[xersanozgen (OP)]

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.

You just say that you are not convinced without mentioning  technical details; you may be perceived as  blind allegiance / opponent and you can be taken lightly. If you are aiming for consolidation on behalf of Einsten; the main owner of the theory SR is actually Lorentz and Poincare; Einstein was overly excited and appropriated this idea (See history of SR Wikipedia or Bernstein’s book).

Of course, I will respond to you considering that you represent other followers who are like you. It is not easy to look warmly by sympathy at the claim that the special relativity theory is false. Those who have previously examined and caught ownself-objection but have not been able to reach a holistic conclusion can easily understand my arguments and feel peace/catharsis and refresh their own cognitive self-confidence.

Some scientists may be realize the process of cancer diagnosis psychological reactions (denial, anger, bargain, cause, acceptance / compliance) in the face of my clues because of the theory's fame, general acceptance formation, patronage by the scientific paradigm, and continuous affirmation in popular science journals. Also, you don't have to worry; Because even if the scientific paradigm is revised, the majority will continue to worship theory (There are still those who believe that the world is flat; no doubt, the suspended position of the world in space can cause depression in deep thought).

Those who want to witness an important event in the history of science due to the fame of the theory should make some effort to evaluate clues (at least they can apply active learning method by analyzing on a paper).

The theory SR offers some options for our philosophical need for meaning, just like ufo speculations. a kind of bribe to mysticism for majority (Mostly at the meaning of archetypal mysticism; for example,  astrology is living).

It is possible to find examples similar to light behavior in the world of objects in nature. I sampled from the football game. Another is the lake surface analogy (please see the figure).

If  an experimentalist freely leaves a pebble to a calm lake, an expanding ring wave is generated.  The expanding speed of ring wave does not increase when the  experimentalist (source/ first reference frame) stands, walks or runs. On this analogy the ring wave represents the light, and the surface of the lake represents a co-reference frame instead of the space or LCS.

[Bored chemist]

You just say that you are not convinced without mentioning  technical details;

You have not provided ANY details, or even any evidence.

[Kryptid]

You just say that you are not convinced without mentioning  technical details; you may be perceived as  blind allegiance / opponent and you can be taken lightly.

This thread has gone back and forth a bit like this:

OP: "The Big Bang Theory is wrong because explosions don't create anything, they only destroy things."
Us: "The Big Bang wasn't an explosion. That's a common misconception."
OP: "The Big Bang Theory is wrong because explosions don't create anything, they only destroy things."

Rinse and repeat. Except in this case, your claim is that relativity can't deal with the scenarios you bring up, while we know that it can. But, for some reason, you won't accept that so you keep repeating your arguments over and over.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

You just say that you are not convinced without mentioning  technical details;

You have not provided ANY details, or even any evidence.

Dear bored chemist,

Your polemic phrases give me the right to answer and the same level of speaking credit.

If I remember correctly, you had could not comprehend the requirement of control / comparison material in the muon lifetime experiment in my other topic (Do you want to be clever than Einstein).

Bored chemist had said:

“This idea of two sorts of muons is  just plain silly.
And it's something you made up with no actual evidence.
Do you think what you are doing is science?”

You are challenging by high self confidenting. Whereas,  science education is not required to understand this. Even, A person on  the street will ask to you as "relative to what?". The differences (longer lifetime for muons) cannot be claimed/known  without a comparison material.

So, you falled into the position of absolute off-side. Therefore, your referee role is unacceptable and your groundless refusals are not respected either. Your own opinions and prejudies are your problem as a closed cycle.

In a philosophy forum that I am a member of, one participant could not tolerate others' ability of philosophical synthesis and he  was always negativing like you; he worked to trivialize the person instead of analyzing the ideas. I guess that he wanted to seem as a hero for womens by using his philosopy interest. We patiently normalized him.

 As if you are overdose disturbed with new theories. Do you think the new theories section should be canceled?

Your reactive answers are like an exclamation of a frazzled person: “No, it cannot be.” There is not technical content . This attitude is not a standard of forum; at the most, it may be placed at the marginal section of Gauss diagram ( besides, your forum activity is 100 %: marginal).


I know that there are much SR fanatics. Normally, they confine theirselves to notice that “Some one objects to the esence of SR”. They never be panic.

If you like to tease /challence to people or new ideas/theories;  I think you can be more happy in social forums. There is not a risk of off-side. Already in social forums, the arguments of new hypotheses use the examples of marginal sections of Gauss diagram.

