[CrazyScientist (OP)]

in the inertial frame of the moving star ship, light pulse propagates at constant c from a point of origin A1 which remains stationary in this frame

in the inertial frame of the moving star ship, light pulse propagates at constant c from a point of origin A1 which remains stationary in this frame

In the inertial frame of stationary observer, light pulse propagates at constant c from a point of origin A2 which remains stationary in this frame.

I'm not sure what the points A1 and A2 are.
It looks this way to me.
The scenario is there is a point on the x axis we will call A.  There is a observer at rest with point A.  A space ship flys by at .5 c along the axis.  Just as he passes point A, a pulse of light is put out.
From the frame of the observer at rest with point A, 1 second after the ship passes point A and the light flashed, the light will have traveled 1 light-second from point A.  The front of the light pulse will be .5 light-seconds ahead of the ship.
From the frame of the ship, 1 second after point A passes the ship and the light flashes the light will have traveled 1 light-second in front of the ship and point A will have moved .5 light-seconds behind the ship.
So from the ship's frame after 1 second the light pulse in front of the ship will be 1.5 light-seconds from point A.  For the observer at rest after 1 second the light front will be 1 light-second in from point A.

There's one main issue with this: point A as an physical object CAN'T exist in both frames simultaneously - it can't be moving and not moving at the same time, to remain stationary in both inertial frames, so your entire eplanation doesn't make any sense. 

In the case of light point of emission is an abstract and non-existent geometrical concept.that CAN exist in 2 forms simultaneously: as stationary A1 for stationary observer and as stationary A2 for moving starship. In the inertial frame of space ship stationary point of emission A2 = light source, while in the inertial frame of stationary stationary point of emission A1 ≠ source of light. Doppler's effect is observed in EVERY case of light emission from a moving source - it will always look like this

And after 1s from moment of emission, distance between source (your star ship) and the wavefront will be ALWAYS shorter, than 1ls. You won't explain this, by using a single stationry point of emission A for both inertial frames - so each inertial frame has it's own individual stationary point of emission A1 and A2

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

tunately a lot of this thread is ending up being little more than hand waving.  I think the problem is your hypotheses has not been formalized enough to make it clear what is going on.
Space diagrams can be made for Galilean relativity and for Special relativity based on the associated transforms.
You have taken Galilean relativity and added to it that the speed of light is constant.  What that means is the Galilean transforms are no longer applicable.  So there must be a new set of transforms that we could use to make a new space time diagram that reflects your modified relativity.

Thanks! That's a valid point and here's the explanation: In my model Galilean transformation is being applied to relative velocities (basically all velocities except c), In the case of light emission transformation is made by associating  every frame with an individual and characteristic point of emission that remains stattionary in every inertial frame. It is then possible to represent 2 or more inertial frames on a single diagram, by applying Gailean transformation to the light cone of a moving source:

It might appear invalid, but constant c is here still fully maintained in two-directional motion - so those results are in 100% theoretically valid.

So, in the end my modifications of the classic Galilean relativity are actually minimal. All I do, is to unassociate the geometrical center of light emission from a moving source of light, while all actual transformation are still being made using the standard formula. To be honest, I feel kinda stupid, to claim this model as "my own", since it's practically the old Galilean model in some 98% ...

[Origin]

There's one main issue with this: point A as an physical object CAN'T exist in both frames simultaneously - it can't be moving and not moving at the same time, to remain stationary in both frames, so your entire eplanation doesn't make any sense.

Are you seriously trying to say that each reference frame is not allowed to say they are at rest and the other frame is moving?

Thanks! That's a valid point and here's the explanation:

I specifically wasn't looking for an explanation, I was looking for some mathematics to show how to draw the space diagram for you version of relativity.

You still need to explain how in the ship's frame the light pulse travels 1.5 light-seconds from point A and in the rest frame the light pulse travels 1 light-second from point A.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

There's one main issue with this: point A as an physical object CAN'T exist in both frames simultaneously - it can't be moving and not moving at the same time, to remain stationary in both frames, so your entire eplanation doesn't make any sense.

Are you seriously trying to say that each reference frame is not allowed to say they are at rest and the other frame is moving?

No. I'm trying to say that each reference frame is not allowed to share the same geometrical center of light emission with anoher frame with non-0 relative velocity

Thanks! That's a valid point and here's the explanation:

I specifically wasn't looking for an explanation, I was looking for some mathematics to show how to draw the space diagram for you version of relativity.

In Galilean relativity you simply add or subtract relative velocities depending on the direction of relative motion - you learn about it in the primary school. And when it comes to transformation of coordinates on a diagram, images below will show you, how to do it for 3 frames in relative motion (1 stationary and 2 incoming from both sides at 0,25c)

You still need to explain how in the ship's frame the light pulse travels 1.5 light-seconds from point A and in the rest frame the light pulse travels 1 light-second from point A.

It doesn't, since there''s no point A.
It travels 1ls from point A1 in the inertial frame of stationary observer
It travels 1ls from point A2 in the inertial frame of space ship

It travels 1,5ls from point A2 in the inertial frame of observer - but point A2 is characteristic to the inertial frame of space ship, so this relation is not valid - and it doesn't suppose to be...

[Origin]

No. I'm trying to say that each reference frame is not allowed to share the same geometrical center of light emission with anoher frame with non-0 relative velocity

I don't know what that means.
If there was something wrong with my analysis please specifically point it out.

In Galilean relativity you simply add or subtract relative velocities depending on the direction of relative motion - you learn about it in the primary school. And when it comes to transformation of coordinates on a diagram, images below will show you, how to do it for 3 frames in relative motion (1 stationary and 2 incoming from both sides at 0,25c)

So I assume you don't have math for the transforms.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

No. I'm trying to say that each reference frame is not allowed to share the same geometrical center of light emission with anoher frame with non-0 relative velocity

I don't know what that means.
If there was something wrong with my analysis please specifically point it out.

Which part of that sentence can't you understand?
Your analysis is wrong because you keep using the same geometrical center of light emission A for both frames and I keep telling you, that it won't work - you need to have 2 different points of emission A1 and A2 for both frames:

If this won't help, then nothing will...

