[CrazyScientist (OP)]

I believe that the correct answer to my question is "YES" and I would like to show you here, that it is actually possible to explain the constant speed of light using the classical model of Galilean relativity. All what I'm asking you for, is to let me know, if my claims are consistent with our current knowledge of this subject.

There's one main reason for the SRT to exist - it was created as an extension to Galilean relativity, after the speed of light was proven to be constant in vacuum. Apparently theoretical physicsts of that time couldn't figure out, how to incorporate the constant value of velocity c in the classical model of relative motion. Einstein used this opportunity, to come out with an alterntive theory of relativity, which he created with the sole purpose to combine the constant velocity of light with the relative motion of physical objects at velocities lower than c. And although both theories are completely inconsistent with each other, physicsts made a compromise and decided to use Galilean model in scenarios, where velocities of relative motion are much lower than the constant velocity c (so basically to deal with 95% of every day situations) and to use the Einstein's model, when objects are moving at relative velocities, that are high enough, to be described in relation to constant velocity c.

Obviously theoretical physicists aren't bothered too much by the fact, that both models of relativity give us results, that are contradicting each other, since in the last 100 years no one didn't try to look for any other solution to the problem of constant c in relative motion - no one except me, but since I'm not a professional physicist, it probably doesn't count...

I think, that the best way to do it, will be to solve some of the most basic scenarios using both Einstein's and Galilean models of relativity - scenario, which is presented here was one of the first ones, that landed on my virtual workbench.

Here we have 2 objects, which are incoming towards each other at a relative velocity v=0,5c: A (red line) and B (blue line). A and B are exact copies of eachother and in this scenario can be treated at the same time as: a source of light, a sensor and a perfect mirror: Now let's say that both objects emit a single pulse of light and that in the rest frame of object A, both emissions take place simultaneously at t=0, when distance between both objects is equal to 3su (space units). The goal of this simple scenario is to compare timelines of all particular events as they are observed in the frames of A and B from the moment of light emission (at t=0 for A) up until both objects meet each other in a single point of 1D space (at t=6 for A).

GALILEAN RELATIVITY:

In classical relativity, in order to get a space-time diagram for the rest frame of a moving object, we have to modify the grid of space-time coordinates from the rest frame of a stationary observer - in relativity such operation is known as boosting. Since Galilean relativity is rooted deeply in the standard Newtonian mechanics, boosting is here based on the well known formula of velocity addition/subtraction.

Rest frame of A:

Rest frame of B:

According to the classical theory of relative motion, if for a stationary object A, second object is incoming towards it at relative veloctity v=0,5c, then for stationary object B, object A is incoming towards it at the same speed (0,5c), but in opposite direction. On the diagram above we can see that everything, what happens for A happens exactly in the same way for B. Simultaneity of events, just as all distances in space and all intervals of time remain exactly the same in both frames. The only difference here, is the opposite direction of relative motion - but since it doesn't affect any of the processes observed in both rest frames of A and B, it can be for now ignored.

Such transformation of coordinates has couple important consequences, which I will discuss soon enough. However as for now, I will point out 3 most important aspects of the results, which are predicted by classical model of relative motion:

A) If in the rest frame of A, simultaneous emissions of light take place at t=0, when the distance to incoming object B is equal to 3su, then in the rest frame of B those emissions will also happen simultaneously at t=0, when distance to incoming object A is equal to 3su

B) Since at the moment of light emission distance between A and B is in both frames equal to 3su and all photons are moving at a constant velocity c=1su/1tu, in both cases light emitted by the incoming object, will reach the second object 3tu after the simultaneous emission.

C) And finally, when both objects will meet each other in one point of 1D space (t=6), both of them will agree, that simultaneous emissions of light took place 6tu earlier (at t=0).

SPECIAL RELATIVITY:

In the difference to Galilean relativity, where boosting of space-time coordinates is based on the standard formula of velocity addition/subtraction, boost of coordinates in Special Relativity (SRT) is based on Lorentz transformation (LT). Because of this difference, SRT gives us predictions, that are completely inconsitent with the classical theory of relative motion.

Rest frame of A:

Rest frame of B:

According to the predictions of SRT
A) If in the rest frame of A, simultaneous emissions of light take place at t=0, when the distance to incoming object B is equal to 3su, then in the rest frame of B those emissions won't be simultaneous anymore - emission from the incoming object A is here taking place ~1,8tu earlier, than the emission from stationary object B, while the distance to A is diferent than 3su during both emissions (around 3,4su during in the moment of first emission at t=-1,8 and around 2,6su in the moment of second emission at t=0)

B) In the rest frame of B light emitted by the incoming object A will be observed by B around 1,8tu after it's own emission at t=0, while in the rest frame of object A, light emitted by the incoming object B will be observed by A exactly 3tu after it's own emission at t=0.

