[xersanozgen (OP)]

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.

I understood that you are unaware of classical/Galilean relativity from your this phrase. Galilean relativity is a method for materials. Where is the SR? :)Have you a technical education really? 

Please ask an physicist's/academician's interpretation for this topic; especially for the types of relativity.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

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.
 

 A single car obtains its speed by the essential help of the road. This speed is  exact/genuine relative according to the road. The effect of the reference frame is a distinguishing feature. On the exact/genuine relativity, the car moves away from starting point with its this relative speed; or its distance increases with its own speed.

 The distance between two moving cars increases or decreases with the speed value V_R = Va +/- Vb; hence, if we consider Galilean relativity method, we have to choice any one of the cars for reference role; and if we isolate the cars, the relative speed of other car is V_R.

These cars obtain their speeds without the effect of other one. Resultant speedis hypothetical value; any one of the cars never goes with this speed value. Therefore this type relationship is "hypothetical relativity". Distinguishing feature is clearly understandable.

The light source only leaves the photon; does not push/throw the photon; and the photon does not apply to its source for its motion. And the source can go to anywhere freely after leaving the photon. The distance between the photon and its source increases/decreases with the speed c +/- V_u value like  two cars case. But if we measure the velocity of light we will find the value c (constant) again.

 

[Kryptid]

I understood that you are unaware of classical/Galilean relativity from your this phrase.

I know what Galilean relativity is. That does not contradict what I said.

Galilean relativity is a method for materials.

And special relativity isn't a method for materials?

Where is the SR?

I don't know what you mean by this question.

[Bobolink]

I understood that you are unaware of classical/Galilean relativity from your this phrase. Galilean relativity is a method for materials. Where is the SR?

That makes no sense.  It may be a language issue but I suspect it is due to a lack of understanding.

If you have a material traveling at relativistic speeds (let's say .5c) you have to use SR transforms, not Galilean transforms to get the correct answers.

[Bobolink]

A single car obtains its speed by the essential help of the road.

That has nothing to do with discussion.

This speed is  exact/genuine relative according to the road. The effect of the reference frame is a distinguishing feature. On the exact/genuine relativity, the car moves away from starting point with its this relative speed; or its distance increases with its own speed.

The speed of the car is relative to the road.

The distance between two moving cars increases or decreases with the speed value VR = Va +/- Vb; hence, if we consider Galilean relativity method, we have to choice any one of the cars for reference role; and if we isolate the cars, the relative speed of other car is VR.

The speed of one cars is relative to the other car.  This relative motion is the exact same concept as the relative motion between the car and the road.

These cars obtain their speeds without the effect of other one.

That has nothing to do with the discussion.

Resultant speedis hypothetical value; any one of the cars never goes with this speed value. Therefore this type relationship is "hypothetical relativity". Distinguishing feature is clearly understandable.

So if I am driving at 50 mph and another car passes me at 200 mph and I stick my arm out the window so the other car hits my arm, is my arm only hypothetically ripped off?

Your big misunderstanding seem to be that you have a belief that there is a preferred frame.  This is a basic error.
You are saying relative velocity between the road and the car is the real velocity, but the relative velocity between 2 cars is not the real velocity.  That is completely wrong.

The light source only leaves the photon; does not push/throw the photon; and the photon does not apply to its source for its motion. And the source can go to anywhere freely after leaving the photon.

Completely irrelevant to relativity.

The distance between the photon and its source increases/decreases with the speed c +/- Vu value like  two cars case.

Absolutely wrong.

Please show mathematically how a photon can move at 1.5c and move at c simultaneously.  Or just show the math that allows a photon to move >c!

[xersanozgen (OP)]

So if I am driving at 50 mph and another car passes me at 200 mph and I stick my arm out the window so the other car hits my arm, is my arm only hypothetically ripped off?

Your big misunderstanding seem to be that you have a belief that there is a preferred frame.  This is a basic error.
You are saying relative velocity between the road and the car is the real velocity, but the relative velocity between 2 cars is not the real velocity.  That is completely wrong.

As if the science forum turned into a political arena. I am perceiving/intuiting political maneuvers (demagogy, consolidation phrases, irrelevant examples, prejudices, etc.). There is no democracy in science and conservatism is antipathic. The misconception that the majority approves approaches to natural reality at the end of the process. Remember the dogmas of majority: the sun revolves around the earth; the world is the center of the universe. etc.

You seem more technical and objectively. Please clearly define your problem about 1.5 c (?); Let me answer you by LCS method.

LCS method: As it is known, special relativity has a starting condition: Uniform moving object can be assigned for the role of inertial frame (Galilei relativity principle). Here, the light provides exactly this definition: the light goes straight and its speed is always constant (even it never need to accelerate). In other words, light deserves the role of reference. On the other hand,  the analyses on common frame  is the gold standard. The combination of these two concepts is the LCS method.  So, assigning most external frame (Light coordinate system) as a common reference frame and realizing the light kinematics's and cosmological analysis accordingly.

[Bored chemist]

There is no democracy in science

Quite right.
The only arbiter is experiment.
Every aspect of general relativity has been tested in every way we can think of, to all the precision we can manage, and it has passed every test.