In Galilean relativity you simply add or subtract relative velocities depending on the direction of relative motion - you learn about it in the primary school. And when it comes to transformation of coordinates on a diagram, images below will show you, how to do it for 3 frames in relative motion (1 stationary and 2 incoming from both sides at 0,25c)

So I assume you don't have math for the transforms.

So you assumed, that I didn't finish primary school?
If in an inertial frame vt is the sum of 2 relative velocities v1 and v2 then:
vt=v1+v2 for relative motion in opposite directions
vt=v1-v2 for relative motion in the same direction

And if you want to know all the details here they are:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformation

[Halc]

I was afraid, that I'm dealing here with another "if it's not fully consistent with SRT, then it's wrong" type of a guy

My concern is that you are taking the same two premises as SRT and yet concluding something different. Since all of the conclusions of SRT logically follow from the premises, it means that either you (an admitted unscientific person working only from a ‘humble opinion’) or Einstein did the mathematics or logic incorrectly. Given that you’ve not done any mathemtatics, the case you make for your opinion is pretty weak.

On the other hand, the pictures are top notch. I’m jealous.

Truth is, that you can probably provide just as many (if not more) sources, that will be in a complete disagreement with my sources.

Most of your sources were not wrong, they just were not talking about Quantum Theory, but rather a counterfactual interpretation like Bohmian mechanics which does very much posit faster than light interaction between entangled particles, but any such interpretation also requires effect to precede cause in some cases, and not just a little bit. Bohmian mechanics (like any valid interpretation of QM) makes no predictions, and thus does not qualify as a scientific theory. I was talking about quantum theory, which is empirical physics and thus does make predictions and not unverifiable assertions.

What matters here at most, is for me the fact that in the case of QM and relativity big part of the general theory is still based on speculation and interpretation.

Incorrect. The respective interpretations are not part of the theory. They’re added metaphysical speculations and rightfully are kept separate from the actual theory. If you take a QM class in grad school, they might touch on the various interpretations one day, but the class is not about them and only the theory part is taught and included in the tests. The interpretations are for pop articles which have massive appetites for such things. So do I, which is why I’m on forums instead of doing actual physics work.

I don't know why, but often my controversial claims are taken very personally, only because they don't fit in someone's stable and secure worldview.

They’re rejected for being self inconsistent, not for being controversial. New ideas are a good thing, but not inconsistent ideas.

in most of cases I'm capable of supporting my claims with peer-reviewed sources - and this makes me a very dangerous individual.

If your theory is really different, peer reviewed sources will not support it since it is a new idea. It will make empirical predictions that differ from the competing theory, and that would suggest a falsification test eliminating one theory or the other. Your idea doesn’t even get that far because it isn’t self-consistent. If it involves X is true and X is also not true, then nobody is going to bother testing it. You perhaps don’t see the inconsistency due to your refusal to do the mathematics.

Hard to count, how many times my threads turned into a total war: my person VS all others, only to be in the end closed by a moderator

Some forums have rules about posters that will not see inconsistencies when spelled out clearly by other members. This forum seems more open to letting them carry on so long as it isn’t in the sections reserved for discussion of accepted science.

And when it comes to Einstein's relativity things get even worse - every statement, that stands in contradiction to SRT is treated as the worst kind of blasphemy.

Why does everyone want to attack that theory? It is simple, and follows logically from the simplest premises which are easily verified by experiment. Pick something less established if you want to stand a chance.
How about an argument that the universe is but 6000 years old? There's real money to be made if you can do that convincingly.

98% of people from many different forums treat SRT as somekind of ultimate and undeniable solution to all the problems of modern physics (and there are coulple of them).

Hardly. For one, it is up front about not being a description of the universe since the geometry of the universe isn’t Minkowskian. GR also doesn’t describe the universe, but it at least serves as a set of equations that must be satisfied by any actual description of the universe. The FLRW models are actual descriptions of the universe, but they’re not mentioned in GR theory.

Any attempt to question or (God forbid) disagree with some of it's predictions marks you as "the enemy", that requires a correction of mind or elimination from scientific society.

Not an enemy at all, but I think you’d not be employable as a physicist. They need people capable of working out the implications of new ideas.

And in reality SRT still needs an empirical validation of around 50% of it's theory. Where's DIRECT experimental evidence of length contraction or relative simultaneity?

In the frame in which a muon is stationary in Earth’s upper atmosphere, it is going to decay in about 1.5 usec, enough time for something to move at most 450 meters. The atmosphere is much thicker than that, but in the frame of the muon, it contracts to well under 450 meters enabling Earth (moving at nearly light speed) to reach it before it decays. That’s direct evidence of length contraction. RoS is strictly an abstract relation since it is a coordinate effect.
You are speaking the language of a denier zealot. You’re quoting their (fallacious) arguments. Your ideas seem to be those of your peers rather than your own. You seem more interested in denial than in science. Your credibility falls as you bring up such arguments rather than defending/analyzing your idea.

There's none - while all other avaliable "in-direct evidences" can be interpreted in at least 6 different ways.

That they can.  LET for instance adds a premise of a preferred foliation, but it still maintains real length contraction for a moving thing. In asserting the preferred frame, it at least does away with RoS (and shows that RoS cannot be directly demonstrated). But it has its faults since there is no coordinate system that foliates all of spacetime, and thus no candidate frame exists for the preferred one. That’s a real problem that has to be solved by an interpretation that asserts the existence of such a thing.

I won't even mention about all the unsolvable paradoxes and logical inconsistencies, that still remain unsolved to this day.

That’s good, since it relieves me of having to show why the ‘paradox’ isn’t actually one. The Sagnac one is always a favorite of the deniers, despite the fact that SR predicts its behavior exactly.

You have to be a genius, to base a theory on mechanics, that are theoretically impossible to test.

All theories are impossible to prove. But they’re easy to disprove, and the lack of anybody doing so in a century should tell you something, but it’s apparently something you don’t want to know.

Sure - let's just state: "time stops for you to flow at the speed of light"

That would violate principle of relativity. Time cannot stop for you at any speed since that would define a frame in which the laws of physics were different, and would falsify the first premise. So if you can manage to get time to stop for you, you’ve got your proof.