C) And finally, when both objects will meet with each other in one point of 1D space, they will completely disagree as for the order of observed events, durations of time intervals between those particular events and all the distances in space which were passed by both of them during those time intervals. In the rest frame of object A, initial pulses of light are emitted by A and B simultaneously at t=0 and are observed in the second frame 3tu later (at t=3), then another 3tu later (at t=6) both object meet each other in one point of 1D space. However in the rest frame of object B first pulse is being emitted by the incoming object A at t=-1,8, then the stationary object B emits it's own pulse at t=0 (around 1,8tu later), observes light emitted by A at around t=1,8 and meets with object A in one point of 1D space at around t=5,2

BRAKING DOWN THE SRT:

Since at one moment of time objects A and B are crossing one point in 1D space, there's nothing, what wouldn't allow them to compare their own outcomes of the process, which they took part in - they can for example see, what was the duration of time since the moment of their own light emissions at t=0 up until the moment, when both objects meet each other in 1D space - and then it will turn out, that while for object A this period of time is equal to 6tu, for B both objects meet each other in space only 5,2tu after it's own emission of light at t=0. In shortcut, time is flowing slower for B, than for A - and as most of you probably know, such relativistic effect, is known as "time dilation"

According to Wikipedia:
Time dilation caused by a relative velocity: Special relativity indicates that, for an observer in an inertial frame of reference, a clock that is moving relative to them will be measured to tick slower than a clock that is at rest in their frame of reference. This case is sometimes called special relativistic time dilation. The faster the relative velocity, the greater the time dilation between one another, with the rate of time reaching zero as one approaches the speed of light

All of this means, that time is flowing physically slower for B, than for A and when both objects will meet in space after the initial emission of light at t=0, object A will be older, than identical object B by 0,8tu, only because I started to describe this scenario with a frame, where B moves at v=0,5c in relation to stationary A - and somehow the apparent non-intrinsic velocity of object B in relation to object A causes an absolutely physical and definitive change in the rate of time flow, as it is experienced by object B - and so it becomes possible for someone, who lives in the inertial frame of A, to live 20% longer simply by "jumping" to the frame of B, which is moving at v=0,5c in relation to him.

I don't know how it's possible, but it is now more than 100 years, since the day, when in the beginning of XX century Einstein came out with the idea of time dilation - and there's still no one, who would be able to notice, that the concept of time dilation due to relative velocity has quite a lot of issues - and the most obvious one comes from the well known fact, that relative velocity depends completely on the DIRECTION of relative motion.

You don't have to be a genius of theoretical physics to know, that if 2 Frames of A and B are moving at equal velocities of v=0,5c in relation a stationary observer C, then frames A and B can be moving at velocity of 0,9c in relation to each other, if both are moving in opposite directions, but they can as well remain completely stationary towards each other, if both are moving in the same direction - so how the time can be flowing slower in the frame, which is moving at 0,9c, than in a frame that is stationary? It would mean, that we would be able to live a longer life by driving on the wrong side of a highway - since in relation to my car, other cars are moving much faster, if we are moving in opposite directions...

And how SRT deals with this problem? It simply states, that since A and B are in fact moving at v=0,5c in relation to a stationary observer C, in both frames of A and B, time is actually flowing at the same rate, which is slower than the rate of time flow in the rest frame of C. Very smart... Only now the rest frame of C is somehow much more stationary, than the rest frames of A and B, while the relative velocity of v=0,5c is somehow faster for A and B in relation to C, than for C in relation to A and B.
   
And things will get even worse, if we summarize all of this and try to make couple simple conclusions::

1. All frames that remain in relative motion towards each other have here their own specific rates of time flow, which depend on their velocity in relation to both: the constant velocity of c and a single frame, which was initally predefined as stationary towards all other frames.
2. Observers, which are moving in relation to eachother are now able to learn, what is their own velocity in relation to the constant velocity c, by sychronizing their clocks with one of the moving frames and comparing the rates of their own aging processes with other observers - the slower an observer is aging compared to other observers, the faster is his motion in relation to constant c, while observer with the fastest rate of aging process is the one, which from all moving frames, is the most stationary one.

If you don't see any problem here, you should probably go back to school and learn, what are the main postulates of relativity and how points 1. and 2. brutally violate 90% of them...

COUPLE ADVANTAGES OF GALILEAN MODEL OVER SRT:

In the difference to SRT, in the classical theory of relative motion, it is possible to switch freely between rest frames of the moving objects or to reverse the orientation in their emitter/sensor relation at any given moment of the timeline and it won't make no difference in the final result, except the direction of motion - what means, that in the Galilean model equivalence of inertia is in every case fully maintained, just as it is required in the main postulates of relativity.

in Galilean relativity transformations of space-time coordinates are fully symmetrical, so it doesn't actually matter, which object is considered as the stationary one and which one is moving in relation to it. If object B is moving at v=0,5c in relation to stationary object A, then object A is moving at v=0,5c in relation to stationary object B, while all processes are observed in the same way in their own respective rest frames (except the direction of their relative motion).