So, how could your ideas be better?

[Bobolink]

As if the science forum turned into a political arena. I am perceiving/intuiting political maneuvers (demagogy, consolidation phrases, irrelevant examples, prejudices, etc.). There is no democracy in science and conservatism is antipathic. The misconception that the majority approves approaches to natural reality at the end of the process. Remember the dogmas of majority: the sun revolves around the earth; the world is the center of the universe. etc

There is no politics or dogma just evidence based science.

You seem more technical and objectively. Please clearly define your problem about 1.5 c (

My problem is that it violates Special Relativity with no explanation of how that could possibly happen.

In other words, light deserves the role of reference.

That would be a terrible reference!  Think about it.  How fast are you going relative to light?  The answer is zero for all inertial frames.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Quote from: xersanozgen on Yesterday at 18:31:22
In other words, light deserves the role of reference.
That would be a terrible reference!  Think about it.  How fast are you going relative to light?  The answer is zero for all inertial frames.

Quite the contrary.

SR also allows this method. Because the speed of light is the same value according to each frame, hence the outermost / space vacuum / LCS. We have to consider / use universal value (e.g. Vu) of other actor's parameter for scientific integrity.

In the traditional flow, humanity is in the habit of giving to local objects a role of reference. SR could not overcome this habit, and also applied the definition/treatment  of local value to the measured speed of light. However, the measured value is more likely to be the universal speed of light, and if we used in this definition, there will be no hesitation about the accuracy of the process.

Yes we may not know the numerical value of the source's universal speed. However, this case is not a difficulty for theoretical analysis.

LCS method has not a inconsistency/opposition for SR mentality.

And an advantage  of LCS method that the cosmological analysis is possible  (as known, SR never allow this because of non - simultaneity of parameters.):

(https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhyEs..26...49E/abstract)

[Bobolink]

SR also allows this method. Because the speed of light is the same value according to each frame, hence the outermost / space vacuum / LCS. We have to consider / use universal value (e.g. Vu) of other actor's parameter for scientific integrity.
In the traditional flow, humanity is in the habit of giving to local objects a role of reference. SR could not overcome this habit, and also applied the definition/treatment  of local value to the measured speed of light. However, the measured value is more likely to be the universal speed of light, and if we used in this definition, there will be no hesitation about the accuracy of the process.

Yes we may not know the numerical value of the source's universal speed. However, this case is not a difficulty for theoretical analysis.

LCS method has not a inconsistency/opposition for SR mentality.
And an advantage  of LCS method that the cosmological analysis is possible  (as known, SR never allow this because of non - simultaneity of parameters.):

Word salad.

Do the math that shows relativity is wrong and stop the word salad and arm waving.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Word salad.

Troll's phrase

[Bobolink]

Let's just concentrate on one idea.  Let's look at you idea that the speed of light and the speed of the source is additive.

Assume a space ship is traveling towards earth and when it is 10 light seconds from earth it shoots a laser at earth.  You say the laser light is traveling at 1.5c.  That of course means that it will only take 6.666 sec to reach earth.  You also say that this light when measured on earth will be measured as c, not 1.5c.  You have not given any sort of reasonable explanation of why or how this could be possible.
Please explain how that is possible. 

[Bored chemist]

Troll's phrase

Then stop trolling and answer the question.

Do the math that shows relativity is wrong and stop the word salad and arm waving.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Let's just concentrate on one idea.  Let's look at you idea that the speed of light and the speed of the source is additive.

Assume a space ship is traveling towards earth and when it is 10 light seconds from earth it shoots a laser at earth.  You say the laser light is traveling at 1.5c.  That of course means that it will only take 6.666 sec to reach earth.  You also say that this light when measured on earth will be measured as c, not 1.5c.  You have not given any sort of reasonable explanation of why or how this could be possible.
Please explain how that is possible. 

Let me explain it very simply/transparently:

The  surface of our paper or monitor screen is LCS (Fig. 1). At the moment of Tı (when the intermediate distance is 10 c, the photon will arrive to the observer on the world after 6.66 seconds, because when the photon is approaching to the world, the world is also approaching the photon with a speed of 0.5 c according to LCS. The eye contact with the photon will realize at 6.66666 seconds. 

Although the light source goes to the opposite direction (- x) of the photo (Fig. 2), the distance between the photon released from the light source on the earth and its source increases with the speed of c + Vu; However the photon velocity will always be found as c by the present measurement method/experiment. The path that the photon scans personally (through every point) is AB. The photon never scans the AD pathway. Naturally, path / duration = c. The emitting point of the  photon is marked on LCS.


If you cannot distinguish  and understand technical explanations  by these figures, you are as clever as Einstein.

If you can understand and confirm these explanations, you are more clever than  Einstein.

If these explanations make you angry and upset, it means you are a chauvinist or militant / troll for SR.
 

 I lost my motivation to share in this forum. I am not sure of the technical training of some of my interlocutors; because we had understanding crises on elementary issues. They also could not manage the crisis and exhibited troll behavior becouse of  prioritizing their own catharsis. As a result, this asymmetrical attitudes cannot be maintained. It is enough for me that they get the note that there are those who object to SR.