I want to see, if 2 pairs of protons will keep it's synchronsation of lenght and simultaneity

What do those words mean???

Simply measure the distance between a pair of protons in the direction of their motion in relation to the same distance in a stationary laboratory. You assume, that this distance will get shorter in the moving frame due to lenght contraction - am I right?

You want to take a pair of protons that are distance D apart and apply identical proper acceleration to both of them? They’ll stay D apart at any speed relative to the lab frame. Maybe you’re trying to describe something else.

Maybe for you as a physicist (if you call yourselve as such)

I’m a software engineer who has never taken a class in quantum mechanics or relativity. But I can read.

The only thing that Einstein could do that other could not was to drop his biases when they became questionable. Lorentz could not do it and thus did not publish before Einstein, despite his head start on the same work. The SR work was not particularly a work of genius, and he said that the state of science was ripe for it. Without him, somebody else would have come up with it within a year or so. The GR work was the masterpiece, and even there he asked for and received help with the mathematics in places.

I require a direct epmpirial evidence

No you don’t. The fact that you’re putting out your OP without a scrape of empirical evidence backing it means that this is of no importance to you. You’re lying to yourself now.

I want to see, if the distance between protons REALLY will become shorter for the pair in motion.

The the protons bonded in a helium atom or something?  If not, I see no reason why the distance between them would change after identical acceleration.

There's one main issue with this: point A as an physical object CAN'T exist in both frames simultaneously

This makes no sense. In something like Minkowski spaceitme, all objects exist in all frames. They just have different coordinates in one frame than in another. I’m not so sure you have any idea what a frame of reference is.

[Colin2B]

Your analysis is wrong because you keep using the same geometrical center of light emission A for both frames and I keep telling you, that it won't work - you need to have 2 different points of emission A1 and A2 for both frames:

And if you want to know all the details here they are:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformation

Galilean relativity treats any event as being the same event in all frames, it doesn't postulate 2 different events. So your starting point is not Galilean Relativity.
I must commend you on the degree of thinking you've put into this, but as others have pointed out there are inconsistencies which are nothing to do with SRT.
Have a look at emission theory which should turn up in any search. It has some of the ideas you are chasing and you can see why it was rejected.

It's important to remember that Einstein started his theory due to anomalies in the behaviour of moving electric and magnetic fields. You theory has to also explain these anomalies, some of which rely on length contraction in the wire. See https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Modern_Physics/Book%3A_Spiral_Modern_Physics_(D%27Alessandris)/1%3A_The_Special_Theory_of_Relativity_-_Kinematics/1.8%3A_Length_Contraction_and_the_Magnetic_Force__(Project)

Keep thinking

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Your analysis is wrong because you keep using the same geometrical center of light emission A for both frames and I keep telling you, that it won't work - you need to have 2 different points of emission A1 and A2 for both frames:

And if you want to know all the details here they are:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformation

Galilean relativity treats any event as being the same event in all frames, it doesn't postulate 2 different events. So your starting point is not Galilean Relativity.
I must commend you on the degree of thinking you've put into this, but as others have pointed out there are inconsistencies which are nothing to do with SRT.
Have a look at emission theory which should turn up in any search. It has some of the ideas you are chasing and you can see why it was rejected.

It's important to remember that Einstein started his theory due to anomalies in the behaviour of moving electric and magnetic fields. You theory has to also explain these anomalies, some of which rely on length contraction in the wire. See https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Modern_Physics/Book%3A_Spiral_Modern_Physics_(D%27Alessandris)/1%3A_The_Special_Theory_of_Relativity_-_Kinematics/1.8%3A_Length_Contraction_and_the_Magnetic_Force__(Project)

Keep thinking

Thanks! As I explained in my last replies, my model is using Galilean transformation and standard velocity addition, but it isn't in 100% consistent with Galilean model of relative motion - only with some 98% of it. I figured out, that in order to solve the problem of constant velocity c in relative motion, I should make the most obvious thing and try to fix the mechanics in a previo working model of reative motion. And then I've added those 2% of mine to those mechanics, to makie the emission of light an exceptional event, that thoesn't fully obey the rules of Galilean model, because of the constant nature of c. You can say, that I've made an upgrade of Galilean relativity to version 2.0 by adding a single line in the code of ir's engine

There's nothing revolutionary about my theory - it's the most simple solution to the given problem. Instead building a completely new model of relative motion in space, that completely overturns everything we understand about the nature of reality itself, I've made the constant c to work in the old "boring" model of time and space. You can call such kind of approach as "revolution through improvement" or simply "progress"

Thanks for the information about emission theory - I never heard about it before. But after making a basic research, I can say, that while looking similar to my model, it predicts different results. For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

this:

In 1910 Daniel Frost Comstock and in 1913 Willem de Sitter wrote that for the case of a double-star system seen edge-on, light from the approaching star might be expected to travel faster than light from its receding companion, and overtake it. If the distance was great enough for an approaching star's "fast" signal to catch up with and overtake the "slow" light that it had emitted earlier when it was receding, then the image of the star system should appear completely scrambled.

is completely inconstent with predictions of my model, where light can't overtake sme other light in an inertial frame of observer. Light emitted by moving (and stationary) sources will always approach the observer with the same and conastant velocity c.

What my model predicts in case of double-star system, is a shift of frequency in their orbital cycle due to Doppler effect - frequency of cycles is higher when the double-star system is approaching Earth and lower for a system, that moves away. Again - nothing revolutionary, but experimentally proven...

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Quote from: CrazyScientist on Yesterday at 23:11:18
I was afraid, that I'm dealing here with another "if it's not fully consistent with SRT, then it's wrong" type of a guy
My concern is that you are taking the same two premises as SRT and yet concluding something different. Since all of the conclusions of SRT logically follow from the premises, it means that either you (an admitted unscientific person working only from a ‘humble opinion’) or Einstein did the mathematics or logic incorrectly. Given that you’ve not done any mathemtatics, the case you make for your opinion is pretty weak.

