[xersanozgen (OP)]

Gravity can bend this path. The accelerating of an object is not effective. Because The mentality of GR works at the case of fixed speeds (diagonal path). Look at the figure (attach) this figure clearly tells the event.

The figure you drew was in perfect agreement with GR because the light source is in a different reference frame.  According to GR a person in a rocket flying away from earth at a constant .5c who shined a laser perpendicular to the direction of travel would see the laser light in a straight line.  It would look the same as someone with 0 velocity.

You are right about different reference frames.  We see that the Sun turns around the Earth. Whereas this is wrong perception.

 I remembered a play with my cat and laser. I used the laser but I was seeing a red point not a straigt line.

My figure explaines the event -step by step- for every atto second like a film. Identified photon always goes on a straight line due to perforated plate filter. We are not allowed to draw a line between the points of source  S and the photon Pı.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

If you ask with google, you may find many text about flaws of SR.

I can find many texts about the benefits of homeopathy on Google, too.

 
Yes you are right. To distinguish serious texts is a problem.

However we are not desperate. If they present arguments and technical analyses and we can use our own cognitive performance, we can advance our vision and wisdom.

If you cannot activate your own reconsidering performance you are in need third person's reference.

This forum is not a place for persons who has an opinion without his own technical analyzing. Probably they will be upset and  express their emotional reactions.

For example, in future, you will perhaps remember that there was a person who objected the theory Special relativity.

What can I say else? I only share my arguments and their technical details. You may note/take  or not.

[Bobolink]

Yes you are right. To distinguish serious texts is a problem.

You can go to the sites of colleges and universities to get credible information, of course they will disagree with your pseudoscience.

However we are not desperate. If they present arguments and technical analyses and we can use our own cognitive performance, we can advance our vision and wisdom.

If you cannot activate your own reconsidering performance you are in need third person's reference.

You have not demonstrated this ability.

For example, in future, you will perhaps remember that there was a person who objected the theory Special relativity.

I doubt it, there are lots of ignorant cranks who object to SR, they're a dime a dozen.

What can I say else? I only share my arguments and their technical details. You may note/take  or not.

Since your arguments amount to misunderstanding and pseudoscience, I will have to go with, not.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

The essence of "Weakest point of Special Relativity"

1- Present measuring experiment can measure only the universal value of light's velocity. The value c is relative speed according to outer space.

2- The theory of special relativity  considers this value c as relative speed according to its source or local and every frame.

If we human initially intent to measure the universal velocity of light; we would have to use this present method (mirrored two path, continious photon flowing etc.). Persons who wants to find local relative speed (because of aether paradigm) labeled the result as relative value according to light source; and realized the analysis of SR.

That is all.

[Bobolink]

Present measuring experiment can measure only the universal value of light's velocity.

Right we always the speed of light as c.

The value c is relative speed according to outer space.

Do you have evidence for this or is it just a feeling?

The theory of special relativity  considers this value c as relative speed according to its source or local and every frame.

In SR the speed of light is invariant.

Persons who wants to find local relative speed

What evidence do you have that the speed of light is not invariant?

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Present measuring experiment can measure only the universal value of light's velocity.

1- Right we always the speed of light as c.

The value c is relative speed according to outer space.

2-Do you have evidence for this or is it just a feeling?

The theory of special relativity  considers this value c as relative speed according to its source or local and every frame.

3-In SR the speed of light is invariant.

Persons who wants to find local relative speed

4-What evidence do you have that the speed of light is not invariant?

1- SR has not questioned which speed  did we measure; it directly consider the result as local relative speed in accordance with mechanical habit. In addition the measurement experiment is specific for only the light.

2- You have not read all messages of this topic. Moderator Krypid upsets and warns me for repeating. But I will repeat for new guests like you:

2.1- The measurement experiment gives the same result for every directions.That is, "isotropic.
2.2- SR indirectly accepts this; because light's velocity is the same for every frame.
2.3- The light or a photon (from celestial objects) comes to our eye by the speed c (M-M exp.)

3- Yes it is invariant in vacuum. And it is not necessary; because a photon and its source freely moves in space vacuum/common reference frame (like the player and the ball on the ground). The distance between the photon and its source increases or decreases by the speed  c +/- V_U. But when we measure the photon's speed, we will find the value c always. (the distance between the player and the ball changes by the speed V_ball +/- V_player;  these speeds are values according to ground/common reference frame).

4- Light's velocity is invariant in vacuum/space/LCS.

[Bobolink]

1- SR has not questioned which speed  did we measure;

What do you mean which speed?  Distance over time.

it directly consider the result as local relative speed in accordance with mechanical habit.