Followers/guests have to register to see/download the figures

[Bored chemist]

because we had understanding crises on elementary issues.

Yes, that's because you don't understand the basics.

There is no democracy in science

Quite right.
The only arbiter is experiment.
Every aspect of general relativity has been tested in every way we can think of, to all the precision we can manage, and it has passed every test.

So, how could your ideas be better?

[Bobolink]

The  surface of our paper or monitor screen is LCS (Fig. 1). At the moment of Tı (when the intermediate distance is 10 c, the photon will arrive to the observer on the world after 6.66 seconds, because when the photon is approaching to the world, the world is also approaching the photon with a speed of 0.5 c according to LCS. The eye contact with the photon will realize at 6.66666 seconds.

I had said the rocket was going .5c, but you prefer to use the frame of the rocket and say the earth is moving towards a motionless rocket at .5c that is fine.  Either way you agree that the photon takes 6.6666 sec to travel 10 light sec between the earth and the rocket so the speed is 1.5c.  On earth I would measure light at a speed of 1.5c, which is something that has never been seen and completely violates relativity.  You state we would measure the speed at c, but that makes no sense and I don't see any explanation of why we would measure the speed at c.
In figure 1 for picture T2 you have the photon speed of c.  Underneath that you written 2/3c, what is that there for?

Although the light source goes to the opposite direction (- x) of the photo (Fig. 2), the distance between the photon released from the light source on the earth and its source increases with the speed of c + Vu; 

I think you made an error, you said, "distance between the photon released from the light source on the earth and its source" the distance between the source and the source is 0, isn't it?
I do not really understand fig. 2.  Is the light source moving away from the earth at c?

However the photon velocity will always be found as c by the present measurement method/experiment.

You keep saying that but you don't say why you think that.  You clearly state the speed of the photon relative to earth is 1.5c but when we measure that speed, for some reason it is 1c!  Why?

I lost my motivation to share in this forum. I am not sure of the technical training of some of my interlocutors; because we had understanding crises on elementary issues. They also could not manage the crisis and exhibited troll behavior becouse of  prioritizing their own catharsis. As a result, this asymmetrical attitudes cannot be maintained. It is enough for me that they get the note that there are those who object to SR.

I am an engineer, I took 3 semesters of calculus based physics, I am not even remotely as smart as Einstein.  I am not angry, I'm not even annoyed, I just don't see where you have explained why a photon traveling at 1.5c relative to the earth would be measured at only 1c on earth.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Assume a space ship is traveling towards earth and when it is 10 light seconds from earth it shoots a laser at earth. You say the laser light is traveling at 1.5c.  That of course means that it will only take 6.666 sec to reach earth.  You also say that this light when measured on earth will be measured as c, not 1.5c.  You have not given any sort of reasonable explanation of why or how this could be possible.
Please explain how that is possible.

You say the laser light is traveling at 1.5c. This claim never be mine. Light or a photon always travel with the value c on LCS/space. According to LCS mentality the emitting point of a photon is marked on LCS/space.

However SR has a similar claim as yours. You can see in Lorentz transformations:

If the speed of rocket is 0.5 c; the travelling time of the photon for the distance 10c :

to be continued : SR mentality claims that the photon always moves away from its source by the speed c. Thus:

Time dilation:  t' = 10  / ( 1- v²/c2)^-1/2 = 8.66 second.

The SR says the photon uses 8.66 rocketsecond for  10 c way.

[Bobolink]

You say the laser light is traveling at 1.5c. This claim never be mine.

Yes, you did claim that!
You said:
At the moment of Tı (when the intermediate distance is 10 [light sec], the photon will arrive to the observer on the world after 6.66 seconds, because when the photon is approaching to the world, the world is also approaching the photon with a speed of 0.5 c according to LCS.
10 light sec/6.666 sec = 1.5c.  That is what you are saying whether you know it or not.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

You say the laser light is traveling at 1.5c. This claim never be mine.

Yes, you did claim that!
You said:
At the moment of Tı (when the intermediate distance is 10 [light sec], the photon will arrive to the observer on the world after 6.66 seconds, because when the photon is approaching to the world, the world is also approaching the photon with a speed of 0.5 c according to LCS.
10 light sec/6.666 sec = 1.5c.  That is what you are saying whether you knew it or not.

We may think that: The 33.3 % of  the distance is  traveled by the Earth/observer. While the photon comes toward to the Earth, the Earth also approaches to the photon. The photon that  6.6666 c of the way with its constant velocity c.  Please think the process on four dimensions. The Earth is not motionless. While the actors travels the intermediate distance decreasing  and the meeting is realized at 6.6666 second. It does not mean that the photon scans the way of 10 c for the time 6.666 second. All of the event and math is logic.

But SR claims that the photon uses 8.66 rocketsecond for the 10 c way (please look at my former message for math.

[Bored chemist]

But SR claims that the photon uses 8.66 rocketsecond for the 10 c way

In every test, relativity (SR or GR as appropriate) gets the right answer.
So if you are saying your idea gives a different answer, then you are saying your idea is wrong