Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The COLLAPSE of SR (Special relativity)


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#1 xersan

xersan

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 13 August 2008 - 04:52 AM

The collapse of Special Relativity [1]

I study upon light kinematics and I have some new results/methods for space-time. One of them menaces the SR seriously.

I have followed forums about special relativity. I am glad for finding some objectors. My determination will approve their arguments.

In the forums which I joined, I tested the ability of understanding of my statement. The new concept was declared in few forums and by my book (at April 2008).

The new concept/master key will declare at August 25, 2008 (at the end of Beijing Olympics) on this thread.

#2 xersan

xersan

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 13 August 2008 - 04:53 AM

The collapse of SR [2]


I want to give some secondary or preparatory information.

1- The theory of SR has consistency and it is defensible due to its postulates.
2- Every determination is produced and correct by its own references. Also, all references (and their sub/chaining references) have accordance with science or paradigm. But the roots of them are axioms or postulates. And postulates usually were not constituted by scientific procedure; they are recorded by satiated perceptions in local conditions.
3- Master-key is a postulate what has been rebuilt by scientific methods. It is very simple. And you may see complete picture of light kinematics.
4- After my information; you may think that `this is similar of Galileo event". In my opinion: It is second Galileo event.
5- The theory of SR will take part in science history as an idol for weakness of human's performance and mysticism.
6- In schools SR will use as an example for human's linear thinking instead of the nature's secret.
7- All publications about SR will be trash. And new publications will grow.
8- The space-time can be analyzed without deformation of units of dimensions due to rules of new concept.
9- I am very sorry by being the reason of a sensation.


Please activate your attention and follow.

#3 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6062 posts

Posted 13 August 2008 - 06:03 AM

The space-time can be analyzed without deformation of units of dimensions due to rules of new concept.

Hi there.

Big words, indeed.


Just make sure your proposed theory cater for dimension contraction, time dilation and mass increase as the object under discussion approaches the speed of light - for those peculiarities are not merely hypothetical; they are proven and validated to a very, very small margin as predicted by SR.

#4 xersan

xersan

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 14 August 2008 - 04:32 AM

Hi there.

Big words, indeed.


Just make sure your proposed theory cater for dimension contraction, time dilation and mass increase as the object under discussion approaches the speed of light - for those peculiarities are not merely hypothetical; they are proven and validated to a very, very small margin as predicted by SR.


Thanks for your gentle argument.

I said exactly that the space-time can be analyzed by classical methods due to new some definitions and re-activated scientific principles.

I tell a different course. As you know everybody was just sure that the sun turns around the earth; because there was visual proof. It was as a postulate; had clarity, it was never discussed. Copernicus and Galileo had had a STRANGE theory*.

But human learned the alternative mechanism (If the sun is chosen for reference system instead of the earth). And we were cloyed this format.

Indeed I know some experiments of SR.

But there was visual proof for the sun.

The supportive experiments of a wrong theory are as caricature/humorous.

For example muon (µ meson) experiment for time dilation. Its interpretation has a serious disinformation: The muon which produced in laboratory had been chosen as a reference system; and the velocity of reference muon had been supposed "ZERO". But it is never zero. The value of the speed of reference muon is similar value with natural muon's, certainly. The interpretation of the experiment is ad-hoc (They see what they want to see). Please investigate.

thanks again for the chance of this information.

#5 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6062 posts

Posted 14 August 2008 - 11:45 PM

There are plenty evidence towards Relativity, not even remotely as subtle as the muons you mentioned:

1) Look at a star behind the sun during a solar eclipse. The star moves. This points to the curvature of space.
2) Synchronize two atomic clocks. Load one up on a jet and fly it around the world. Keep the other one stationary. Bring them back together and measure the time difference. They differ exactly to the amount as predicted by SR.
3) In a particle accellerator, centripetal forces try to push the accellerated atoms into the outer wall of the particle accellerator. But not as much as you would expect, given the weight of the particle under discussion. The speed at which these particles are moving around and around, is trying to squeeze the particles into the wall with a much greater force than merely their weight - because of the velocity they're travelling at, relativistic features come into play and they actually increase in mass, increasing the outward push of the centripetal force beyond that expected from their mass.