Objects, which participate in a single physical process will always experience this process in the same way - no matter how fast or slow those objects will move in relation to eachother, they will always share the same universal timeline, where all events take place in a specific order, which remains valid in all frames, while simultaneity of events is absolute.

CONSTANT C IN THE GALILEAN MODEL OF RELATIVE MOTION

Before I will proceed with my explanations, I will compare once more the results obtained from both models:

initial frame of object A

Rest frame of B as it is predicted in Einstein's Special Relativity:

rest frame of object B, as it is predicted in Galilean relativity

As you can see on the images above, resuts predicted by the Galilean model appear to be just as (or even more) scientifically probable, as results predicted by SRT  There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the scenario, as it is presented on the last diagram. If you see anything, what makes it invalid, please let me know in a comment below.

By using the classical boost of coordinates we get a timeline of events, which is valid in all frames - impulse of light is being emitted here at t=0, when distance between both objects is equal to 3su (space units). Then at t=3 this impulse reaches the stationary sensor. And finally, 3tu later (at t=6) sensor and the source of light cross one point of 1D space.

But to make my model of relativity fully operational I will still need to deal with one tiny detail. Someone who is perceptive enough should be able to notice couple inconsistencies between the timeline of a rest frame and the timeline of a frame in relative motion. Properly defined equivalence of inertia should allow us, to reverse the orientation of the source-sensor relation at any given moment of a timeline, without causing any definitive changes in the observed timeline.

Problem is, that on the diagrams obtained from Galilean model, it can be seen that light, which is being emitted at t=0 by the incoming source located 3su away from the stationary sensor, is reaching that sensor exactly 3tu after emission (at t=3) - however at the same time light, which was emitted at t=0 by a stationary source appears to reach the incoming sensor at t=2 (so, 1tu earlier, than for light emitted by moving source and recieved by stationary sensor). Although in this particular scenario it doesn't make a crucial difference, it might become significant in more sophistiated scenarios

We can easily guess, that such result can't be in any way valid. Since light propagates in vacuum at a constant velocity of 1su/1tu, which is independent from the velocity of it's source, pulse of light emitted 3su from a sensor, will always reach that sensor 3tu after it's emission - and this has to be true in any case of relative motion.

In shortcut, pulse of light will in this case reach the incoming frame at t=3 - even if in the rest frame of a source, it will appear to reach the incoming sensor at t=2. And now the question is: is it possible, to represent the actual timeline of events, as they are observed by the incoming sensor on the space-time diagram, which represents the rest frame of a stationary light source?

Of course - and It can be done quite easily. All what is needed, is the knowledge about a well known fact regarding the speed of light - I'm talking about the fact, that even in the theory there's no practical way to measure the velocity of a photon that moves only in one direction. It is a well established truth, that speed of light is measurable only in a two-way (or more) motion path en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light

And now I will use this knowledge to make something, what is completely unthinkable in theoretical physics - I will boost the entire cone of light together with the world line of a moving observer. And since in Galilean relativity transformation of coordinates is symmetrical, I should should be able, to perform such operation on both space-time diagrams (boosted light cone is marked in green color):

I'm sure, that most of theoretical physicists will now tell, that I just broke the universal constancy of c, which has to be the same in all frames - while on those diagrams, light seems to propagate at different velocity for the frame of a moving object. However constant velocity of c in relation to a stationary observer. is here compltely maintained.  What is not maintained, is the constant velocity of light in relation to a moving observer - but since speed of light can't be measured in one direction, boosting the liight cone doesn't in fact break the constancy of c, as long as it is maintained in a two-way motion.

So, let us see then, if constant velocity of c is in fact maintained for every two-directional path of motion for the boosted light cone:

And now it should be clear, that in both frames constant velocity of c is in any case maintained for each 2-directional motion. Light emitted at t=0 by a source placed 3su away from a sensor, will reach that sensor at t=3 and get back to the source A at t=4 - no matter, which frame is stationary and which ne is moving in relation to it.

It seems, that the results predicted by my model of relativity not only make much more sense, than the results predicted by SRT, but are as well fully consistent with everything, what is know about the constant speed of light. If you know a better way of solving this simple scenario, please let my know in a comment.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

important notes:
- To make things more simple, I'm using here the universal units of space and time (su - space unit) and (tu - time unit), which are derived from the constant velocity of light in vacuum c equal to 1su/1tu - light propagates through 1 unit of space during 1 unit of time.
- All the diagrams presented above were made with an interactive tool from this site: ibises.org.uk/Minkowski.html
- For some reason I'm unable to paste any kind of link, so I've placed different symbols instead of dots in the adress.  Is there any way, to post a liink on this forum? Please help![/i]

[Origin]

Galilean relativity is an approximation of relativity that gives answers that are very close to correct at slow velocities.  The higher the velocities the more incorrect the answers become.  Galilean transforms clearly state that that the speed of light is not invariant, which is incorrect. 
Your second chart, the galilean chart, shows a subject moving at .5c and light pulses moving away from the subject at c as viewed from a rest frame.  This is in error, according to galilean relativity the light rays should be moving at 1.5c.