Thanks! You see, I'm a quite lazy person and I don't find any joy in writing down endless strings of mathematical equations, so I do the math only if there's absolutely no other choice and in 98% of all cases I let others to do the math instead of me Up until now I didn't make here nothing that would go beyond the math invented couple centuries ago by Newton and Galileo. Instead wasting the virual space of this forum, to copy-paste equations from wikipedia, I prefer to paste a link to the source and use a visual representation of the same math.

We're living in the time of computers and global communication, what allows us to save a lot of time. What's the point in spending couple days to manually calculate all the Lorentz transformations from my scenarios, if I can use an interactive Minkovski diagram tool from this site: http://ibises.org.uk/Minkowski.html and get the same results in form of a fancy graphic?

However it's not true, that I didn't use any math in this thread - in my previous posts I did try to came up with my own math to represent all velocities used in my model with an actual equation - and I came out with this:

0 =<{...}>= v1 =<{...}< c >{...}>= v2 =<{...}>= 0

You have to admit at least, that it has a nice artistic composition. However I'm still working on it - I want to write it down as velocity vectors v1 and v2 pointing towards c, but I don't know how. Maybe you can help me? I'm sure, that you're good in math...

You need to know as well, that I will give you some taste of my own math in the near future in another thread of mine, where I will try to replace SRT with my model of relative motion in the general theory of all physical forces. I did actually spent couple days with a pen over a piece of paper, to figure out a new form of mass/energy equivalence consistent with my model of relativity. But it's still not the right time to show it, as you still seem to reject the already existing math, which is used here...

Here's my attempt of implementing gravity in my model of relativity...:

On the other hand, the pictures are top notch. I’m jealous.

Thanks a lot! I believe that a proper visual representation explains things better than plain text and mile-long equations. And believe me, that I have much more of this. I'm using a 3D graphics software as a working simulation of my relativity model, where I can just specify all the necessary imput values, while results compute themselves. Many times I've spent an hour just to watch the animations - they look so damn cool Just look at this:

But the real fun will begin when you realize, that besides looking cool, each element of that animation has some concrete purpose and all of this can be used to calculate actual numerical values, that are in 100% valid mathematically - for example frequency rates for frames in relative motion:

And because my computer is making all the necessary calculations instead of me, there won't be a single mistake in the process. This is how I'm doing math...

And it doesn't end here. If you want some real math, here's something for you - a formula, which allows you to calculate the exact value of an relativistic effect, that is predicted only in my model - I deduced it from the famous scenario with moving light clock  and called it "width contraction". Here's how I did it:

Scenario: 3 frames in relative motion - 1 stationary, 1 moving at 0,25c and 1 moving at 0,5c. Each frame contains identical copy of a light clock oriented perpendiculary to the motion of frame

Einstein's solution: let's make the time to flow at different rate in each frame...

My solution: let's add the mising dimension Y for perpendicular motion of photon in the light clock:

1. Y-cut


2. X-cut


3. T-cut


3D:

Then I've used the light cone of every frame to see how distance in dimension Y is being contracted due to Doppler shift :


And then I needed around hour, before I figuret out that in order to calculate it, all I need is the classic Pythagorean formula:


So I've calculated all required values and appilied them to the simulation. Then I did the same for different relative velocities and guess what - it worked each single time:

So here you have it - concrete numerical prediction, that no other model predicts. I'm absolutely sure, that my math is 100% correct...

I will soon reply to the rest, because this comment is already long enough

[Halc]

What's the point in spending couple days to manually calculate all the Lorentz transformations from my scenarios, if I can use an interactive Minkovski diagram tool from this site: http://ibises.org.uk/Minkowski.html and get the same results in form of a fancy graphic?

And bandicam to capture the animations.

By using such a program, you’re essentially utilizing the conclusions of special relativity, so I’m not so sure how you think the tool would be helpful in demonstrating your own model that differs from it, but then you seem to use a different tool to express your own proposal further down.

Here's my attempt of implementing gravity in my model of relativity...:

One cannot use a Minkowski simulation program to demonstrate gravity. Minkowski spacetime by definition does not involve gravity.
You seemingly depict gravity as something that radiates away from an object, at light speed which is wrong. Gravity is expressed with the stress energy tensor which is covariant under frame transformations.

Scenario: 3 frames in relative motion - 1 stationary, 1 moving at 0,25c and 1 moving at 0,5c. Each frame contains identical copy of a light clock oriented perpendiculary to the motion of frame

Not sure what you’re trying to depict.  The green ball seems to be the light clock, but it moves at different speeds for the 3 balls.  The blue ball especially has waves propagating from it at faster than light speed, which makes little sense. Not sure what you’re trying to depict. You need a lot more description with each picture to describe what each of the things (waves, different colored balls) is.
Red and blue balls seem to move at the same speed but opposite directions, which contradicts your description.  The yellow balls track the expanding circles, so I assume that’s light speed, but  some of the black balls outrun the yellow ones, which doesn’t make sense.

My solution: let's add the mising dimension Y for perpendicular motion of photon in the light clock:

3. T-cut

The T-cut shot definitely shows the green balls moving at different speeds.
You then apparently attempt to compensate for this longer path with width contraction. How does this help when the light clock is oriented with the motion instead of perpendicular to it? You seem to have only considered the one case.

Your 'width contraction' suggestion isn't symmetrical.  If I have two identical rings moving towards each other quickly along their mutual axis, in the frame of a given ring, the one ring will be stationary and the other ring will be contracted due to the high speed. The moving one will fit through that stationary one without hitting it. Relative to the frame of the second ring, the first ring will pass through the second. Relative to the frame of the center of mass of the system, the two rings are contracted identically and will collide. That's a different physical result in each of the three abstract reference frames, which violates the principle of relativity. Only one of these scenarios can actually happen, so the laws of physics are different in one frame than in another.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Sorry it took me so long, but I was quite busy during last 2 days and didn't have time to respond to the rest of your comment

Most of your sources were not wrong, they just were not talking about Quantum Theory, but rather a counterfactual interpretation like Bohmian mechanics which does very much posit faster than light interaction between entangled particles, but any such interpretation also requires effect to precede cause in some cases, and not just a little bit. Bohmian mechanics (like any valid interpretation of QM) makes no predictions, and thus does not qualify as a scientific theory. I was talking about quantum theory, which is empirical physics and thus does make predictions and not unverifiable assertions.

