[Origin]

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.

How would that be possible?  How can the light be .5 ls in front of ship and simultaneously be 1 ls ahead of the ship?

[hamdani yusuf]

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.

How would that be possible?  How can the light be .5 ls in front of ship and simultaneously be 1 ls ahead of the ship?

It's like the call for relativity of simultaneity.

[hamdani yusuf]

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...

You don't seem to read much about history of science and scientific progress. Even Wikipedia has some articles covering this. It's just no alternative solution has been successful in explaining various experimental results related to measurement of light speed from various movements of objects.

[Origin]

It's like the call for relativity of simultaneity

I don't know what you mean.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

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.

How would that be possible?  How can the light be .5 ls in front of ship and simultaneously be 1 ls ahead of the ship?

As I said earlier, constant c doesn't undergo the velocity addition - velocity of a moving source doesn't add to constant velocity c. In the inertial frame of stationary observer it's the source, which is moving in relation to light which it emits and not the other way around.

It is possible, since light is here propagating in a non-physical medium (vacuum) that can be stationary in both frames simultaneusly. This wouldn't be possible for sound, which is propagating in a physical medium (e.g. air), that can be stationary in only one inertial frame - so in the difference to light, velocity of sound waves inside a moving plane is being added to the velocity of that plane.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

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.

How would that be possible?  How can the light be .5 ls in front of ship and simultaneously be 1 ls ahead of the ship?

It's like the call for relativity of simultaneity.

Actually in my model, simultaneity remains absolute, as the timeline is being shared between all inertial frames.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

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...

You don't seem to read much about history of science and scientific progress. Even Wikipedia has some articles covering this. It's just no alternative solution has been successful in explaining various experimental results related to measurement of light speed from various movements of objects.

Can you possibly provide some links? In fact I did look for something similar to my own model and I couldn't find anything. If you look at the movies, which I've posted in my previous posts, you'll see that I always try to provide some peer-revieved publications to backup most of my claims, that seem to be rather controversial...

[Origin]

We are having a communication problem here, CrazyScientist.
You said:

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.

This is a problem because velocities are directly added in Galilean relativity, which means the speed of light as seen by the observer at rest should be 1.5c.  In your modified Galilean relativity you implied that the speed of light is not added to the speed of the source.  In fact you said the speed of light will be measured as c by all observers regardless of there inertial frames.  This is a problem  because this is in direct conflict with the Galilean transforms. So what you are saying is the transforms work for all speeds except light speed.  That is not mathematically consistent.

But moving on, in your modified Galilean relativity, you say the at rest observer will see the light pulse moving at c so the wave front will have moved 1 ls in 1 sec so the wavefront will be .5 ls ahead of the ship.

The observers on the ship will see the speed of light as c, so after 1 sec the wavefront will be 1 ls ahead of the ship.

These answers are inconflict.  Why?  Because you cannot arbitrarily change the Galilean transforms to handle certain velocities different from other velocities.

[hamdani yusuf]

Actually in my model, simultaneity remains absolute, as the timeline is being shared between all inertial frames.

If that's the case, then light has a constant speed when measured by the observer. But if there are more than one observers with non-zero relative velocities, which one would measure c?

[hamdani yusuf]

Can you possibly provide some links? In fact I did look for something similar to my own model and I couldn't find anything. If you look at the movies, which I've posted in my previous posts, you'll see that I always try to provide some peer-revieved publications to backup most of my claims, that seem to be rather controversial...

Your first claim was that nobody came out with alternative theory to relativity, not that nobody came out with your theory.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritz_ballistic_theory

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

We are having a communication problem here, CrazyScientist.
You said:

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.

This is a problem because velocities are directly added in Galilean relativity, which means the speed of light as seen by the observer at rest should be 1.5c.  In your modified Galilean relativity you implied that the speed of light is not added to the speed of the source.  In fact you said the speed of light will be measured as c by all observers regardless of there inertial frames.  This is a problem  because this is in direct conflict with the Galilean transforms. So what you are saying is the transforms work for all speeds except light speed.  That is not mathematically consistent.