[Bored chemist]

"Is There Any Alternative to Special Relativity?"
Yes.
However, in every single case where SR has been tested, it gives the right answer.
So the alternative is being wrong.
That's not a thing to brag about on a science page.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Galilean relativity is an approximation of relativity that gives answers that are very close to correct at slow velocities.  The higher the velocities the more incorrect the answers become.  Galilean transforms clearly state that that the speed of light is not invariant, which is incorrect. 
Your second chart, the galilean chart, shows a subject moving at .5c and light pulses moving away from the subject at c as viewed from a rest frame.  This is in error, according to galilean relativity the light rays should be moving at 1.5c.

This is why I've made couple small modifications that allow the incorporation of constant c in the Galilean model of relativity. Since it is experimentally proven, that speed of light in vacuum is constant, then why can't we simply keep it constant in all frames (just as I did in my scenario)? All what has to be done, is to treat the constant c as an exceptional velocity that doesn't undergo velocity addition - and in result we'll end up with the Doppler's effect on light emitted by a moving source.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

"Is There Any Alternative to Special Relativity?"
Yes.
However, in every single case where SR has been tested, it gives the right answer.
So the alternative is being wrong.
That's not a thing to brag about on a science page.

Actually Special Relativity remains completely inconsistent with couple experimentally proven facts in the field of quantum physics - for example quantum entanglement, which points to absolute simultaneity or the idea of matter being a probability distribution, what contradicts the deterministic concept of time.
en♥wikipedia♥org/wiki/Problem_of_time

[Origin]

This is why I've made couple small modifications that allow the incorporation of constant c in the Galilean model of relativity.

You didn't make small changes, you 'blew up' Galilean relativity.

Since it is experimentally proven, that speed of light in vacuum is constant, then why can't we simply keep it constant in all frames (just as I did in my scenario)?

Because that is not logical and is inconsistent with Galilean relativity.

All what has to be done, is to treat the constant c as an exceptional velocity that doesn't undergo velocity addition.

Which would make no sense.  That would mean a if a space ship moving at .5c put out a light pulse, after one second the ship would say the light pulse traveled 1.5 ls.  To someone at rest relative to the ship the pulse would have traveled only 1 ls.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

You didn't make small changes, you 'blew up' Galilean relativity.

Because that is not logical and is inconsistent with Galilean relativity.

Really? Then what for example about velocity of sound waves, which remains constant in each type of medium? It's well known, that If source of sound is moving within a stationary medium (e.g. air) it will create the Doppler's effect. I did the same with the waves of light with one difference - I've forced the medium for light propagation to be stationary in all inertial frames, so in the difference to sound, in the rest frame of a light source it won't be possible to observe the Doppler's effect.

Which would make no sense.  That would mean a if a space ship moving at .5c put out a light pulse, after one second the ship would say the light pulse traveled 1.5 ls.  To someone at rest relative to the ship the pulse would have traveled only 1 ls.

Inside a plane, which moves at mach 0,5 sound waves still propagate at mach 1. The main difference is here the fact, that mach has a constant value in air, which can be stationary only in one inertial frame, while c is constant in vacuum, which can be stationary simultaneously in all inertial frames - this is why Doppler's effect is not symmetrical for emission of sound in relative motion and is fully symmetrical for emission of light in relative motion.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Here's a simple example, which should explain the main principles of maintaining constant c in all frames simultaneusly using the Galilean model of relative motion:

Again we have 2 objects: A (red sphere) and B (blue sphere) which are incoming towards eachother at relative velocity v=0,5c. In the rest frame of A both objects emit simultaneous pulses of light at t=0 when distance between both objects is equal to 4su (space units). Besides the space-time diagram, below you can see the actual animation of this scenario with a frame counter in the bottom - 1tu (time unit) is here equal to 10 frames of animation (so c = 1su/1tu = 1su/10frames)

In the rest frame of A, motion of light source B in relation to the light, which it emits, creates a Doppler's effect. Now, all what has to be done in order to maintain the constant c in the rest frame of B, is to create a copy of spatial coordinates grid and make it move together with object B (sadly I forgot to do it on the animation below and the grid is still moving there together with A). As the result we'll end up with a symmetrical reversal of the Doppler's effect:

And finally, in order to represent both inertial frames on a single space-time diagram, we have to boost the light cone together with the world line of the moving object:

In the end, in both frames light emitted by incoming source will reach stationary object at t=4, even if in the rest frame of a source it will appear, that light reaches the incoming object around t=2,7.