Sorry, your polemic phrases gave me the right to answer and the same level of speaking credit.

Best regards...

[Kryptid]

You are challenging by high self confidenting. Whereas,  science education is not required to understand this. Even, A person on  the street will ask to you as "relative to what?". The differences (longer lifetime for muons) cannot be claimed/known  without a comparison material.

Time dilation experiments have been done with control groups before. Perhaps you've heard of the one involving a clock on a plane and comparing that with a clock left on the ground?

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Time dilation experiments have been done with control groups before. Perhaps you've heard of the one involving a clock on a plane and comparing that with a clock left on the ground?

I have an answer for this (probably this evidence is time contraction instead of time dilation).

Please give a link for a scientific paper that I want to answer in accordance with the interpration of my mentality. about light kinematics.

[Bored chemist]

This probably gives enough information to make a start.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment

You can follow the references if you need more.

But the interesting thing is that you don't seem to have known about it.

Why didn't you find out about relativity, before trying to prove it wrong?

[Kryptid]

I have an answer for this (probably this evidence is time contraction instead of time dilation).

What is the different between time contraction and time dilation? More importantly, how can one experimentally determine the difference between the two?

Please give a link for a scientific paper that I want to answer in accordance with the interpration of my mentality. about light kinematics.

http://www.personal.psu.edu/rq9/HOW/Atomic_Clocks_Predictions.pdf

[xersanozgen (OP)]

I have an answer for this (probably this evidence is time contraction instead of time dilation).

What is the different between time contraction and time dilation? More importantly, how can one experimentally determine the difference between the two?

Please give a link for a scientific paper that I want to answer in accordance with the interpration of my mentality. about light kinematics.

http://www.personal.psu.edu/rq9/HOW/Atomic_Clocks_Predictions.pdf

Well, In the papers the effect of gravity has been considered and isolated. Kinematic effect has caused different results for the direction west and east.  Comparison clock is on the earth.

As a result, both tempo slowing (time dilation) and faster tempo (time contraction) have been detected.These have been expressed as "lost" and "gain"; Why?

If you consider only "lost option"; BİNGO, you can convince yourself about an evidence for time dilation (by favoritism or subjective rationalisation). But "gain option" (faster tempo/time contraction) is realized too.


The theory of special relativity always predicts/claims only time dilation (slower tempo) . However, in the experiment, faster tempo/ time contraction due to movement was also detected. This result cannot be explained by  SR mentality.

[Kryptid]

This result cannot be explained by  SR mentality.

Obviously it can be, since the measurements matched the predictions made by relativity. Check the data again.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

This result cannot be explained by  SR mentality.

Obviously it can be, since the measurements matched the predictions made by relativity. Check the data again.

They reasoned random positions of Moon and Sun; but, they neglect energy factor (termic, radiation, microwave, etc). These cause faster frequence for atoms. They confirm sufficient precision of atomic clocks although their difference about 60 %.

We encounter efforts to support the theory SR  generally and even in scientific papers. In my opinion, if these papers would be sure, they would clearly use/say the coding "time dilation" instead of "lost" and "gain". They prefer ambiguity and hope your labelling as "time dilation".

There is present similar manipulation/misinformation in the paper of muon lifetime and trouton rankine experiments. They use the inverse of relationship  reason-result.

Favoritsm may causes strained interpretation.

[Bored chemist]

This result cannot be explained by  SR mentality.

Obviously it can be, since the measurements matched the predictions made by relativity. Check the data again.

They reasoned random positions of Moon and Sun; but, they neglect energy factor (termic, radiation, microwave, etc). These cause faster frequence for atoms. They confirm sufficient precision of atomic clocks although their difference about 60 %.

We encounter efforts to support the theory SR  generally and even in scientific papers. In my opinion, if these papers would be sure, they would clearly use/say the coding "time dilation" instead of "lost" and "gain". They prefer ambiguity and hope your labelling as "time dilation".

There is present similar manipulation/misinformation in the paper of muon lifetime and trouton rankine experiments. They use the inverse of relationship  reason-result.

Favoritsm may causes strained interpretation.

To what level of accuracy do you think relativity has been tested?
How many significant figures?

[Kryptid]

They reasoned random positions of Moon and Sun; but, they neglect energy factor (termic, radiation, microwave, etc).

That effect would be very small on time dilation.

These cause faster frequence for atoms.

Evidence?

