[Bored chemist]

Naked scientists can analyse them by activating their own cognitive performance

They did.
Like me they have found your ideas unclear or counter-factual.
Did you not notice?
Nobody has agreed with you.

[Kryptid]

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.

That's not what is meant by relativity of simultaneity. Einstein's train thought experiment doesn't require any kind of information lag due to the limited speed of light. The order of events is literally different in different reference frames, not merely seemingly different.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Naked scientists can analyse them by activating their own cognitive performance

They did.
Like me they have found your ideas unclear or counter-factual.
Did you not notice?
Nobody has agreed with you.

I read my this topic again. In my opinion my study is most easily understandable text about SR. If you  can prevent emotional approach or polemic based attitude; you can be informed different sights. Otherwise you will onlycan  record the note that somebody objects to SR

[xersanozgen (OP)]

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.

That's not what is meant by relativity of simultaneity. Einstein's train thought experiment doesn't require any kind of information lag due to the limited speed of light. The order of events is literally different in different reference frames, not merely seemingly different.

Yes you are right; SR does not consider the restrictions that are reasoned by limited value of light's velocity.

Whereas, The primary reason of the illusion/complexity of space time is the limited/finite velocity of light.

LCS method considers this reason for light kinematics and cosmological analyses.

[Kryptid]

SR does not consider the restrictions that are reasoned by limited value of light's velocity.

Yes it does. If it didn't, its equations wouldn't make sense (given that they are based on a finite speed of light).

[Bored chemist]

Naked scientists can analyse them by activating their own cognitive performance

They did.
Like me they have found your ideas unclear or counter-factual.
Did you not notice?
Nobody has agreed with you.

I read my this topic again. In my opinion my study is most easily understandable text about SR. If you  can prevent emotional approach or polemic based attitude; you can be informed different sights. Otherwise you will onlycan  record the note that somebody objects to SR

You may have read it and thought it is clear.

But the important thing is that nobody else did.

Do you not see how that is a problem?

[Bored chemist]

https://dilbert.com/strip/1992-08-03

[jerrygg38]

Kryptid says:
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".
GG: Sounds good but not far enough. You have to go beyond 13 billion light years from the origin of the big bang inversion to the world of dark energy.

[Kryptid]

You have to go beyond 13 billion light years from the origin of the big bang inversion to the world of dark energy.

Given that the Big Bang happened everywhere in the Universe simultaneously (all space that currently exists in the Universe started as the same point or very close to the same point), I can't make sense of this claim.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

 Social sciences have to use the methodologic principles that are generated from area of nature / technic science (and other statistical analyses). Nevertheless, general acceptance may not be obtained for majority. Objections, opposite hypothesis, polemics are realized.

In nature sciences, to prove a hypothesis is stronger  and more technical comparing to social sciences. Arguments are technical, essential, persuasive.

The technical essence of relativity include three kinds of relative speed.  SR had neglected to  consider them and it had directly used the concept of "exact/genuine relativity" for light. Whereas, when we examine them we can see that "hypothetical/pseudo relativity" is more convenient for light kinematics.

[Kryptid]

to prove a hypothesis

You can't prove a hypothesis. At least not a scientific one. You just gain evidence for it by getting it past more and more stringent tests.

[Bored chemist]

"hypothetical/pseudo relativity" is more convenient for light kinematics.

The question is not "what is convenient" but "what gives  the right answer".
And SR gives the right answer.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

The theory of special relativity has extraordinary and amazing inferences; therefore the consistency of its technical essence gets more significance. In this study, the primary mentality of the special relativity is re-examined with the help of present and advanced methodology moreover its postulates are questioned on the universal scale. A defect caused by locality and neglected factors were detected. Reforming postulates offers a potential for new expansions in terms of light kinematics and cosmological analyses.   

[pzkpfw]

If you could drop the "mentality" stuff, and just clearly show the claimed defect, that would help.

Otherwise it just looks like an attempt to justify an argument from incredulity.

[puppypower]

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.

This is not entirely true, but is part of the illusion that is rationalized because of two parameter SR. As an experiment to prove this, say we assume energy is relative, based on two parameter SR. The train and woman are each in relative motion and the system energy is assumed relative.

What we will do is have a head on collusion of the two relative references. If the 120 women has the energy and she hits a train at 20 mph head on, she will come to a stop and the 10,000 ton train will not move. Both will be still.

If the train has the energy and it hits the stationary woman head-on, she will immediately change directions and move in the opposite direction at 20 MPH. Pretending will not change the outcome of the head on collusion. If we can avoid a collusion, we can continue to pretend. We never see any two relative references colliding in any scenario; reality check. This is done on purpose.

If we had two twin trains and a head on collusion, then we will get the same collusion result, either way, and 2 parameter SR will look correct. This is how the system was gamed. Mass is an invariant under SR, while mass and relativistic mass contain the kinetic energy of SR, that is overlooked in the first scenario, but normalized in the second. 