Below is a movie, in which I try to explain the basic principles of my simple theory, which incorporates constant c in the Galilean model of relative motion:

[Origin]

Really? Then what for example about velocity of sound waves, which remains constant in each type of medium? It's well known, that If source of sound is moving within a stationary medium (e.g. air) it will create the Doppler's effect. I did the same with the waves of light with one difference - I've forced the medium for light propagation to be stationary in all inertial frames, so in the difference to sound, in the rest frame of a light source it won't be possible to observe the Doppler's effect.

Inside a plane, which moves at mach 0,5 sound waves still propagate at mach 1. The main difference is here the fact, that mach has a constant value in air, which can be stationary only in one inertial frame, while c is constant in vacuum, which can be stationary simultaneously in all inertial frames - this is why Doppler's effect is not symmetrical for emission of sound in relative motion and is fully symmetrical for emission of light in relative motion.

First of all I think your graphics look very good!
Since the speed of sound I measure depends on my relative motion to the source, it is definitely not an apples to apples comparison.
-------
I still maintain that using your modified Galilean relativity results in unrealistic situations.  As I stated earlier:

That would mean a if a space ship moving at .5c put out a light pulse, after one second the ship would say the light pulse traveled 1.5 ls.  To someone at rest relative to the ship the pulse would have traveled only 1 ls.

Another problem arises because a space ship traveling at .5c could fire a missile at .6c and an observer that was in a rest frame would see the missile moving at 1.1c.

How does your modified Galilean relativity address those concerns?

[jeffreyH]

OK, so relativity is a difficult concept to grasp. It requires effort. Why not put in the effort?

You obviously don't understand it. There are some very good textbooks around that explain special relativity. If you did learn to understand it you would be in a position to ask interesting and relevant questions about it.

If that is not what you are interested in doing then you are trolling. If that's the case then maybe you don't belong on a science forum.

This forum welcomes members that other forums would simply throw out. Please try to appreciate that.

[jeffreyH]

Really? Then what for example about velocity of sound waves, which remains constant in each type of medium? It's well known, that If source of sound is moving within a stationary medium (e.g. air) it will create the Doppler's effect. I did the same with the waves of light with one difference - I've forced the medium for light propagation to be stationary in all inertial frames, so in the difference to sound, in the rest frame of a light source it won't be possible to observe the Doppler's effect.

Inside a plane, which moves at mach 0,5 sound waves still propagate at mach 1. The main difference is here the fact, that mach has a constant value in air, which can be stationary only in one inertial frame, while c is constant in vacuum, which can be stationary simultaneously in all inertial frames - this is why Doppler's effect is not symmetrical for emission of sound in relative motion and is fully symmetrical for emission of light in relative motion.

First of all I think your graphics look very good!
Since the speed of sound I measure depends on my relative motion to the source, it is definitely not an apples to apples comparison.
-------
I still maintain that using your modified Galilean relativity results in unrealistic situations.  As I stated earlier:

That would mean a if a space ship moving at .5c put out a light pulse, after one second the ship would say the light pulse traveled 1.5 ls.  To someone at rest relative to the ship the pulse would have traveled only 1 ls.

Another problem arises because a space ship traveling at .5c could fire a missile at .6c and an observer that was in a rest frame would see the missile moving at 1.1c.

How does your modified Galilean relativity address those concerns?

@Origin Thanks for your valiant efforts at educating the ignorant.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Ok, I admit that I should probably go back to Origin's comment - especially to this part:

All what has to be done, is to treat the constant c as an exceptional velocity that doesn't undergo velocity addition.

Which would make no sense.  That would mean a if a space ship moving at .5c put out a light pulse, after one second the ship would say the light pulse traveled 1.5 ls.  To someone at rest relative to the ship the pulse would have traveled only 1 ls.

There are couple significant consequences of treating c as an exceptional velocity, which remains constant in every inertial frame that probably require some further explanation. I think that the part, which I should focus on, is the apparent inconsistency between constant c and the standard formula of velocity addition...

I could possibly summarize the most important differences between the relative speed of mach (velocity of sound in lower atmosphere) and the absolute speed of warp (velocity of light in a vacuum) by stating that it is possible for a source of sound to outrun the sound waves emitted by it in it's own inertial frame, while in the case of light, waves will always propagate at the same constant speed of c in the inertial frame of their source, no matter how much it will try to catch up or outrun them. However somekind of a practical scenario should give you much better outlook on this subject.

