[Bored chemist]

You generally say only "NO". 

Because you are generally wrong.

Here is a science forum; do you know?

Yes, I know this is a science forum.
Science is based on evidence.
You don't have any evidence.
So, what are you doing here?

Your position becomes off-side (like singing from a distance).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offside_(association_football)
Not very much like singing.

If you have not any technical arguments. you never be usefull for the subject.

If I raise technical points like this one

No, it can't- what you "measure" is what decision you made about the definition of simultaneous.

And you pretend that I didn't, and repeatedly refuse to address technical questions then it's you who isn't useful.
So, why do you do it?
Why won't you address simple questions about what you have said?
Is it because you know that you have no good answer?

[xersanozgen (OP)]

You generally say only "NO".

Because you are generally wrong.

Here is a science forum; do you know?

Yes, I know this is a science forum.
Science is based on evidence.
You don't have any evidence.
So, what are you doing here?

Your position becomes off-side (like singing from a distance).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offside_(association_football)
Not very much like singing.

If you have not any technical arguments. you never be usefull for the subject.

If I raise technical points like this one

No, it can't- what you "measure" is what decision you made about the definition of simultaneous.

And you pretend that I didn't, and repeatedly refuse to address technical questions then it's you who isn't useful.
So, why do you do it?
Why won't you address simple questions about what you have said?
Is it because you know that you have no good answer?

You can negative with arguments. It is a shame to say "you are wrong" directly; like declaring yourself a god (Can you distinguish and internalize this?). Einstein would not fall into similar error.

A new theory for light kinematics has been shared by me in scientific papers. LCS method analyzes the motions of light and light source (celestial objects) according to a common reference frame (that is most external frame: space vacuum or LCS). This method allows cosmological analyses (Light Kinematics to analyse space-time:

1- Those who have an idea without reading and learning  like you  will get the note "There are those who object to SR".
2- Some one can object for some points and discuss.

Other reactions refer to chauvinism or  psychological problems (please don't understand wrong; like intolerance to new ideas) and they are ignored.

I will not answer  without technical questions.

[Bored chemist]

Einstein would not fall into similar error.

No, He's dead.

You can negative with arguments.

Negative is not a verb.

. It is a shame to say "you are wrong" directly

It is more of a shame to let others suffer from the delusion that you might be right.
I accept that it might be thought lazy of me not to go to the trouble of pointing out, in detail, why you are wrong.
But really, finding out why you are wrong is your job, not mine.
Why don't you do it?

Why don't you check what you have said, and find the errors?

A new theory for light kinematics has been shared by me in scientific papers.

No, because scientific papers have evidence.

Some one can object for some points and discuss.

No
They can't discuss.
You refuse to enter into a discussion.
You just accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being closed minded.

I will not answer  without technical questions.

The evidence, and thus the science, shows that you don't answer at all.

You haven't answered lots of things.
You repeatedly fail to do so. (You just complain that people ask the same question)
I think it's because you know that you are talking nonsense.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 12/05/2020 18:24:26
Never mind moving on from 2.4
xersanozgen
Every single test of relativity has shown that it gets the right answer.

Does your idea give the same answer as relativity?
If it does then it is redundant.
If it does not then it is wrong.

There is no option where your idea is useful.

[Bored chemist]

Oh look!
A question that he refused to answer.

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

Oh look!
another

In my opinion, the experiments (that are offered by me) will solve syncronization problems.

What problems?

and...

They did.
Like me they have found your ideas unclear or counter-factual.
Did you not notice?

and
quote author=Bored chemist link=topic=78751.msg596235#msg596235 date=1584388296]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?[/quote]

and

Why did you post a paper that talks about measuring the one way speed of light, when you know it is impossible?

And

Do you realise the difference between what they say and what you seem to think it says?
Saying "constancy of the one-way speed has not been confirmed"
 is not the same as saying that
"the one way speed is different."

No, it can't- what you "measure" is what decision you made about the definition of simultaneous.

Do you understand that?

[Kryptid]

1- Those who have an idea without reading and learning  like you  will get the note "There are those who object to SR".

There are those who object to the Earth being round as well.

[puppypower]

you will never hear the examples mention the masses of the train and/or stationary person and the energy or fuel used.

Yes you do.
For example, there's the fact that, even though the rest mass of the protons is tiny, the magnets at CERN have to be well bolted down in order to withstand the huge reaction forces generated by forcing those protons into a circular path.

People make nerdy jokes about how fast them must be going- given  how much weight they have gained.

It seems you just haven't been paying attention.

The physics is perfectly well known, and it works. It has passes  every single test known.

If the heavy hits a stationary light,

It is space and we have no fixed reference point to know who is moving at what speed,

So, which is it?

This is possible because we are close to the experiment and we can measure the mass and do a proper energy balance. All we need to do is get the electric bill.