The sentence doesn't make much sense to me.  The speed of light isn't relative, it is invariant.  What is a mechanical habit?

The measurement experiment gives the same result for every directions.That is, "isotropic.

If you mean that the speed of light is c regardless of the speed of the source or the receiver, I agree.  I would not define that as isotropic.

2.2- SR indirectly accepts this; because light's velocity is the same for every frame.
2.3- The light or a photon (from celestial objects) comes to our eye by the speed c

OK

3- Yes it is invariant in vacuum. And it is not necessary; because a photon and its source freely moves in space vacuum/common reference frame (like the player and the ball on the ground).

That makes no sense.  I can measure the speed of light from a star and that is clearly a different reference frame.

The distance between the photon and its source increases or decreases by the speed  c +/- VU.

No.  The distance between a photon and it's source only increases.  The distance can be found by c/t.

But when we measure the photon's speed, we will find the value c always.

Of course.

(the distance between the player and the ball changes by the speed Vball +/- Vplayer;  these speeds are values according to ground/common reference frame).

Of course, the speed of a baseball is not invariant.

4- Light's velocity is invariant in vacuum/space/LCS.

I don't know what LCS is, but the speed of light is invariant, do we really need to keep saying that?

[xersanozgen (OP)]

1- SR has not questioned which speed  did we measure;

What do you mean which speed?  Distance over time.

  If your initial aim is to measure the relative speed according to local place (that is a mechanical habit) you label the result as local relative; if you want to measure universal speed and if you set the experiment for this, you label the result as universal speed.

it directly consider the result as local relative speed in accordance with mechanical habit.

The sentence doesn't make much sense to me.  The speed of light isn't relative, it is invariant.  What is a mechanical habit?

  Yes, it is invariant.  And SR accepts that the distance between a photon and its source increases with the value c of light's speed.

The measurement experiment gives the same result for every directions.That is, "isotropic.

If you mean that the speed of light is c regardless of the speed of the source or the receiver, I agree.  I would not define that as isotropic.

The light velocity measurements give the same value for every directions; that is isotropic. So, we can measure universal speed not local speed (or the increasing speed of the distance).
 

2.2- SR indirectly accepts this; because light's velocity is the same for every frame.
2.3- The light or a photon (from celestial objects) comes to our eye by the speed c

OK

3- Yes it is invariant in vacuum. And it is not necessary; because a photon and its source freely moves in space vacuum/common reference frame (like the player and the ball on the ground).

That makes no sense.  I can measure the speed of light from a star and that is clearly a different reference frame.

The distance between the photon and its source increases or decreases by the speed  c +/- V_U.

No.  The distance between a photon and it's source only increases.  The distance can be found by c/t.

It is SR's claim. I will offer an experiment  to measure for this speed  c +/- V_U on my new paper.

But when we measure the photon's speed, we will find the value c always.

Of course.

(the distance between the player and the ball changes by the speed Vball +/- Vplayer;  these speeds are values according to ground/common reference frame).

Of course, the speed of a baseball is not invariant.

4- Light's velocity is invariant in vacuum/space/LCS.

I don't know what LCS is, but the speed of light is invariant, do we really need to keep saying that?

LCS: Light Coordinate System. Outer space. Most external frame that contains the universe.

[/quote]

[Bobolink]

If your initial aim is to measure the relative speed according to local place (that is a mechanical habit) you label the result as local relative; if you want to measure universal speed and if you set the experiment for this, you label the result as universal speed.

I don't know what you are talking about.  The speed of light is always c.

The light velocity measurements give the same value for every directions; that is isotropic. So, we can measure universal speed not local speed (or the increasing speed of the distance).

If you want to call isotopic , that's up to you.  I don't know what the 'increasing speed of distance' is.I

It is SR's claim.

It is more than a claim, it is part of a robust theory.

I will offer an experiment  to measure for this speed  c +/- VU on my new paper.

Then you have your work cut out for you, good luck.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

I don't know what the 'increasing speed of distance' is

let's remember lycee physics:

A car accelerates by applying force to the road. The distance between the starting point and the car always increases with the car speed. This speed of the car is called "exact/genuine relative".

The distance between two moving cars on the same road changes with the speed of V_R = Va +/- Vb. If one of the cars is given a reference role, the relative speed of the other is considered VR. These two cars do not apply force to each other for this speed. This kind of relativity is called "hypothetical / so-called /pseudo relativity".

 The light/photon does not apply a power to its source. It travels on electro-magnetic cycle bed.

Which one is the relativity type of the photon ?

[Kryptid]

This speed of the car is called "exact/genuine relative".