Let's say, that we have 4 different frames:
A - a space station, which remains completely stationary (doom star)
B - a star destroyer, which is moving at v=0,5c in relation to A and is capable of launching tie fighters
C - a tie fighter launched from B at v=0,5c, equipped with a plasma turret loaded with a high energy projectile
D - a high energy projectile, ejected from C at v=0,5c

If I would now treat the speed of light (warp) in the same way as we treat the speed of sound (mach), this is what would be observed onboard the stationary doom star (A):
- star destroyer B, which moves in relation to A with the speed of 0,5c launches a tie fighter C
- relative velocity of C is being added to relative velocity of B (0,5c+0,5c=1c)
- tie fighter C, which is now moving at velocity 1c in relation to stationary doom star A shoots a high energy projectile D at 0,5c
- relative velocity of C is once again added to relative velocity of D (1c+0,5c=1,5c)
- high energy projectile D is now moving at 1,5c in relation to stationary doom star A.

If the constant c is being treated as an exceptional velocity, which is always the same in all directions for all inertial frames and doesn't undergo standard velocity addition, since it makes a constant limit for any other velocity in relative motion, this is what will be observed in the stationary frame of doom star A:
- star destroyer B, which moves in relation to A at half of the constant speed c, launches a tie fighter C at velocity 0,5c
- in the rest frame of B tie fighter C is being accelerated by half of the limiting velocity c, but...
- in the stationary frame of doom star A, star destroyer B is already in half way to reach the limitng velocity c, while the tie fighter C is being accelerated by half of the remaining speed - and half of 0,5c makes 0,25c 
- in the frame of stationary doom star A, tie fighter C is now moving 0,25c faster than the star destroyer B which moves at 0,5c in relation to A - so the velocity of tie fighter C in relation to doom star A is equal to 0,5c+0,25c=0,75c
- tie fighter C shoots a high energy projectile D with half of of the limiting velocity of constant c, but...
- in the frame of star destroyer B, tie fighter C is already moving at half of the limiting velocity c, while high energy projectile D is accelerated by half of the remaining speed (half of 0,5c makes 0,25c) - so in the rest frame of star destroyer B, projectile D is moving at a relative velocity equal to 0,5c+0,25c=0,75c, however...
- in the stationary frame of doom star A, tie fighter C was already moving at a relative velocity equal to 0,75c, while it was shooting a high energy projectile D at a velocity, which makes half of the speed that remains for C to reach the constant limit of c (0,25c) - and half of 0,25c makes 0,125c, so in the end...
- in relation to tie fighter C high energy projectile D is moving at a velocity equal to 0,5c
- in relation to star destroyer B high energy projectile D is moving at a velocity equal to 0,5c+0,25c=0,75c
- in relation to stationary doom star A high energy projectile D is moving at a velocity equal to 0,75c+0,125c=0,875c

If you are smart enough, you should be able to deduce already that in the case of second solution, you can accelerate the projectile D as much as you want, but there's absolutely no way for it to reach at any point the limiting velocity of constant c in any of those 4 frames...

And this is the right moment for you to ask: "But what if B, C or D would start to move in a direction, which is opposite to the projectile, which is already speeding at 0,875c? Shouldn't we add the relative velocities of 2 (or more) frames, if they are moving in opposing directions? If so, then by using the standard formula of velocity addition, it becomes possible for one source of light to move in relation to another light source with velocities that exceed the constant c - isn't that completely against our knowledge regarding the constant nature of c?"

Yes - that's a very good question (sadly as for now I'm the only one, who is asking it ). But the answer is in this case probably much less intriguing... Sorry to dissapoint you, but physical reality won't break apart or collapse back into a singularity due to backward causality in reversed timeline. Even if it might appear, that order of events is actually reversed for frames that are moving at relative velocities, which exceed the constant c, time will still flow normally from the past and into future in every inertial frame - no matter, how fast or slow it will move in relation to any other frame... And although my model of constant c in relative motion gives an answer, that might be quite plain and boring, it's still better than the answer provided by SRT, which states that: "no one knows what might happen, since such scenario is absolutely impossible even in the theory"...

Anyway below is another of my movies, in which I've tried to explain the influence of ftl motion on the proper order of a timeline:

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

First of all I think your graphics look very good!

Thank you very much!

I've tried to adress your objections in my previous post.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

OK, so relativity is a difficult concept to grasp. It requires effort. Why not put in the effort?

You obviously don't understand it. There are some very good textbooks around that explain special relativity. If you did learn to understand it you would be in a position to ask interesting and relevant questions about it.

If that is not what you are interested in doing then you are trolling. If that's the case then maybe you don't belong on a science forum.

This forum welcomes members that other forums would simply throw out. Please try to appreciate that.

I don't know any troll, who woud put so many efforts in his trolling... I dont consider Galilean or Special relativity to be very difficult to grasp - there are many other fields of physics, which are in fact much more sophisticated. I think as well, that in the last 100 years all important questions about SRT were already asked by other people.