Thank God that scientists knew about that before they built the accellerators, else they would all blow their sides as the accellerated particles tear out the sides of the machine.

So, if you propose an alternative to SR, we won't stop you. Please go ahead. But just keep in mind that you've got lots and lots of bases to cover, which SR currently plugs very neatly.

#6 xersan

xersan

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 15 August 2008 - 11:21 AM

So, if you propose an alternative to SR, we won't stop you. Please go ahead. But just keep in mind that you've got lots and lots of bases to cover, which SR currently plugs very neatly.


Yes I have an alternative to SR.

In my opinion the performance of human is not sufficient yet for space-time. SR is the first offer. First propositions have a chance credit naturally, because nobody knows anything. And a definition is better than nothing.

The SR contradicts the experiment of synchronize two atomic clocks. The relativity has the rule of reciprocity. This rule requires the clocks will indicate the same time. Because, If the clock B has the value Vba of relative speed according to the clock A; It means that the clock A has also the value Vab (Vba = Vab) of relative speed according to the clock B. If we bring them back together, their measurements the time must be same.

Unfortunately we suppose that the earth is stationary. But this is an illusion. We can isolate the clocks in space by thinking. We must pass over the locality.

Besides, if we analyze the clocks A and B according to a third reference system, we will find different results.

Anyway, the world will has two methods of solution for space-time. It may be better to use the both of them. And it can be tested the harmonious of natural reality.

#7 xersan

xersan

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 17 August 2008 - 05:10 AM


We are on the earth. Human suppose the earth and himself as an absolute reference system without consciousness. Indeed, it is naturally for everybody and nobody is offended. Locality is dominant.

But we must see complete of the picture for the events about universe. For example the orbit of moon is circle, if the earth is reference system. If the sun is chosen as a reference, the orbit of the moon is like helical spring. Then if Milky Way is chosen, the orbit becomes as the form of helical spring with spiral axle…. And according to external system it becomes similar a rope or the twisted form of DNA. If we can look from out of universe, we see this form the orbit of the moon. The form of circle is wrong or not perfect. The circle form is result of locality.

The proceeding of SR is similar the circle orbit of the moon. It claims universality, but it does not isolate the locality.


#8 modest

modest

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4959 posts

Posted 17 August 2008 - 05:23 AM

SR deals only with inertial reference frames. Orbiting moons need not apply.

~modest

#9 xersan

xersan

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 17 August 2008 - 05:53 AM

SR deals only with inertial reference frames. Orbiting moons need not apply.

~modest


Yes of course SR requires an inertial reference frame. And we choose one of the partners of relativity for inertial reference frame.

But SR takes the source of light as inertial reference frame for velocity of light.

I will submit an alternative definition for inertial reference frame for velocity of light.

I will interpriate prefering the source as reference of light. Please follow me.

#10 modest

modest

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4959 posts

Posted 17 August 2008 - 06:01 AM

But SR takes the source of light as inertial reference frame for velocity of light.


It does no such thing. In fact, it does the opposite saying the speed of light depends in no way on the inertial frame of its source.

~modest

#11 xersan

xersan

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 18 August 2008 - 05:10 AM

Posted Image

Figure-1 (You may click on the picture for zoom)

The experiment of calm lake:

If we organize an experiment like that: There is a platform toward inside a lake. The surface of lake is calm (At figure-1)

1- He leaves a stone freely. The stone falls down water and it makes a circle wave. The expanding speed of wave for this case "c".

2- He leaves a stone again like standart condition but while he is running by the value "V" of velocity. It produces a circle wave too. And expanding speed of second wave is "c" also.

The velocity of light is never influenced by its source's speed.


While he is standing fix case or while he is running by speed "V" the expanding velocity of waves is equal. This experiment is analogy for the velocity of light.

The velocity of light is independent from the speed of its source.

#12 xersan

xersan

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 19 August 2008 - 02:23 AM

An important nuance for experiments and analysis of light kinematics:

The essential uniqueness of the light actor as a partner of SR.

The actors of mechanical experiments are evident, almost they have a name. For example we start and complete the experiment with this subject. It is very important. Because the experiment does not finished by the blue vehicle while we had begun it with red vehicle.

If we start the experiment with the ball numbered 3528 we must complete the experiment with the same numbered ball (3528). This is an undefined principle; but it is absolute requirement.