Incorrect. The respective interpretations are not part of the theory. They’re added metaphysical speculations and rightfully are kept separate from the actual theory. If you take a QM class in grad school, they might touch on the various interpretations one day, but the class is not about them and only the theory part is taught and included in the tests. The interpretations are for pop articles which have massive appetites for such things. So do I, which is why I’m on forums instead of doing actual physics work.

I completely agree. QM explains HOW observed processes take place, but it doesn't try to explain WHY they take place - this is a subject, where theoretical physicists are free to make their own iterpretations of numerical results, in order to explain, how they are even possible.

They’re rejected for being self inconsistent, not for being controversial. New ideas are a good thing, but not inconsistent ideas.vv

In most of the cases, no one didn't even try to prove any inconsistency in my statetements - in order to do that, they would need to discuss my ideas. I found couple people, who actually wanted to speak with me - like the guy named Markus Hanke. I really appreciate his efforts, epecially since he seems to be quite well educated. On the other hand moderator of this forum (ffdyddydddfff - or smth like that) did everything to shut me up, without any discussion.

If your theory is really different, peer reviewed sources will not support it since it is a new idea. It will make empirical predictions that differ from the competing theory, and that would suggest a falsification test eliminating one theory or the other. Your idea doesn’t even get that far because it isn’t self-consistent. If it involves X is true and X is also not true, then nobody is going to bother testing it. You perhaps don’t see the inconsistency due to your refusal to do the mathematics.

Actually my theory makes couple strictly numerical predictions that can be tested in a laboratory - like the "width contraction", which I've explained in my previous post.

Some forums have rules about posters that will not see inconsistencies when spelled out clearly by other members. This forum seems more open to letting them carry on so long as it isn’t in the sections reserved for discussion of accepted science.

Yes - and I really appreciate it. All I'm looking for are some people willing to discuss my ideas.

Why does everyone want to attack that theory? It is simple, and follows logically from the simplest premises which are easily verified by experiment. Pick something less established if you want to stand a chance.
How about an argument that the universe is but 6000 years old? There's real money to be made if you can do that convincingly.

It's becuse I see too many logical inconsitencies in the SRT and I have an alterntive model, which is capable to solve those inconsistencies. Show me any other theory in physics that leads to so many paradoxes, as SRT does...

Not an enemy at all, but I think you’d not be employable as a physicist. They need people capable of working out the implications of new ideas.

Maybe not for you or couple members of this forum. But if you'd see, what happened on other forums, you wouldn't be so sure anymore - mostly there was a pure hatred directed towards my person.

In the frame in which a muon is stationary in Earth’s upper atmosphere, it is going to decay in about 1.5 usec, enough time for something to move at most 450 meters. The atmosphere is much thicker than that, but in the frame of the muon, it contracts to well under 450 meters enabling Earth (moving at nearly light speed) to reach it before it decays. That’s direct evidence of length contraction. RoS is strictly an abstract relation since it is a coordinate effect.
You are speaking the language of a denier zealot. You’re quoting their (fallacious) arguments. Your ideas seem to be those of your peers rather than your own. You seem more interested in denial than in science. Your credibility falls as you bring up such arguments rather than defending/analyzing your idea.

I know about that - but it's still an INDIRECT evidence that can be interpreted in multiple different ways. I can also give you my own interpretation of this phenomenon

That they can.  LET for instance adds a premise of a preferred foliation, but it still maintains real length contraction for a moving thing. In asserting the preferred frame, it at least does away with RoS (and shows that RoS cannot be directly demonstrated). But it has its faults since there is no coordinate system that foliates all of spacetime, and thus no candidate frame exists for the preferred one. That’s a real problem that has to be solved by an interpretation that asserts the existence of such a thing.

Thanks! Nothing to add here

That’s good, since it relieves me of having to show why the ‘paradox’ isn’t actually one. The Sagnac one is always a favorite of the deniers, despite the fact that SR predicts its behavior exactly.

There's much more than that - for example the "twin paradox", which can't be solved in one-directional motion of a frame and is being explained with additional conditions, like two-directional motion of the moving twin or the influence of gravity on the frame of a stationary twin.

All theories are impossible to prove. But they’re easy to disprove, and the lack of anybody doing so in a century should tell you something, but it’s apparently something you don’t want to know.

I would disagree here. There are multiple thories, that were proved experimentally and became working models - like the MHD, which I've mentioned in my previous post

That would violate principle of relativity. Time cannot stop for you at any speed since that would define a frame in which the laws of physics were different, and would falsify the first premise. So if you can manage to get time to stop for you, you’ve got your proof.

Then congratulations - you just pointed out another logical inconsistency in the SRT
https://phys.org/news/2014-05-does-light-experience-time.html

Quote
I want to see, if 2 pairs of protons will keep it's synchronsation of lenght and simultaneity

What do those words mean???

Simply measure the distance between a pair of protons in the direction of their motion in relation to the same distance in a stationary laboratory. You assume, that this distance will get shorter in the moving frame due to lenght contraction - am I right?

You want to take a pair of protons that are distance D apart and apply identical proper acceleration to both of them? They’ll stay D apart at any speed relative to the lab frame. Maybe you’re trying to describe something else.

Sorry for not being specific enough. What I had in mind, is a scenario with two identical pairs of protons with one pair being accelerated and where each proton in a moving pair is passing next to a proton from stationary pair simultaneously. Yo see - it's better for our communication, when I use fancy images:

According to SRT simultaneity will be lost since distance between protons will get shorter - am I right?

I’m a software engineer who has never taken a class in quantum mechanics or relativity. But I can read.

The only thing that Einstein could do that other could not was to drop his biases when they became questionable. Lorentz could not do it and thus did not publish before Einstein, despite his head start on the same work. The SR work was not particularly a work of genius, and he said that the state of science was ripe for it. Without him, somebody else would have come up with it within a year or so. The GR work was the masterpiece, and even there he asked for and received help with the mathematics in places.

I wouldn't have too much against GRT if it wouldn't be based on SRT, which I personally consider as invalid and completely unnecessary

No you don’t. The fact that you’re putting out your OP without a scrape of empirical evidence backing it means that this is of no importance to you. You’re lying to yourself now.