But moving on, in your modified Galilean relativity, you say the at rest observer will see the light pulse moving at c so the wave front will have moved 1 ls in 1 sec so the wavefront will be .5 ls ahead of the ship.

The observers on the ship will see the speed of light as c, so after 1 sec the wavefront will be 1 ls ahead of the ship.

These answers are inconflict.  Why?  Because you cannot arbitrarily change the Galilean transforms to handle certain velocities different from other velocities.

And why exactly can't I make any modifications of Galilean model, which will allow me to keep the c constant in all inertial frames? So what, if the constant speed of light is in my model treated in a different way and doesn't undergo velocity addition, just like other velocities? What doesn't allow me to make an exception for the exceptional speed of light and maintain it's constant value in all inertial frame?  Who says, that any modifications of existing theories are forbidden, so I must stick in 100% to the existing rules, which obviously won't work in the case of constant c? Shouldn't the goal be to get a model, which is working and not one, which doesn't work, but is in 100% consistent with something, what was written down almost 400 years ago? I don't care, if due to my modifications, this model can't be called anymore as Galilean relativity - I can make up my own name for it (I like: "Unified Relativity" ).

Actually in my model, simultaneity remains absolute, as the timeline is being shared between all inertial frames.

If that's the case, then light has a constant speed when measured by the observer. But if there are more than one observers with non-zero relative velocities, which one would measure c?

All of them Here for example we have 3 observers, where 2 of them have non-zero velocity - and constant c is maintained for all of them...

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Can you possibly provide some links? In fact I did look for something similar to my own model and I couldn't find anything. If you look at the movies, which I've posted in my previous posts, you'll see that I always try to provide some peer-revieved publications to backup most of my claims, that seem to be rather controversial...

Your first claim was that nobody came out with alternative theory to relativity, not that nobody came out with your theory.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritz_ballistic_theory

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

Thanks! I didn't know about the Ritz ballistic theory. However there are almost no similarities beween those models and the one, which I present here - for example my model doesn't require the existence of aether and is based on completely different mechanics.

Although I have to agree, that I've made up a wrong name for this thread - of course, there are some alternatives to SRT... If it wouldn't be required to make names for new threads in form of a question, I would probably come out with a better one - it would probably include the term "Unified Relativity"

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

I still need to add couple things here...

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.

How would that be possible?  How can the light be .5 ls in front of ship and simultaneously be 1 ls ahead of the ship?

First of all, let's just look at Special Relativity, where a single distance in space can have different lenghts for 2 observers simultaneously (lenght contraction), single physical process can take place at different rates at the same time (time dilation), events can happen at different moments of a timeline and at different order or eventually become simultaneous in one frame (relative simultaneity) - and somehow no one doesn't ask, how can it be possible... Obviously no one will ever doubt in any of your claims, if your name is Albert Einstein

However in the difference to those couple examples, which I mentioned above, my claim has in fact an experimentally proven scientific explanation - due to the quantum nature of EM radiation, multiple different states can be superposed in a single wavefunction of light. According to quantum mechanics it is absolutely possible for a single photon, to exist simultaneously 0,5ls in front of a ship and 1ls ahead of that ship as long, as it's existence in those locations remains probable.

In my model logical consistency of constant c is being achieved by describing every emission of light individually for each observer/frame. In this particular case, pulse emitted by the moving space ship will be observed differently by that ship and by the stationary observer (what is allowed by the laws of QM). In SRT each emission of light is being described in relation to all observers simultaneously - and in order to make it work, each observer needs to have his own individual perception of space, just as his own individual timeline with his own individual rate of time flow and his own order of observed events.