But such of light experiments are organized with the light in continuity because of some technical difficulties. In this case we can never be sure the completing the experiment by the chosen light actor, if we suppose that the light is like numbered balls or consecutive (recursive/flowing) impulses.

The light actor for SR experiments must be supposed as a flash impulse. The light actor must be isolated as a single/individual subject from case of continuity. We can succeed this for theoretical analysis.


#13 xersan

xersan

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 19 August 2008 - 04:10 AM

.

#14 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 19 August 2008 - 07:32 PM

The experiment of calm lake:

If we organize an experiment like that: There is a platform toward inside a lake. The surface of lake is calm (At figure-1)

1- He leaves a stone freely. The stone falls down water and it makes a circle wave. The expanding speed of wave for this case "c".

2- He leaves a stone again like standart condition but while he is running by the value "V" of velocity. It produces a circle wave too. And expanding speed of second wave is "c" also.

Xersan, have you actually performed this experiment?

Water waves are not perfectly circular. They don’t all travel at the single speed – in deep water, their speed is proportional to [math]\sqrt{\lambda}[/math], where [math]\lambda[/math] is the distance between wave crests. So, unless one carefully altered the mass and/or shape of the stone, the first measured speed “c” wouldn’t be the same as the second.

The velocity of light is never influenced by its source's speed.

This is a prediction of special relativity.

It is not, however, true of water waves. Water waves are not much like light.

#15 xersan

xersan

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 21 August 2008 - 10:16 AM

Xersan, have you actually performed this experiment?

Water waves are not perfectly circular. They don’t all travel at the single speed – in deep water, their speed is proportional to [math]sqrt{lambda}[/math], where [math]lambda[/math] is the distance between wave crests. So, unless one carefully altered the mass and/or shape of the stone, the first measured speed “c” wouldn’t be the same as the second.This is a prediction of special relativity.

It is not, however, true of water waves. Water waves are not much like light.


Thanks for your explanation.

I wanted to give an example as meaning analogy. Of course the leaving the stones are standardised; also the high of water and other conditions are equal

In original text of SR the light is supposal/fictif. But The motion of light according to its own source is analysed better than SR in Lorentz's proceeding. But also Lorentz used the photo at the the time of Tı for a relation between flash impulse and its source. I wanted to present a clue with the analogy of lake for Lorent's wrong.

#16 xersan

xersan

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 21 August 2008 - 10:18 AM

What will happen after my reconstructed postulate announce?


1- Some of readers may say that "I was knowing already". My answer: If you know, why do you discontinue solving the space-time?

You may say that: "Why Einstein did not discover your different concept?"

Xeo: Yes, you are right for this question, because Einstein was very clever. But it was not known some knowledge about universe at 1905 and 1916. He died 1955. So he could think and realized it. But there was a handicap: Everybody (even Einstein) had been infected by SR. So this infection of minds may prevent to understand easily.

2- Some of readers that they do not need a reference, can appreciate this clue. And they can just understand the space-time transparently. New concept has clarity for uninfected persons.

3- Some of readers that they need a reference to accept a new hypothesis will wait a publication. (I guess that the new concept needs a few years to be diffused.)

4- In my opinion the most negative event will be publishing in daily magazine. Because it means, it is an asymmetric understanding (or interpreting). The theory of SR gives fantastic bribe for mystic minds as time-travel. New concept is so cool for this way. The dilation and contraction of units are unnecessary according to new concept.


#17 modest

modest

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4959 posts

Posted 21 August 2008 - 12:43 PM

I wanted to give an example as meaning analogy.


Your analogy is broken

Of course the leaving the stones are standardised; also the high of water and other conditions are equal


Observation of wavelength and frequency depend on relative motion of observer and source NOT observer and "lake full of water". Your analogy is broken.

In original text of SR the light is supposal/fictif.


Where in the original text of SR is light supposable or fictive? A ray of light in SR is the thing that is measured and observed.

I wanted to present a clue with the analogy of lake for Lorent's wrong.


So far you've given no reason why Lorentz or Einstein were wrong about anything despite your frequent claim to the contrary. It is a site rule to back up your claims. Can you back up your claim that SR is "wrong"?

~modest