Yes I do Who said that I can't back up my claims with evidences? I just didn't manage to go o far with my explanations

The the protons bonded in a helium atom or something?  If not, I see no reason why the distance between them would change after identical acceleration.

Sorry once again for misundersanding - only one pair should be accelerated

This makes no sense. In something like Minkowski spaceitme, all objects exist in all frames. They just have different coordinates in one frame than in another. I’m not so sure you have any idea what a frame of reference is.

And once again I wasn't specific. I wanted to say that it can't exist in all frames as a stationary object

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

And bandicam to capture the animations.

By using such a program, you’re essentially utilizing the conclusions of special relativity, so I’m not so sure how you think the tool would be helpful in demonstrating your own model that differs from it, but then you seem to use a different tool to express your own proposal further down.

In order to do that, I would have to use a software that utilizes Lorentz transormation - and the one I'm using doesn't. All results are are in 100% results of Galilean transformtion and standard velocity addition.

One cannot use a Minkowski simulation program to demonstrate gravity. Minkowski spacetime by definition does not involve gravity.
You seemingly depict gravity as something that radiates away from an object, at light speed which is wrong. Gravity is expressed with the stress energy tensor which is covariant under frame transformations.

I don't expect it to be consistent with GR, since it's based on a different model of relative motion. You're close with your conclusions - i my model gravity is a standing wave

Not sure what you’re trying to depict.  The green ball seems to be the light clock, but it moves at different speeds for the 3 balls.  The blue ball especially has waves propagating from it at faster than light speed, which makes little sense. Not sure what you’re trying to depict. You need a lot more description with each picture to describe what each of the things (waves, different colored balls) is.
Red and blue balls seem to move at the same speed but opposite directions, which contradicts your description.  The yellow balls track the expanding circles, so I assume that’s light speed, but  some of the black balls outrun the yellow ones, which doesn’t make sense.

That's true. This is all because this software doesn't represent SRT and photons in moving light clocks exceed the speed of light. SRT solves this issue with time dilation and I solve it by contraction of perpendicular Y dimension due to Doppler shift

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

It is the t-cut view. Clock is moving at 0,75c and calculaton is made 1 time unit after emmision

distance a comes from the constant velocity c, while distance b comes from relative velocity v, diistance c is then the predicted contraction of lenght in Y dimension

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Here's a movie, in which I'm explaining the details and provide some visual evidences

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

I have an idea for a contest between my model and the SRT. Let's see how both models deal with angular velocity and the hypothetical ftl motion that comes from it. What in SRT makes the difference between those 3 relative velocities from the image below?

Let's discuss a scenario in which we use a veeeeeryy long stick to accelerate an object mounted to one end of that stick to the speed of c and beyond using the property of angular motion (velocity grows together with the distance to center of rotation).

If I'm correct SRT will try to deal with this problem using the lenght contraction on angular motion, to prevent the frame on the end of stick to reach the speed of light or exceed it - is this true? If so, we'll end up with a serious problem - number of full rotations around the central point won't be the same for the object at the far end of stick as for someone who's placed much closer to the center of rotation. How SRT deals with that problem? Honestly, I have no idea myself, as all of this came to my mind couple minutes ago. I'll give myself some time, to check if I was right about the lenght contraction and make some research (ask uncle google) and then explain, how my model deals with this subject...

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Yeah, just as I expected - it's one of those questions, without a clear answer and with a huge degree of speculation and interpretation. For some reason it appears, that there aren't too many sources, where this quite obvious issue is being discussed. Link below is the one, which provides some attempts of ansewrs to my question:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/49986/what-are-the-consequences-of-relativistic-angular-velocities

There's also wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_angular_momentum
But I'm probably  too stupid, to understand how the citation below solves my question:

Therefore, the components of angular momentum along the direction of motion do not change, while the components perpendicular do change. By contrast to the transformations of space and time, time and the spatial coordinates change along the direction of motion, while those perpendicular do not.

It seems to deal with momentum, but not with the possible ftl velocity...

Then there are also couple papers, where similar scenario with a rotating disk is being discussed in terms of SRT:

"New Perspectives on the Relativistically Rotating Disk and Non-time-orthogonal Reference Frames"

The rotating disk problem is analyzed on the premise that proper interpretation of experimental evidence leads to the conclusion that the postulates upon which relativity theory is based, particularly the invariance of the speed of light, are not applicable to rotating frames. Different postulates based on the Sagnac experiment are proposed, and from these postulates a new relativistic theory of rotating frames is developed following steps similar to those initially followed by Einstein for rectilinear motion. The resulting theory agrees with all experiments, resolves problems with the traditional approach to the rotating disk, and exhibits both traditionally relativistic and non-relativistic characteristics. Of particular note, no Lorentz contraction exists on the rotating disk circumference, and the disk surface, contrary to the assertions of Einstein and others, is found to be Riemann flat. The variable speed of light found in the Sagnac experiment is then shown to be characteristic of nontime-orthogonal reference frames, of which the rotating frame is one. In addition, the widely accepted postulate for the equivalence of inertial and non-inertial standard rods with zero relative velocity, used liberally in prior rotating disk analyses, is shown to be invalid for such frames. Further, the new theory stands alone in correctly predicting what was heretofore considered a ”spurious” non-null effect on the order of 10 −13 found by Brillet and Hall in the most accurate Michelson-Morley type test to date. The presentation is simple and pedagogic in order to make it accessible to the non-specialist.

I think, that this part is the most important one: "Of particular note, no Lorentz contraction exists on the rotating disk circumference, and the disk surface, contrary to the assertions of Einstein and others, is found to be Riemann flat."

Also here: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_relativity_really_limit_the_radius_of_a_rotating_disk
where the given problem is being discussed in terms of GRT

Here's also something interesting: https://www.riken.jp/en/news_pubs/research_news/rr/7016/

"The spokes in the wheel appear distorted in a way that makes them seem denser in one direction than the other."

Wouldn't that be consistent with the Doppler's effect (two-directional distortion of space-time) rather than with one-directional lenght contraction?