All I do here, is to research an alternative way to describe the constant speed of light in relative motion and this category of forum is called "new theories", so  I will really apprecciate any substantive opinion about my non-professional claims.

[Origin]

Ok, I admit that I should probably go back to Origin's comment - especially to this part:
Quote from: Origin on Today at 05:54:08
Quote from: CrazyScientist on Today at 02:42:32
All what has to be done, is to treat the constant c as an exceptional velocity that doesn't undergo velocity addition.
Which would make no sense.  That would mean a if a space ship moving at .5c put out a light pulse, after one second the ship would say the light pulse traveled 1.5 ls.  To someone at rest relative to the ship the pulse would have traveled only 1 ls.

There are couple significant consequences of treating c as an exceptional velocity, which remains constant in every inertial frame that probably require some further explanation. I think that the part, which I should focus on, is the apparent inconsistency between constant c and the standard formula of velocity addition...

I could possibly summarize the most important differences between the relative speed of mach (velocity of sound in lower atmosphere) and the absolute speed of warp (velocity of light in a vacuum) by stating that it is possible for a source of sound to outrun the sound waves emitted by it in it's own inertial frame, while in the case of light, waves will always propagate at the same constant speed of c in the inertial frame of their source, no matter how much it will try to catch up or outrun them. However somekind of a practical scenario should give you much better outlook on this subject.

Let's say, that we have 4 different frames:
A - a space station, which remains completely stationary (doom star)
B - a star destroyer, which is moving at v=0,5c in relation to A and is capable of launching tie fighters
C - a tie fighter launched from B at v=0,5c, equipped with a plasma turret loaded with a high energy projectile
D - a high energy projectile, ejected from C at v=0,5c

If I would now treat the speed of light (warp) in the same way as we treat the speed of sound (mach), this is what would be observed onboard the stationary doom star (A):
- star destroyer B, which moves in relation to A with the speed of 0,5c launches a tie fighter C
- relative velocity of C is being added to relative velocity of B (0,5c+0,5c=1c)
- tie fighter C, which is now moving at velocity 1c in relation to stationary doom star A shoots a high energy projectile D at 0,5c
- relative velocity of C is once again added to relative velocity of D (1c+0,5c=1,5c)
- high energy projectile D is now moving at 1,5c in relation to stationary doom star A.

If the constant c is being treated as an exceptional velocity, which is always the same in all directions for all inertial frames and doesn't undergo standard velocity addition, since it makes a constant limit for any other velocity in relative motion, this is what will be observed in the stationary frame of doom star A:
- star destroyer B, which moves in relation to A at half of the constant speed c, launches a tie fighter C at velocity 0,5c
- in the rest frame of B tie fighter C is being accelerated by half of the limiting velocity c, but...
- in the stationary frame of doom star A, star destroyer B is already in half way to reach the limitng velocity c, while the tie fighter C is being accelerated by half of the remaining speed - and half of 0,5c makes 0,25c 
- in the frame of stationary doom star A, tie fighter C is now moving 0,25c faster than the star destroyer B which moves at 0,5c in relation to A - so the velocity of tie fighter C in relation to doom star A is equal to 0,5c+0,25c=0,75c
- tie fighter C shoots a high energy projectile D with half of of the limiting velocity of constant c, but...
- in the frame of star destroyer B, tie fighter C is already moving at half of the limiting velocity c, while high energy projectile D is accelerated by half of the remaining speed (half of 0,5c makes 0,25c) - so in the rest frame of star destroyer B, projectile D is moving at a relative velocity equal to 0,5c+0,25c=0,75c, however...
- in the stationary frame of doom star A, tie fighter C was already moving at a relative velocity equal to 0,75c, while it was shooting a high energy projectile D at a velocity, which makes half of the speed that remains for C to reach the constant limit of c (0,25c) - and half of 0,25c makes 0,125c, so in the end...
- in relation to tie fighter C high energy projectile D is moving at a velocity equal to 0,5c
- in relation to star destroyer B high energy projectile D is moving at a velocity equal to 0,5c+0,25c=0,75c
- in relation to stationary doom star A high energy projectile D is moving at a velocity equal to 0,75c+0,125c=0,875c

If you are smart enough, you should be able to deduce already that in the case of second solution, you can accelerate the projectile D as much as you want, but there's absolutely no way for it to reach at any point the limiting velocity of constant c in any of those 4 frames...

And this is the right moment for you to ask: "But what if B, C or D would start to move in a direction, which is opposite to the projectile, which is already speeding at 0,875c? Shouldn't we add the relative velocities of 2 (or more) frames, if they are moving in opposing directions? If so, then by using the standard formula of velocity addition, it becomes possible for one source of light to move in relation to another light source with velocities that exceed the constant c - isn't that completely against our knowledge regarding the constant nature of c?"