This kind of relativity is called "hypothetical / so-called /pseudo relativity"

Those sound like terms you made up. Can you provide us with a link to a reputable source that speaks of them (in other words, a source other than yourself or a crank source?).

In reality, there is no difference between those two "types" of relativity that you mention. Relative speed is relative speed. Whether those velocities are caused by a force or not is irrelevant. A car travelling at 60 kilometers per hour is the same as an asteroid floating through space at 60 kilometers per hour. Just because the car has to expend energy to produce that motion doesn't somehow change how relativity affects it.

It travels on electro-magnetic cycle bed.

This also sounds like a term you made up.

Which one is the relativity type of the photon ?

They are the same, so it's a pointless question.

[Bobolink]

A car accelerates by applying force to the road.

Correct.

The distance between the starting point and the car always increases with the car speed.

Correct, v/t = d.

This speed of the car is called "exact/genuine relative".

That's what you call it for some reason.  I would just call that speed, it is implicit that the speed is relative to the ground.

The distance between two moving cars on the same road changes with the speed of VR = Va +/- Vb.

So the relative velocity between the 2 cars can be found by subtracting the speed of one cars velocity relative to the road from the other.  Seems reasonable.

If one of the cars is given a reference role, the relative speed of the other is considered VR.

There are 3 reference frames you have identified.  They are car1, car2 and the road.
Like you said previously the relative velocity is Vr.

These two cars do not apply force to each other for this speed.

Of course not, why do you feel that needed to be specified?

This kind of relativity is called "hypothetical / so-called /pseudo relativity".

You may call it that, though I have no idea why. 
subtracting velocities from 2 reference frames like this is classical relativity.  To be more accurate you could have used special relativity but the difference in the answers would be miniscule.
 

The light/photon does not apply a power to its source.

Of course not.  I don't even know how such a thing would be possible.

It travels on electro-magnetic cycle bed.

I do not know what that means.  A photons is an oscillating electromagnetic wave.

Which one is the relativity type of the photon ?

I do not understand the question.  A photon is not a valid reference frame.

Edited to correct 'adding velocities' to 'subtracting velocities'

[xersanozgen (OP)]

This speed of the car is called "exact/genuine relative".

This kind of relativity is called "hypothetical / so-called /pseudo relativity"

1-Those sound like terms you made up. Can you provide us with a link to a reputable source that speaks of them (in other words, a source other than yourself or a crank source?).

2- In reality, there is no difference between those two "types" of relativity that you mention. Relative speed is relative speed. Whether those velocities are caused by a force or not is irrelevant. A car travelling at 60 kilometers per hour is the same as an asteroid floating through space at 60 kilometers per hour. Just because the car has to expend energy to produce that motion doesn't somehow change how relativity affects it.

It travels on electro-magnetic cycle bed.

3- also sounds like a term you made up.

Which one is the relativity type of the photon ?

They are the same, so it's a pointless question.
[/quote

1-  The source :SCIENCE    

"If everything was as it seemed, science would not be necessary. Isaac Asimov"


For example, do you think that medical science can proceed with first approaches or shallow analysis?

2- Don't w/s-orry; Lorentz, Poincaré and majority think like you.

I guess  the reason of this case that latin languages has coded with a single word (relativity) about this subject. Perhaps we must use to distinguish the nuance the word "relation/nexus/relevance".

Distinguishing feature is how does the object  obtain its speed. If a car obtains its speed due to the road; its speed is exact/genuine relative value according to this road. A relation/nexus is mentioned for the car and the road.

But if two moving cars are mentioned on the same road and if we give reference role one of them; other one's speed is the value Va +/- Vb according to reference role (each one of these cars does not obtain its speed due to other car; the cars have freedom; there is not any relation, applying power, etc). This type of relativity is hypothetical or pseudo relativity.

There is reciprocity principle  In relativity method. We may choise any one of the cars for reference or relative roles (essence of the flaw of twin paradoks).

3- Are you kidding?

This is Maxwell' definition for the propagation of light.

Please, at first learn ! Isn't here a science forum?

 

[xersanozgen (OP)]

A car accelerates by applying force to the road.

Correct.

The distance between the starting point and the car always increases with the car speed.

Correct, v/t = d.

This speed of the car is called "exact/genuine relative".

That's what you call it for some reason.  I would just call that speed, it is implicit that the speed is relative to the ground.

The distance between two moving cars on the same road changes with the speed of VR = Va +/- Vb.

So the relative velocity between the 2 cars can be found by subtracting the speed of one cars velocity relative to the road from the other.  Seems reasonable.

If one of the cars is given a reference role, the relative speed of the other is considered VR.

There are 3 reference frames you have identified.  They are car1, car2 and the road.
Like you said previously the relative velocity is Vr.