We encounter efforts to support the theory SR  generally and even in scientific papers. In my opinion, if these papers would be sure, they would clearly use/say the coding "time dilation" instead of "lost" and "gain". They prefer ambiguity and hope your labelling as "time dilation"

.

There is no manipulation. Time lost and time gained are relative to the clock left back on Earth. This video explains it:

All three clocks in the experiment would experience time dilation relative to a clock floating in free space. However, one of the planes experiences more time dilation than the clock on the ground and the other experiences less time dilation than the clock on the ground. This is why one plane is recorded as gaining time and the other as losing time (because it's relative to the clock on the ground). This is consistent with what relativity predicts, not inconsistent with it.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

These cause faster frequence for atoms.

1-  Evidence?

We encounter efforts to support the theory SR  generally and even in scientific papers. In my opinion, if these papers would be sure, they would clearly use/say the coding "time dilation" instead of "lost" and "gain". They prefer ambiguity and hope your labelling as "time dilation"

.

2- There is no manipulation. Time lost and time gained are relative to the clock left back on Earth. This video explains it:

All three clocks in the experiment would experience time dilation relative to a clock floating in free space. However, one of the planes experiences more time dilation than the clock on the ground and the other experiences less time dilation than the clock on the ground. This is why one plane is recorded as gaining time and the other as losing time (because it's relative to the clock on the ground). This is consistent with what relativity predicts, not inconsistent with it.

1- Especially higher temperature (thermal energy) causes faster tempo for atomic clocks (*)

2- I had understood that:  If the "lost time" represents "time dilation/slower tempo", the other "gained time" is "faster tempo". Your interpretation is  cleverly riposting rescuer; congratulations. But:

2.1- Primarily, the airplane's relative speed (according to solar system or space) is not V_earth +/- V_airplane; If this is right, the time of west travels would be smaller (as half or quarter compare east travels).  We have not a perception like this. The inverse status is right because of atmosphere's opposite speed. Please examine.

Misinformation to convince like the others; or neglecting/ignoring few essential factors.

2.2   If the theory has accuracy, the clocks on the airplanes have to indicate the same time. If we isolated them, their relative speeds according to other one is the same ( V _relative = V₁  + V₂). SR likes the isolation (e.g. a photon and its source). Thereby each one of the clocks would be exposed to a same value of time dilation??? The results did not support this requirement.



(*) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock





The principle of operation of an atomic clock is based on atomic physics; it measures the electromagnetic signal that electrons in atoms emit when they change energy levels. Early atomic clocks were based on masers at room temperature. Since 2004, more accurate atomic clocks first cool the atoms to near absolute zero temperature by slowing them with lasers and probing them in atomic fountains in a microwave-filled cavity. An example of this is the NIST-F1 atomic clock, one of the national primary time and frequency standards of the United States.

 

The accuracy of an atomic clock depends on two factors: the first is temperature of the sample atoms—colder atoms move much more slowly, allowing longer probe times, the second is the frequency and intrinsic linewidth of the electronic or hyperfine transition. Higher frequencies and narrow lines increase the precision.

[Kryptid]

Especially higher temperature (thermal energy) causes faster tempo for atomic clocks (*)

One would presume that all three clocks are identical and kept at close to the same temperature, thus eliminating any such influence.

2.1- Primarily, the airplane's relative speed (according to solar system or space) is not Vearth +/- Vairplane; If this is right, the time of west travels would be smaller (as half or quarter compare east travels).  We have not a perception like this. The inverse status is right because of atmosphere's opposite speed. Please examine.

Misinformation to convince like the others; or neglecting/ignoring few essential factors.

2.2   If the theory has accuracy, the clocks on the airplanes have to indicate the same time. If we isolated them, their relative speeds according to other one is the same ( V relative = V1  + V2). SR likes the isolation (e.g. a photon and its source). Thereby each one of the clocks would be exposed to a same value of time dilation??? The results did not support this requirement.

The aircraft flying in opposite directions around the Earth are actually not equivalent to each other and thus you would not expect their time dilation factors to be identical. They are not in inertial frames. Rather, they are accelerating because they are flying in a circle. Acceleration is not relative. The aircraft flying with the Earth's rotation will complete the circle faster than the aircraft flying against the Earth's rotation will. This means that the aircraft flying with the Earth's rotation will have a higher acceleration than the other plane.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

The aircraft flying in opposite directions around the Earth are actually not equivalent to each other and thus you would not expect their time dilation factors to be identical. They are not in inertial frames. Rather, they are accelerating because they are flying in a circle. Acceleration is not relative. The aircraft flying with the Earth's rotation will complete the circle faster than the aircraft flying against the Earth's rotation will. This means that the aircraft flying with the Earth's rotation will have a higher acceleration than the other plane.