Here's what I mean: on the diagram below it can be seen, that in the moment of light emission at t=0, which is marked by the lower arrow, distance between both objects is equal to 3su, however the same impuls appears to reach the incoming object at t=2

SRT treats such result as absolute and explains it by deforming the grid of space-time coordinates in such way, that such situation becomes possible due to space and time being differerent for both inertial frames 

My model deals with such result by stating, that since light cant be measured in one direction, description of constant c in relation to a moving receiver doesn't make sense, as those results can't be in any way practically measured - the only way, to get valid results, is to describe the emitted light indivdually for the inertial frame of a source and the inertial frame of a receiver:

And before someone will ask, how can it be, that in my model emitted photons appear to have 2 different locations in space in the same moment of time, here's the answer: both locations can be superposed in the propability distribution of a light wave. Everything what actually matters in such case, is the act of measurement, which collapses the undetermined probability distribution into a single fully determined and definitive state - and since stationary observer is unable to make a measurement in a frame, which moves in relation to him, the only result, which can be absolute, is the one that is made by an observer in his own inertial frame. If we apply all of this to the scenario, which is presented on the diagrams above, it will become clear, that in the end light pulse emitted 3su away from a receiver will be measured by that receiver in it's own inertial frame 3tu after the emission - and this will be the only absolute result in this particular scenario.

[hamdani yusuf]

All of them  Here for example we have 3 observers, where 2 of them have non-zero velocity - and constant c is maintained for all of them...

So your theory is the same as SRT, which is no longer considered as a new theory.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

All of them  Here for example we have 3 observers, where 2 of them have non-zero velocity - and constant c is maintained for all of them...

So your theory is the same as SRT, which is no longer considered as a new theory.

My theory is "the same" as SRT in the sense that both models are capable to maintain the constant c in relative motion - and this is where the similarities end. You might say as well that ships are the same as planes - as both are capable to transport stuff between continents...

[hamdani yusuf]

My theory is "the same" as SRT in the sense that both models are capable to maintain the constant c in relative motion - and this is where the similarities end. You might say as well that ships are the same as planes - as both are capable to transport stuff between continents...

Do your theory predicts the same results as SRT?  Is there any difference?

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

My theory is "the same" as SRT in the sense that both models are capable to maintain the constant c in relative motion - and this is where the similarities end. You might say as well that ships are the same as planes - as both are capable to transport stuff between continents...

Do your theory predicts the same results as SRT?  Is there any difference?

Don't you know how to read the space-time diagrams? Or maybe you just didn't see no reason to read any of my posts in this thread in which the text has more than 30 characters? Because now I'm not sure, how should I approach your question - should I make a comparisment of diagrams (again) or should I write it down (again)...

So maybe as for now I will answer with this: YES, there are some major differences between both models. For example SRT uses Lorentz transformation of coordinates and Einstein's formula of velocity addition, while my model uses Galilean transformation of coordinates and standard formula of velocity addition - because of this, both models will always predict completely different results... But to give you a better outlook on the differences, I would have to make an essay...

[Bored chemist]

Or maybe you just didn't see no reason to read any of my posts in this thread

On the contrary, I did see no reason to read any of your posts.

[Origin]

First of all, let's just look at Special Relativity, where a single distance in space can have different lenghts for 2 observers simultaneously (lenght contraction), single physical process can take place at different rates at the same time (time dilation), events can happen at different moments of a timeline and at different order or eventually become simultaneous in one frame (relative simultaneity) - and somehow no one doesn't ask, how can it be possible... Obviously no one will ever doubt in any of your claims, if your name is Albert Einstein

It is possible because the theory is mathematically consistent.
Your is not.  For example in your model the following would be true:

.90c + .09c = .99c
.90c + .10c = 1.0c
.90c + .11c = 1.0c

That is not mathematically consistent.  Additionally, the first 2 equations do not match observations in the real world.

You have never adequately addressed my scenario.  You seem to be avoiding the scenario, so maybe this will help me to understand your model better.  Which of the following is true in your model,

1.  The moving space ship sends out a light pulse that they measure as a speed of c.  After 1 second the light has moved 1 light-second.
2.  The moving space ship sends out a light pulse that they measure as a speed of c.  After 1 second the light has moved .5 light-seconds.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Or maybe you just didn't see no reason to read any of my posts in this thread

On the contrary, I did see no reason to read any of your posts.

Of course - there's no such obligation. I don't force you or anyone else to read any of my posts... In my general understanding, people read what other people have to say, when they have the will to do so...  However with with this single comment you've just proved, that for some reason you actually DO read my posts - even if you see no reason in doing so...  Am I the only one, who is able to notice an obvious inconsitency between your words and your actions...?