But this type of accurate energy and mass balance does not happen when we look out into space. There we have to assume reference is relative, and the mass affects of SR need to be calculated with relative assumptions, since we cannot measure it directly.

Another way to see this is say we run a second experiment at CERN. This time we will use 1 kg of protons. Half of the protons will be used in the accelerator and the other half will assume a relative reference position on a table in the lunch room.

Since reference is relative. if we use only t. and d, we will pretend the lunch room protons are moving relative to the particles in the collider who are not assume stationary. If the mass affects of SR are indeed relative, then as the relativistic mass in the collider increases; metal creaking, we should see an increase the mass of the protons on the lunch room table, depending on how well we pretend relative motion.

This is not observed, no matter how hard we pretend and try, since the energy balance used creates two different absolute references, with only the collider reference having the real energy needed for real SR mass affects. Pretending to move in relative space and time is not the same as moving in real terms, if we need to create relativistic mass. In space, where we cannot do any proper energy balance, we get to pretend via the spatial illusion affect .

One may ask is dark matter the same as relativistic mass? Since M,D. T and all work together space-time will become curved, locally,  if relativistic mass is present; interconnected in absolute terms to work as a team.  This space-time impact sometimes extending beyond itself as seen at CERN.

[Bored chemist]

This is possible because we are close to the experiment and we can measure the mass and do a proper energy balance. All we need to do is get the electric bill.

But this type of accurate energy and mass balance does not happen when we look out into space. There we have to assume reference is relative, and the mass affects of SR need to be calculated with relative assumptions, since we cannot measure it directly.

Another way to see this is say we run a second experiment at CERN. This time we will use 1 kg of protons. Half of the protons will be used in the accelerator and the other half will assume a relative reference position on a table in the lunch room.

Since reference is relative. if we use only t. and d, we will pretend the lunch room protons are moving relative to the particles in the collider who are not assume stationary. If the mass affects of SR are indeed relative, then as the relativistic mass in the collider increases; metal creaking, we should see an increase the mass of the protons on the lunch room table, depending on how well we pretend relative motion.

This is not observed, no matter how hard we pretend and try, since the energy balance used creates two different absolute references, with only the collider reference having the real energy needed for real SR mass affects. Pretending to move in relative space and time is not the same as moving in real terms, if we need to create relativistic mass. In space, where we cannot do any proper energy balance, we get to pretend via the spatial illusion affect .

One may ask is dark matter the same as relativistic mass? Since M,D. T and all work together space-time will become curved, locally,  if relativistic mass is present; interconnected in absolute terms to work as a team.  This space-time impact sometimes extending beyond itself as seen at CERN.

It seems you are still too confused to explain what you are on about.

Essentially, you have overlooked the fact that position and velocity are relative, but acceleration is not.
The toy they have at CERN is an accelerator so- you can imagine- it accelerates things.

That's why the protons on the table are different from those in the accelerator.

It's a bit like the "twins paradox; it's not a paradox.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

 
In mechanics, the speed of moving away is measured by an experiment in one way ( length / time). And this speed is a relative value according to first reference frame.

We have to measure the relative speed of a photon according to its source with similar method That is, one way measuring. And we can define this value is the increasing speed of the distance between the photon and its source. İf this one way speed is the value c; SR will be correct.


The theory of special relativity considers the measured value ( c ) of light's speed as the photon's speed of moving away from its source. Whereas known mirrored double paths method always the universal speed of the light according to space vacuum (Not its source).

Note: One way measurings never give a value as c. Because they measures  the value  c +/- Vu
 Vu : the universal speed of the place of experiment according to space vacuum.

[Bored chemist]

And we can define this value is the increasing speed of the distance between the photon and its source.

From whose point of view?

One way measurings never give a value as c.

https://xkcd.com/285/

One way measurements of the speed of light are, at best, ill defined.
Do you understand that?

[Kryptid]

More support for special relativity in recent experiment: https://scitechdaily.com/cosmic-cataclysm-allows-precise-test-of-einsteins-theory-of-general-relativity/

[xersanozgen (OP)]

More support for special relativity in recent experiment: https://scitechdaily.com/cosmic-cataclysm-allows-precise-test-of-einsteins-theory-of-general-relativity/

I am following publications about relativity. They usually advocate theory. But a little of them  are concerned with the essence. Inferences and derivative attractions are preferred. The ones that are most successful in defense add complexity (e.g. Optical density) to the event; Confusing is an effective way for anybody who is close to distinguish the postulate error.

The text you propose is not aggressive;  it prefers the soft method and is not insistent for the result.