Yes - that's a very good question (sadly as for now I'm the only one, who is asking it  ). But the answer is in this case probably much less intriguing... Sorry to dissapoint you, but physical reality won't break apart or collapse back into a singularity due to backward causality in reversed timeline. Even if it might appear, that order of events is actually reversed for frames that are moving at relative velocities, which exceed the constant c, time will still flow normally from the past and into future in every inertial frame - no matter, how fast or slow it will move in relation to any other frame... And although my model of constant c in relative motion gives an answer, that might be quite plain and boring, it's still better than the answer provided by SRT, which states that: "no one knows what might happen, since such scenario is absolutely impossible even in the theory"...

Anyway below is another of my movies, in which I've tried to explain the influence of ftl motion on the proper order of a timeline:

That seems somewhat confusing and convoluted to me.
I would just like to know if this following is an accurate account of what could occur in your modified Galilean relativity:
A space ship moving at .5c put out a light pulse, after one second the ship would say the light pulse traveled 1.5 ls.  To someone at rest relative to the ship the pulse would have traveled only 1 ls.
I think this just a yes or no question.

I am not trying to trick or trap you.  To put my cards on the table, I think the answer to my question is yes and I also think that it results a a situation that is not physically possible, but this is your idea so I want to know what your answer is.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

That seems somewhat confusing and convoluted to me.
I would just like to know if this following is an accurate account of what could occur in your modified Galilean relativity:
A space ship moving at .5c put out a light pulse, after one second the ship would say the light pulse traveled 1.5 ls.  To someone at rest relative to the ship the pulse would have traveled only 1 ls.
I think this just a yes or no question.

I am not trying to trick or trap you.  To put my cards on the table, I think the answer to my question is yes and I also think that it results a a situation that is not physically possible, but this is your idea so I want to know what your answer is.

My answer in such case is "NO". If a space ship, which is moving at 0,5c in relation to a stationary observer will emit a light pulse, then according to my modified model of Galilean relativity, after one second this pulse will appear to travel 1ls (i guess it's a light-second?) in the inertial frame of that moving ship, just as it will appear to travel 1ls from the point of emission in the inertial frame of a stationary observer - there can't be no other answer, since in my model constant velocity of c is maintained in all inertial frames and it is the source of light, that moves in relation to light emitted at constant c, not the other way around. However in the rest frame of a stationary observer there will be a displacement of the moving light source in relation to the point of emission, which will remain stationary from this perspective, so after 1 second distance between the pulse and the moving source will be smaller, than 1ls - what will cause the alteration of spatial distances due to Doppler's shift in space and time. I hope, that this answer will dispell all the misunderstandings, that come from my inability to use a proper scientific language and the fact, that I'm not a native english speaker...

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

And just to make it all completely clear: here is a still frame of an animation and a space-time diagram, which show what will happen in such scenario 1tu (I'm using here universal time units instead of seconds) after the emission of light pulse from the center of blue sphere, which moves here at 0,5c in relation to stationary red sphere:

small red marbles/circles mark here the emitted pulse, as it is seen in the inertial frame of stationary observer (big red sphere), while small black marbles/circles mark the same pulse, as it is seen in the inertial frame of moving source (big blue sphere). It should now be clear, that in both inertial frames light pulse traveled in fact 1 unit of space after 1 unit of time since the moment of emission...

[Origin]

Sorry but that answer confused me.  You said the answer is no but then your explanation sounded like yes???
Let's see if we can clear this up.
You said:

If a space ship, which is moving at 0,5c in relation to a stationary observer will emit a light pulse, then according to my modified model of Galilean relativity, after one second this pulse will appear to travel 1ls (i guess it's a light-second?) in the inertial frame of that moving ship, just as it will appear to travel 1ls from the point of emission in the inertial frame of a stationary observer

So that means that 1 sec after the light pulse was emitted the ship will have traveled .5 ls and the light wavefront will be 1 ls ahead of the ship for a total distance of 1.5 from the point of origin, correct?

Yes, "ls" is a light-second, I would suggest using units like seconds and light-seconds in your charts.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Sorry but that answer confused me.  You said the answer is no but then your explanation sounded like yes???
Let's see if we can clear this up.
You said:

If a space ship, which is moving at 0,5c in relation to a stationary observer will emit a light pulse, then according to my modified model of Galilean relativity, after one second this pulse will appear to travel 1ls (i guess it's a light-second?) in the inertial frame of that moving ship, just as it will appear to travel 1ls from the point of emission in the inertial frame of a stationary observer

So that means that 1 sec after the light pulse was emitted the ship will have traveled .5 ls and the light wavefront will be 1 ls ahead of the ship for a total distance of 1.5 from the point of origin, correct?

Yes, ls is a light-second, I would suggest using units like seconds and light-seconds in your charts.

From the perspective of stationary observer, wavefront will travel the distance of 1 from the point of origin and will be 0,5ls ahead of the ship.