, photons aren't the only things that can traverse billions of light-years of intergalactic space without "self-destructing into nothingness".

[xersanozgen (OP)]

If we examine the figure 2 (Please look at attachment), we can clearly comprehend the flaw of SR. Because, when the source goes to opposite direction of the photon, the distance of DO does not be included of the photon's way. The photon never scans the way DO. Photon  passes over every points of OB way after emitting. So, "exact/genuine relativity" cannot be mentioned. Please remember the relationship of car and road.

1- And, again, this isn't something that special relativity has a problem with...

SR imposes an imperative that the source always follows the photon.

2- No it doesn't. The source can move however it likes. It's just that length contraction and time dilation will always occur in the source's reference frame such that the velocity of the emitted photon is always measured as c by the source.

Please share those experiments' articles and links. I 'll interpret them.

3- Here's one: http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/Publikationen/2009/Eisele%20et%20al%20Laboratory%20Test%20of%20the%20Isotropy%20of%20Light%20Propagation%20at%20the%2010-17%20Level%202009.pdf


 

1- SR had used only the option of "exact/genuine relativity". The relationship of a car and its road is a "exact/genuine relativty". In this option relative object scans all points of the way by applying power to the road. At the same direction setup of SR it seems that this requirement is realized. But, opposite direction clearly indicates the flaw of suppozing "exact relativity". Because always  c > V_U .

Superficial sight can be confusing.

2- YES, the velocity of the emitted photon is always measured as c by the source.  It is correct. The distance between the source and the photon increases/decreases  with c +/- Vu ; but if you measure, you will always find ' c '. To suppose  every measured speed  as "exact relative" or escaping speed from the source/first frame is a mechanical habit:

Is the ball's speed  an "escaping/exact relative" value according to the player?    Please...

3- Thanks for the experiment. This article reports that the velocity of light is absolutely isotropic. This is the same of my claim. This determination indicates that we can only measure the universal speed of the light. In other words, the photons pertinaciously travel by its velocity; other objects's motions are according to the light or light ccordinate system. Already, ıf you examine my figure 3 (attach.) the photon arrives to an eye or an object with the value ' c '; the speed of the eye or object is not effective.

[Kryptid]

If you agree that anyone in any reference frame must measure light to travel at c regardless of their movement, then what is the problem? That's exactly what special relativity predicts.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

If you agree that anyone in any reference frame must measure light to travel at c regardless of their movement, then what is the problem? That's exactly what special relativity predicts.

We're back to beginning.

We should be able to notice the nuance. SR is a first approach for light kinematics. We can advance Light kinematics due to revising technical essence of SR.

SR claims that measured value c is relative value according to the source and other sequential frames.

I say that the value c is relative value according to only outer space. The emitting/starting point of the identified  photon is marked on outer space (or light coordinate system). When the source (e.g. a star) moves, next identified photon's starting point will be marked on a new point on LCS.

To define the measured speed as "exact relative" according to first frame is a classic mechanical habit.

In light kinematics, the distance between the source and the identified photon increases/decreases with c /- Vu. But when  we measure the speed of the photon (by present method) we will find c again. On everywhere and on every  direction, isotropic results indicate that we can only measure the universal speed of the photon not local relative speed.

I offer a new experiment (for single path; my discussions 5). Please examine it.

[Kryptid]

I say that the value c is relative value according to only outer space.

Outer space isn't a reference frame.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

I say that the value c is relative value according to only outer space.

Outer space isn't a reference frame.

Outer space or LCS is not tangible. Nature does not care a convenience for humans. However we have a solution: a sheet of paper is useful for theoretical analyses.

Of course, to assign a common reference frame is gold standart for analyses. The light is universal reality like energy; and when we consider hierarchical ranking for formations in universe; we have to choice most external frame.

On the other hand, to negative a theory  is not reputable. To offer a new solution/method is more significant. Here is LCS method for light kinematics:

1-The motion of the photon and the light source are analysed in a common frame.
2-This frame is most external reference system: outer space or LCS.
3-The velocity of the light is the value ‘ c ‘ according to LCS.
4-The speed of celestial object/light source must be adapted according to LCS: VU
5-The starting point of the photon is marked in the space/LCS.
6-A photon arrives to eye of an observer with the value c of light’s speed (Figure 3)
7-A cosmological analysis must be treated between biggest formations in universe (super clusters).
8-The Earth will be considered at the centre of Virgo for using observational data.

SR does not allow cosmological analyses because of non-simultaneity of data. LCS method  provides with these conditions.

In astronomy and cosmology, the primary origin of information/data and processing f-actor is “light" that arrived to us from celestial objects. Accurate determination of the motion properties of light is important. The special theory of relativity fulfilled its function as a first approach, and thanks to it for a new step (LCS method) forward was created. This new approach [2] allows cosmological analysis and helps to elaborately determine the age of the universe [3]:

[3] [3] Ersan Ö, Ersan I, Physics Essays, 2013, 26 (1)           
 Light kinematics to analyze space time (Doi:10.4006/0836-1398-26.1.49)              https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258810900_Light_kinematics_to_analyze_space-time

[Kryptid]

SR does not allow cosmological analyses because of non-simultaneity of data.

Non-simultaneity is a direct consequence of an invariant speed of light. You have agreed that light speed is invariant. As such, non-simultaneity must be a feature of your model as well.

[Bored chemist]

It seems the "Weakest point of special relativity" is that some people refuse to understand it before deciding to criticise it.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

SR does not allow cosmological analyses because of non-simultaneity of data.

Non-simultaneity is a direct consequence of an invariant speed of light. You have agreed that light speed is invariant. As such, non-simultaneity must be a feature of your model as well.

Yes, the velocity of light is biggest value but not infinity; therefore astronomical observational data don't simultaneity. While the observer's motion parameter is belonging in present time, observed object's component is belonging ancient time. Observational detections    are the resultant of these two nonequivalent component.

However LCS method can overcome this problem. When we consider big-bang cosmology, we can analyse the deformed form of universe because of limited value of light's velocity (It is like asymmetric ellipsoidal egg or water drop). Then, astronomical parameters are theoretically calculated  by considering this visible form; various diagrams are generated and compared present real observational data. It is possible and it was realized by me [3].

[xersanozgen (OP)]

It seems the "Weakest point of special relativity" is that some people refuse to understand it before deciding to criticise it.

My arguments were clearly shared.

Naked scientists can analyse them by activating their own cognitive performance or directly refuse like you.

Nobody upsets.