These two cars do not apply force to each other for this speed.

Of course not, why do you feel that needed to be specified?

This kind of relativity is called "hypothetical / so-called /pseudo relativity".

You may call it that, though I have no idea why. 
subtracting velocities from 2 reference frames like this is classical relativity.  To be more accurate you could have used special relativity but the difference in the answers would be miniscule.
 

The light/photon does not apply a power to its source.

Of course not.  I don't even know how such a thing would be possible.

It travels on electro-magnetic cycle bed.

I do not know what that means.  A photons is an oscillating electromagnetic wave.

Which one is the relativity type of the photon ?

I do not understand the question.  A photon is not a valid reference frame.

Edited to correct 'adding velocities' to 'subtracting velocities'

  Never mind. Lorentz and poincare had not known this nuance too.   

The distance between two moving cars on the same road increases/decreases with the speed Va +/- Vb. This knowledge is  clearly forcemajor; any discussion is never necessary.

The relation between a photon and its source is like the relationship of these cars. The reason of photon's speed is not its source. The distance of the photon and its source increases with the speed c +/-Vu; however when we measure the speed of the light; we will find the value c always by the present measurement experiment (double path, etc..)


 

[Kryptid]

1-  The source :SCIENCE

So then give me a link to reputable source where science says this.

Distinguishing feature is how does the object  obtain its speed.

That's irrelevant. Like I said before, relativity works the same for an asteroid as it does for a car.

3- Are you kidding?

This is Maxwell' definition for the propagation of light.

All right then, let me see you support that claim by linking me to a reputable source that uses the term "electro-magnetic cycle bed".

[xersanozgen (OP)]

1-  The source :SCIENCE

So then give me a link to reputable source where science says this.

Distinguishing feature is how does the object  obtain its speed.

That's irrelevant. Like I said before, relativity works the same for an asteroid as it does for a car.

3- Are you kidding?

This is Maxwell' definition for the propagation of light.

All right then, let me see you support that claim by linking me to a reputable source that uses the term "electro-magnetic cycle bed".

I prefer to answer the questions for other followers or guests although even the questions are elementary/simply.

However, are you sure for your nature science or technical education? Because you ask  a source or a third person' reference for everything.

 Besides this section is NEW THEORIES. The types of relativity is mine inferences; they are not dry claims; they have transparent arguments; all of them are explained clearly and with different examples. If you cannot analyze and internalize them by your cognitive performance; never mind, please don't  worry; even if the science society accepts the flaws of SR, majority keeps to adopt this theory because of its brillant inferences and time travel.

Karl Popper likens the science to a fish net that its meshes get smaller. Shallow approaches are not science any more.

And I want to repeat: Is this section NEW THEORIES?

[Bobolink]

Never mind. Lorentz and Poincare had not known this nuance too.

You are trying to discredit me by lumping me in with Lorentz and poincare?

The distance between two moving cars on the same road increases/decreases with the speed Va +/- Vb. This knowledge is  clearly forcemajor; any discussion is never necessary.

I know, I agreed, remember?

The relation between a photon and its source is like the relationship of these cars.

No, the speed of light is invariant.  You agreed the speed of light is invariant, why are you now saying it isn't?

The reason of photon's speed is not its source.

How could it ever be possible that a photon's speed was it's source?

The distance of the photon and its source increases with the speed c +/-Vu; however when we measure the speed of the light; we will find the value c always by the present measurement experiment

Please show the math that could make such a thing possible.  Why/how is a photon moving at 1.5c (for instance) measured as moving at c?

So obviously you do not believe that Special and General Relativity are valid.  You are going to need some pretty amazing experimental evidence to sell this whole idea!

[Kryptid]

However, are you sure for your nature science or technical education? Because you ask  a source or a third person' reference for everything.

I ask that for anyone who makes a suspicious claim.

And I want to repeat: Is this section NEW THEORIES?

Yes, but that doesn't give your ideas a free pass from criticism.

[Colin2B]

Never mind. Lorentz and Poincare had not known this nuance too.

You are trying to discredit me by lumping me in with Lorentz and poincare?

I would take it as an accolade. Both Lorentz and Poincare were great thinkers and did accept relativity in the end, they understood more nuances than the OP.
Nuff said.

[Bored chemist]

And I want to repeat: Is this section NEW THEORIES?

Yes. Now you need to find out what a theory is. It's not "some daft ideas I stuck together."

"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results."
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

If your ideas don't pass the test of agreement with observation, they are not a theory.
To come up with a "new theory of relativity", the first thing you need to do is  show that the old theory does not meet experiment and observation.

Until then you do not have a theory.
You have hogwash.