However, the inaccuracy of the theory is very simple (any complexity  is not mentioned for the first approach): SR accepts/claims  the value c is always increasing speed of the distance between the photon and its source. However, the changing speed of the intermediate distance is c  +/ - Vu; but you find c when you measure it with a mirrored experiment. Because the mirrored device can only measure the  universal speed of  light; not the speed of moving away from its source.

I designed experiments for the speed of moving away from the source of the photon. The person who performed one of these can be a NOBEL candidate. Because he will can find the expanding speed  of universe. 

[Bored chemist]

I designed experiments for the speed of moving away from the source of the photon.

Show us the designs.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

I designed experiments for the speed of moving away from the source of the photon.

Show us the designs.

1- White box is a remote control unit buttons. Connections are obtained with cables (lengths must be equal).
2- Led/light markers are on the monitors of atomic clocks.
3- Atomic clocks are on the same altitude and temperature and isolated from magnetism. (It can be used the corner points of a stadium)
4- Button 1 begins the video cameras.
5- Button 2 shots led/light markers.
6- Button 3 ends the experiment.
7- The moments T i are read on video films for first  or last moments of  light markers.
8- The difference of syncronisation can be interpreted.
9- The image of left clock on right top camera is the moment Tı and the image of right clock on right lower camera is the moment T2.
10- İnverse readings are for confirmation.

Note top cameras are televideocameras (e.g. 150x - 500x).

   Vi

[Bored chemist]

This has been discussed at tedious length before.

Here's one where I was playing Devil's advocate.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70902.msg519296#msg519296

[xersanozgen (OP)]

My experiment solves all problems.

The atomic clocks are placed on the corners of a stadium ( L = 100 meters).

led markers flash at a  same moment  due to cables (their lengths are equal).

Even if the atomic clocks are not syncronized, left and right videos provide correcting possibility.

[Bored chemist]

(their lengths are equal).

From what point of view?
Do you not realise that length is dependent on the observer?

My experiment solves all problems.

No, it just doesn't understand them.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Another experiment:




 This experiment is easier, cheaper and it can be generated with smaller distance.

However, a measurement (that is mirrored and double paths) must be realized for universal speed of light c (top figure).

And the one way experiment  at second figure may be performed. You may prefer  20 - 30 meters for  L.

 

[Bored chemist]

That's an interesting, perhaps even an amusing coincidence.
As an exercise  during the covid lockdown, I'm thinking of doing that experiment (well, one very much like it) .
I'm thinking about measuring the speed of light by timing it as it bounces across the room a couple of times.
I was planning to do something very much like the first experiment you have there with one inconsequential difference, I was going to use a 2 channel oscilloscope and two detectors connected to the 'scope with identical amplifiers and cables. (I wanted to avoid long cables- they are "lossy" and so they distort the signal)

I will drive the laser from a signal generator, for simplicity lets say I can drive the laser to emit a square wave light  amplitude with a frequency of 10 MHz.
I bounce the light round the room a bit, to get a longer time interval to measure- something like 10 metres will give me a delay of about 30 nanoseconds.
So I will get two traces on my oscilloscope screen In principle they will be the same except that one will be delayed by 30 nS.

Do you agree that's what we expect to happen (if I ever set it up)?

It's not something that I'm going to get a Nobel prize for.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

That's an interesting, perhaps even an amusing coincidence.
As an exercise  during the covid lockdown, I'm thinking of doing that experiment (well, one very much like it) .
I'm thinking about measuring the speed of light by timing it as it bounces across the room a couple of times.
I was planning to do something very much like the first experiment you have there with one inconsequential difference, I was going to use a 2 channel oscilloscope and two detectors connected to the 'scope with identical amplifiers and cables. (I wanted to avoid long cables- they are "lossy" and so they distort the signal)

I will drive the laser from a signal generator, for simplicity lets say I can drive the laser to emit a square wave light  amplitude with a frequency of 10 MHz.
I bounce the light round the room a bit, to get a longer time interval to measure- something like 10 metres will give me a delay of about 30 nanoseconds.
So I will get two traces on my oscilloscope screen In principle they will be the same except that one will be delayed by 30 nS.

Do you agree that's what we expect to happen (if I ever set it up)?

It's not something that I'm going to get a Nobel prize for.

Congratulations...

Perform the mirrored experiment first and determine the c value in the atmosphere. It is both an exercise and you determine the margin of error based on 299 792 458 km / sec.

This experiment never gives c value. However, diagram evaluation among the values obtained in different directions will help interpret the gross value of the universe expansion rate (about 60% c).

Good luck.


  General formula for different directions: I [(T₂ - T₁) c - L] I = V_U (T₂ - T₁) I cosØ I


Vu : The relative speed of laboratory according to LCS.


You and me may write an academical paper  about this.

[Bored chemist]

If this (very similar) experiment didn't give the speed of light (in optical fibre) then people would have noticed.
https://www.picotech.com/library/experiment/speed-of-light