And this is in my opinion the best source I was able to find: https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rotatingCoordinates.html

There are couple interesting fragments, but I would like to point out two of them:
In fact, this behaviour is no different to the well-accepted and well-understood behaviour of light in a uniformly accelerated frame, where the measured speed of light depends upon where in that frame it currently is.  This speed can in fact have any value, from zero to infinity.  (See the FAQ entry Do moving clocks always run slowly? for further discussion of this.)  It's only in inertial frames that light's speed is postulated to have the value "c".

What seems to be suprisingly consistent with my model, where c is constant only in the inertial frame, while undergoing Galilean boost for moving frames...

"A construction of a rotating platform that treats its points the most "democratically" gives the same helical shape in spacetime to the world lines of all points that lie at equal radii from the centre of rotation.  In that case, the circumference of any circle of radius r is then 2πr by construction.  If you draw various planes of simultaneity at a selection of events on the circumference of such a circle, you'll find that these planes are inclined, and are themselves spinning around.  The result is that observers stationed at each of those events—fixed to points on the platform—measure their neighbours to be farther away than would be the case if the platform were not spinning.  Those neighbours are measured as pushed somewhat toward the opposite side of the circle from the viewpoint of each observer.  Also, each observer measures that observers immediately to his "east" (by which I mean those situated in the direction of rotation) are older than himself, neighbours to his immediate "west" are younger than himself, and observers on the opposite side to him from the centre of rotation have the same age as himself.  This all means that the observers at rest on the platform cannot agree on the simultaneity of events.  They can never construct a time coordinate that has the real meaning of time in the way that it does in an inertial frame.  And this means that those observers simply don't constitute a frame.  So the phrase "relativistic rotating frame" is a contradiction in terms; no such frame can exist."

In shortcut, my conclusion is, that according to SRT, multiple observers placed  in a line along the radius of a rotating disk, will experience different rates of time flow, with the fastest rate of aging process for observer in the center of rotation and with the slowest rate for observer located on the edge of rotating disc - all of this, while appearing as stationary in relation to each other. But maybe it's about observers placed in a circle at one distance from the center?

So here we have another of those "wild" predictions in SRT... But anyway I couldn't find here any direct answers to my question - but maybe I missed it...

[Halc]

QM explains HOW observed processes take place, but it doesn't try to explain WHY they take place

No, QM, like SR, is an empirical theory and explains neither. Both theories explain WHAT one can expect to observe if certain measurements are done. That’s it. One cannot measure instantaneous cause and effect, so QM does not predict that. It only says that if measurments are made on entangled pairs, however far apart, then those measurements will be found to be correlated when compared at a time when the information can be brought together.

In most of the cases, no one didn't even try to prove any inconsistency in my statetements

I showed several. Did you respond to it? No, you ignored it, and just charged ahead with further assertions. If you cannot answer to the critique, your ship is sunk.

Actually my theory makes couple strictly numerical predictions that can be tested in a laboratory - like the "width contraction", which I've explained in my previous post.

And which I showed must lead to X is true and X is false. That’s a contradiction.

It's becuse I see too many logical inconsitencies in the SRT

You’ve demonstrated very little understanding of SRT, so I doubt you’ve managed to find an inconsistency with it. Misunderstandings don’t count.

Simply measure the distance between a pair of protons in the direction of their motion in relation to the same distance in a stationary laboratory. You assume, that this distance will get shorter in the moving frame due to lenght contraction - am I right?

Very hard to parse that.  I understand a pair of particles (do they need to be protons? Can they be marbles?) that are stationary relative to each other but moving relative to the laboratory. Relative to the lab frame, they’re separated by say a meter.  In the frame of the objects, the distance between them will be larger, not shorter. That would be their proper separation which is always greatest in the frame in which they are at rest.
There seems to be no acceleration involved in your scenario. If there is, you need to be precise about where it fits in, how things are accelerated, and when.

Sorry for not being specific enough. What I had in mind, is a scenario with two identical pairs of protons with one pair being accelerated and where each proton in a moving pair is passing next to a proton from stationary pair simultaneously.

OK, the scenario changes now. Relative to the lab frame, all four (not two) objects are at rest. Two of them are simultaneously accelerated with identical proper acceleration.  They will remain a meter apart then in the lab frame, but will grow further apart in the new frame relative to which they eventually come to rest. If the acceleration starts at different times (relative to the lab) or one has more proper acceleration than the other, then their separation will not be as I described it.
Why, does your model predict something else?

According to SRT simultaneity will be lost since distance between protons will get shorter - am I right?

SRT has no concept of ‘simultaneity being lost’. Both objects represent worldlines and for every event on one worldline, there is an event on the other worldline that is simultaneous with it. This is true in any frame. So no, you are not right. You seem to have only a minimal understanding of SRT.

That's true. This is all because this software doesn't represent SRT and photons in moving light clocks exceed the speed of light.

So the speed of light isn’t actually the speed of light?? Light clocks use special photons different from normal ones?

I have an idea for a contest between my model and the SRT. Let's see how both models deal with angular velocity and the hypothetical ftl motion that comes from it. What in SRT makes the difference between those 3 relative velocities from the image below?

Let's discuss a scenario in which we use a veeeeeryy long stick to accelerate an object mounted to one end of that stick to the speed of c and beyond

Not happening. The end of the stick cannot get to c even if the material could take the stress.
If you continue to apply torque to the rotating system, the angular momentum of the stick will continue to go up per angular momentum conservation, but only due to the end of the stick increasing in mass. The angular rate (RPM) will not reach a point where the end moves faster than c.

using the property of angular motion (velocity grows together with the distance to center of rotation).

This part is fine. Yes, v at any point is directly proportional to radius, which is presumed fixed (the rod doesn’t stretch with tension).

If I'm correct SRT will try to deal with this problem using the lenght contraction on angular motion to prevent the frame on the end of stick to reach the speed of light or exceed it - is this true?

Again, you are incorrect. The length of the stick will not contract because it isn’t moving in that direction. The thickness will contract, but that doesn’t effect the length of the stick or the speed at which the end is going.

If so, we'll end up with a serious problem - number of full rotations around the central point won't be the same for the object at the far end of stick as for someone who's placed much closer to the center of rotation. How SRT deals with that problem?