Up to the head on collusion we can pretend and make bold statements about an energy illusion due to using two parameter SR. If we knew the realistic mass in advance, we would be able to  predict the outcome of any collusion scenario.

The theory of relative reference is not statement of fact, but really is a statement of practical limitations in most thought and physical experiments. It is up to science to figure out how to get around these practical limitations, so we are not fooled by what we think we see based on energy but without direct mass to double check.

Nobody will assume an asteroid is in relative motion with the earth and therefore the earth is moving relative to the asteroid. That energy balance would be easy to disprove based on relative mass of each object. Center of mass is more of an absolute. That model would also have to explain how the earth can also be in a different relative motion with the sun, the moon and all the planets all at the same time. However, this is how we model space, since it is too far away to accurately measure mass and relativistic mass. There is no center.  of mass. The illusion is harder to see through at further distances. 

[xersanozgen (OP)]

If you could drop the "mentality" stuff, and just clearly show the claimed defect, that would help.

Otherwise it just looks like an attempt to justify an argument from incredulity.

I’ll briefly tell again for you.

However, you have to allow yourself for understanding the technical arguments. If you don’t want to understand; whole efforts are useless. I am ready to answer all of technical objections.

Weakest point of Special Relativity:

1-   SR neglects the kinds of relativity and directly uses the option of “exact/genuine relativity” for the relation of light and its source.

2-   Whereas, there are 3 types of relativity:

a-   Exact/genuine relativity: We apply a power to road while we are walking; and our speed is at the meaning of “exact/genuine relative” according to first reference frame (the road). The distance (between us and our first ref. Frame) increases with this speed.
b-   Hypothetical/pseudo relativity: If a player throws a ball by applying power, the ball’s speed is hypothetical/pseudo relative according to first reference frame (the player). Because after throwing, the player can go to his new position and the distance between the ball and player increases with the speed V(player) +/- V(ball). These speeds are exact relative according to a common reference frame (the ground). Another example: two moving cars on the same road; the speed of one of them according to other one is pseudo relative. The cars do not apply a power for other's motion.
c-   Momentary/temporary relativity: The speed of the ball on the throwing moment is momentary relative.

3-   When we examine and discuss them we can see that the relationship of light and its source matches with the relationship the player-ball or two cars (hypothetical/pseudo relativity). After emitting an identified photon, the source can go to every directions freely. We can consider the outer space as a common reference frame for analysis (The speed of the source must be adapted according to the space).
4-   We human have a mechanical habit that we label every measured speeds as “exact/genuine relative” according to first reference frame. Whereas we can always measure universal velocity of light instead of local relative speed.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Nobody will assume an asteroid is in relative motion with the earth and therefore the earth is moving relative to the asteroid.

A similar misconception is present for twin paradox. we can assign any one  as reference frame of them  If we choice the person on the Earth as relative object, in this case other one of twins will be older one according to SR mentality. So, as the result both of them will be the same age. The paradox of paradox.

[Kryptid]

What we will do is have a head on collusion of the two relative references. If the 120 women has the energy and she hits a train at 20 mph head on, she will come to a stop and the 10,000 ton train will not move. Both will be still.

If the train has the energy and it hits the stationary woman head-on, she will immediately change directions and move in the opposite direction at 20 MPH. Pretending will not change the outcome of the head on collusion. If we can avoid a collusion, we can continue to pretend. We never see any two relative references colliding in any scenario; reality check. This is done on purpose.

In either scenario, the woman is at rest in her own reference frame and the train is moving. In either scenario, the train stops moving in the woman's reference frame when the woman comes into contact with it. The acceleration experienced upon impact is the same in both cases. So the two scenarios actually are the same as far as relativity is concerned.

I’ll briefly tell again for you.

All you are doing is repeating what you've said before. Nothing you have said invalidates relativity.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

 Somebodies may have dogma, stigma, emotional, chauvinistic attitude about SR (even narcissistic breakage is possible). Of course we can understand these humanly reactions. However, these are reactions that have no place in science; reality is  always forcemajor.

SR is a first approach for light's motion by deductive logic . It is based on a superficial and local mentality that accepts each measured speed relative to the first frame. This point (a postulate of SR) was analyzed with micro-surgical sensitivity * and purely integrative/inductive method. The light source relationship is like a ball player relationship (actually, as in a lake experiment; I will share).  Authenticity/nature will not care that some ones internalize it or not.

(*) Another example for micro surgery method: The book "secret" named tells the importance of mental projection and advises to ask from the universe. There are those who adopt it. However, the real expression to be respected in this regard is this: "You have not a chance to shoot anything you do not aim".

[Kryptid]

Somebodies may have dogma, stigma, emotional, chauvinistic attitude about SR (even narcissistic breakage is possible). Of course we can understand these humanly reactions. However, these are reactions that have no place in science; reality is  always forcemajor.

There is no emotion or dogma here. You simply have not provided any evidence against special relativity to get emotional about in the first place.