They are not in inertial frames.

Yes, OK. I also want to help. SR is valid for uniform motions. That is, fixed speed and straight path in accordance with Galilean relativity principle.

SR allows to assign local place/object/Earth for reference/inertial frame. And we may suppose the aircrafts on linear path for small time. And the atomic clocks have to indicate the same time.

However in GR, similar problems are ignored.

Yes your evidence does not support for SR by many reasons (especially, V_earth +/- V_airplane  resultant speeds are clearly wrong);. It contains an intention of manipulation and misinformation. Some one may accept them.

 

[Kryptid]

And the atomic clocks have to indicate the same time.

Why would they have to indicate the same time when they aren't experiencing the same motion? One plane is experiencing greater acceleration than the clock on the ground, and the other plane is experiencing less acceleration than the clock on the ground.

(especially, Vearth +/- Vairplane  resultant speeds are clearly wrong)

How so?

[xersanozgen (OP)]

And the atomic clocks have to indicate the same time.

Why would they have to indicate the same time when they aren't experiencing the same motion? One plane is experiencing greater acceleration than the clock on the ground, and the other plane is experiencing less acceleration than the clock on the ground.

(especially, Vearth +/- Vairplane  resultant speeds are clearly wrong)

How so?

1- In accordance with SR mentality, when we isolate the aircrafts (we consider that there are only these two aircraft in universe. SR had analyzed light's motion by isolating a photon and its source), their relative speeds according to each other are the same value; and the times on their monitor must to seem the same.

2-  If we leave this SR's  isolation, the relative speed of the train/source will get various values according to solar system, galaxy, cluster...etc.; and the train's clock will be confused about which percent of time dilations.

3- On your figure,  relative speeds of the aircrafts has been given as V_earth +/- V _aircraft. .the airplane's relative speeds (according to Earth) is not V_earth +/- V_airplane; If this is right, the time of west travels would be smaller (as half or quarter compare east travels).  We have not a perception like this. The inverse status is right because of atmosphere's opposite speed. Atmosphere rotates slower and applies vacuum effect Please examine. If the Earth's clock is comparison/reference; already you have to consider the value of relative speeds according to the Earth; this is. only V_aircraft. Please consider  fast trains instead of aircrafts in experiment.
 

[Kryptid]

1- In accordance with SR mentality, when we isolate the aircrafts (we consider that there are only these two aircraft in universe. SR had analyzed light's motion by isolating a photon and its source), their relative speeds according to each other are the same value; and the times on their monitor must to seem the same.

No, they aren't. I've already told you that acceleration is not relative. One plane would be experiencing a greater acceleration than the other because it is completing a circle of the same diameter in a shorter period of time. Why do you not understand that? General relativity affects time dilation as much as special relativity.

2-  If we leave this SR's  isolation, the relative speed of the train/source will get various values according to solar system, galaxy, cluster...etc.; and the train's clock will be confused about which percent of time dilations.

Again, acceleration is not relative.

3- On your figure,  relative speeds of the aircrafts has been given as Vearth +/- V aircraft. .the airplane's relative speeds (according to Earth) is not Vearth +/- Vairplane; If this is right, the time of west travels would be smaller (as half or quarter compare east travels).  We have not a perception like this. The inverse status is right because of atmosphere's opposite speed. Atmosphere rotates slower and applies vacuum effect Please examine. If the Earth's clock is comparison/reference; already you have to consider the value of relative speeds according to the Earth; this is. only Vaircraft. Please consider  fast trains instead of aircrafts in experiment.

You sure like ignoring acceleration, don't you?

[xersanozgen (OP)]

You sure like ignoring acceleration, don't you?

Why do you add the rotating speed of the Earth to the speed of the  east aircraft?

our figure wants to verify SR although acceleration is present because of cosinus component of aircraft's speed vector.
 
I offered to overcome this problem: On the same line the aircrafts can go to opposite directions (we can see them on straight line for first 20 minute without rotating motion). If their flying speed are also the same, acceleration is not mentioned.

Yes, SR gets base Galilean relativity principle. But this principle is valid for the relativity of objects that have mass. Light has not a measured mass; so, photon never takes a first speed  from its source. Bodies that have mass keep the speed of  its first reference frame.