Relative to say the inertial frame of the axis, the stick is always straight and thus moving everywhere at the same angular rate (rads/sec).
The rod will be curved relative to inertial frames in which the axis is moving. There are web sites showing this.

In shortcut, my conclusion is, that according to SRT, multiple observers placed in a line along the radius of a rotating disk, will experience different rates of time flow, with the fastest rate of aging process for observer in the center of rotation and with the slowest rate for observer located on the edge of rotating disc

Yes. But you didn’t ask that above.

all of this, while appearing as stationary in relation to each other.

No, the others will appear to be going around you. They’ll only appear stationary relative to the rotating frame of the spinning thing, but not relative to any inertial frame.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

No, QM, like SR, is an empirical theory and explains neither. Both theories explain WHAT one can expect to observe if certain measurements are done. That’s it. One cannot measure instantaneous cause and effect, so QM does not predict that. It only says that if measurments are made on entangled pairs, however far apart, then those measurements will be found to be correlated when compared at a time when the information can be brought together.

Ok - I agree. However none of this doesn't have any practical significance for my model

In most of the cases, no one didn't even try to prove any inconsistency in my statetements
I showed several.

Did you respond to it? No, you ignored it, and just charged ahead with further assertions. If you cannot answer to the critique, your ship is sunk

.

First of all I was speaking there about other forums on the internet. Second of all, I've tried to response to all your comments. This appears to be your last objection

"Galilean relativity treats any event as being the same event in all frames, it doesn't postulate 2 different events. So your starting point is not Galilean Relativity.

To which I've already responded. In your latest comment you were also pointing out that photons in light clocks are exceeding constant c - and I explained that this is exacly what is being solved in my model by the "width contraction"
 If I missed any of your posts,then please let me know which one it was.

Very hard to parse that.  I understand a pair of particles (do they need to be protons? Can they be marbles?) that are stationary relative to each other but moving relative to the laboratory. Relative to the lab frame, they’re separated by say a meter.  In the frame of the objects, the distance between them will be larger, not shorter. That would be their proper separation which is always greatest in the frame in which they are at rest.
There seems to be no acceleration involved in your scenario. If there is, you need to be precise about where it fits in, how things are accelerated, and when.

No, they don't have to be protons. And yes - that's exactly what I ment - thanks for clarifying things out

OK, the scenario changes now. Relative to the lab frame, all four (not two) objects are at rest. Two of them are simultaneously accelerated with identical proper acceleration.  They will remain a meter apart then in the lab frame, but will grow further apart in the new frame relative to which they eventually come to rest. If the acceleration starts at different times (relative to the lab) or one has more proper acceleration than the other, then their separation will not be as I described it.
Why, does your model predict something else?

Ok, so here are the diagrams that show the predictions of SRT as for my cenario - distance between particles in each pair is equal to 2su in their inertial frames, but it's contracted for a pair in motion:

My model is based on Galilean transformation and predict such results:

And since this experiment wasn't yet conducted, assuming the correctness of prefered result is kinda unscientific approach

SRT has no concept of ‘simultaneity being lost’. Both objects represent worldlines and for every event on one worldline, there is an event on the other worldline that is simultaneous with it. This is true in any frame. So no, you are not right. You seem to have only a minimal understanding of SRT.

Maybe once again I wasn't able to correctly articulate my thoughts. Here are the diagrams according to SRT, after we synchronize distance and simultaneity with one frame:

Synchronization is lost in second frame due to Lorentz transformation

That's true. This is all because this software doesn't represent SRT and photons in moving light clocks exceed the speed of light.

So the speed of light isn’t actually the speed of light?? Light clocks use special photons different from normal ones?

I don't understand your question. Green marbles in my animations give invalid results - I solve the problem by applying the width contraction due to Doppler shift

Not happening. The end of the stick cannot get to c even if the material could take the stress.
If you continue to apply torque to the rotating system, the angular momentum of the stick will continue to go up per angular momentum conservation, but only due to the end of the stick increasing in mass. The angular rate (RPM) will not reach a point where the end moves faster than c.

Woow! calm down. We're speaking here about relative velocities of frames in SRT, while you jump to GRT. Let's for now forget completely about any mass of objects

Again, you are incorrect. The length of the stick will not contract because it isn’t moving in that direction. The thickness will contract, but that doesn’t effect the length of the stick or the speed at which the end is going.

I didn't intend to say such things. What is supposedly contracted is the lenght of circumference.

Relative to say the inertial frame of the axis, the stick is always straight and thus moving everywhere at the same angular rate (rads/sec).
The rod will be curved relative to inertial frames in which the axis is moving. There are web sites showing this.

sorry, but I couldn't find such ones. Anyway wouldn't that curve the rod into a spiral if we'll keep to extend the rod and number of rotations will become couple times higher in the center than on the distant end of rod?

No, the others will appear to be going around you. They’ll only appear stationary relative to the rotating frame of the spinning thing, but not relative to any inertial frame.

So they'll appear as moving around me despite having the same angular velocity as I do? SRT can't stop to surprise me... And the best thing is, that all of you treat it as obvious without having any actual measurement of such process in real-life...

Shouldn't it mean, that someone who lives close to a geographical pole has measurably shorter life in comparisment to someone, who lives on the equator? Hmm I have to check it...

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

But how does my model try to deal with the problem of ftl rotational velocity? Like always - in the most obvious way. As I stated couple times before, ftl velocity is in my model allowed in relative motion. And because constant velocity c is still being maintained for a light source, that moves faster from the light which it emits, it results in reversed order in the Doppler shift, which is observed in the inertial frame of stationary observer:

In shortcut, constant velocity of c is maintained in every inertial frame, while the proper order of events appears to be inverted for frames which move at relative ftl velocities. All of this is a completely relataivistic effect, which have no effect on timeline as it is observed in any inertial frame.

And just so happens, that in the difference to the crazy predictions of SRT, my claims have at least some minimal experimental evidence:
https://www.livescience.com/54467-light-trick-proves-time-reversal.html
https://www.iflscience.com/physics/images-goes-backwards-faster-light-experiment/
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2000/jul/20/technology2

Can someone tell me what about those experiments can we learn from SRT?