Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The COLLAPSE of SR (Special relativity)


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#18 xersan

xersan

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 21 August 2008 - 03:00 PM

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.

~modest


The original text of SR bases the relative speeds of materials; light is fictionalized. Einstein's explanation is closer to modern physics. We need to suppose there is a source on the material and we need to think the stable value of light's velocity for this imaginary source's light. But Lorentz's proceeding is an analysis of light motion by classical mechanic. Also Einstein had used Lorentz's explanation in his book (for students) at 1916.

"If I can not understand what you said, the reason of the problem and solution is me."

Sorry I don't want to contribute master key (reconstructed postulate) on this forum. :coffee_n_pc:

#19 freeztar

freeztar

    Pondering

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8445 posts

Posted 21 August 2008 - 04:06 PM

Sorry I don't want to contribute master key (reconstructed postulate) on this forum. :coffee_n_pc:


You claim to have the "master key" to overturn relativity, yet you have stated that you will not and do not want to post this special knowledge that you possess. It is a site rule that you avoid saying things equivalent to "It's true because I know it to be true".

Please either provide substantial info to support your claims on the invalidity of relativity, or do not make such claims.

#20 xersan

xersan

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 22 August 2008 - 09:29 AM

You claim to have the "master key" to overturn relativity, yet you have stated that you will not and do not want to post this special knowledge that you possess. It is a site rule that you avoid saying things equivalent to "It's true because I know it to be true".

Please either provide substantial info to support your claims on the invalidity of relativity, or do not make such claims.


I could understand lately. I guess that this forum is for students. I may understand an aim of forum is protecting their fresh minds too. I perceived asymmetric attitude from some answers of the members. The moderators are extremely hard for the part of STRANGE CLAİMS. If they are confident for SR, they would be in tranquil/peace. Stress and anxiety are unnecessary. Self confidence presents the credit.

Also, I am thinking that the members are not ready to analyse the new concept. I don't want to be a reason for a confusion. I am not glad the asymmetrical approach ( I am not sure that they allow themselves to think unprejudiced; sorry I feel so).
:hyper:

#21 freeztar

freeztar

    Pondering

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8445 posts

Posted 22 August 2008 - 11:21 AM

I could understand lately. I guess that this forum is for students. I may understand an aim of forum is protecting their fresh minds too.


This forum is for students and teachers alike. While "protecting fresh minds" is not a specific aim of Hypography, we do try to prevent the spread of fallicious knowledge about science.

I perceived asymmetric attitude from some answers of the members.

Such as...

The moderators are extremely hard for the part of STRANGE CLAİMS. If they are confident for SR, they would be in tranquil/peace. Stress and anxiety are unnecessary. Self confidence presents the credit.


Wrong, experimental verification presents the credit. Science is not about confidence in one's opinion. It is about verifiable results that can be repeated by anyone.

Also, I am thinking that the members are not ready to analyse the new concept.


That's an assumption that I cannot agree with. I'm sure everyone here would love to see relativity overthrown by something more refined, but it has to be legitimate. You can't just simply claim to have done so and then expect everyone to jump on board with your theory (what was your theory again?). Sorry, we're just a little too intelligent for that around here (not to mention that it is against site rules!).

I don't want to be a reason for a confusion. I am not glad the asymmetrical approach ( I am not sure that they allow themselves to think unprejudiced; sorry I feel so).
:hyper:


I don't understand this, sorry.

#22 xersan

xersan

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 24 August 2008 - 08:32 AM

MASTER-KEY (1) INFORMATION for the COLLAPSE of SPECIAL RELATIVITY

The list the series of consecutive reference systems in accordance with their comprehending capacity:

A material or any one (The source of light or Einstein's train for SR)
The Earth (or Einstein's rails)
The Sun
Milky Way
Local cluster
Super cluster
The general form of Universe

Light coordinate system (Macro reference system)

NEW CONCEPT: The velocity of light is relative according to "light coordinate system/macro reference system/most external system". The velocity of light is character as Vor (Vor: The relative velocity according to out of universe).


The light does not accept anything by reference system except itself (The first coordinate system is reference for materials. The first coordinate system of light is the most external system. The values of light's speed "Vor and original*" are equal (But these values for materials are different).

The measures of light's velocity by present techniques give always the value "c" by this (Vor) labeling.

The theory of SR supposes and loads the meaning that the value "c" is relative according to its source (or train). It is very important: "Which speed do we intend to measure?"

Anyway, the new concept is actually. Henceforth, we would understand and use the meaning that the value "c" is relative according to macro reference system.

If a theoretical analysis is organized by "the light coordinate system", the units of time and length remain like classical physics (the values of velocity of all partners would be use by the character as Vor, especially for the source and observer).

For quotation: Ersan O. Autopsy Report of SR Infoyay 2003, 2008.

I am here for the questions.

*Original speed: the speed which it can create by its own power.


#23 freeztar

freeztar

    Pondering

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8445 posts

Posted 24 August 2008 - 11:24 AM

MASTER-KEY (1) INFORMATION for the COLLAPSE of SPECIAL RELATIVITY

The list the series of consecutive reference systems in accordance with their comprehending capacity:

A material or any one (The source of light or Einstein's train for SR)
The Earth (or Einstein's rails)
The Sun
Milky Way
Local cluster
Super cluster
The general form of Universe

Light coordinate system (Macro reference system)

NEW CONCEPT: The velocity of light is relative according to "light coordinate system/macro reference system/most external system". The velocity of light is character as Vor (Vor: The relative velocity according to out of universe).


The light does not accept anything by reference system except itself (The first coordinate system is reference for materials. The first coordinate system of light is the most external system. The values of light's speed "Vor and original*" are equal (But these values for materials are different).

The measures of light's velocity by present techniques give always the value "c" by this (Vor) labeling.

The theory of SR supposes and loads the meaning that the value "c" is relative according to its source (or train). It is very important: "Which speed do we intend to measure?"

Anyway, the new concept is actually. Henceforth, we would understand and use the meaning that the value "c" is relative according to macro reference system.

If a theoretical analysis is organized by "the light coordinate system", the units of time and length remain like classical physics (the values of velocity of all partners would be use by the character as Vor, especially for the source and observer).

For quotation: Ersan O. Autopsy Report of SR Infoyay 2003, 2008.

I am here for the questions.

*Original speed: the speed which it can create by its own power.


Your post makes very little sense xersan, but from what I can tell, you seem confused about relativity theory and how it treats time within different reference frames in a coordinate system.

I tried to look up your source "Ersan O. Autopsy Report of SR Infoyay 2003, 2008". Google turned up an identical post by you on another forum, and that's it. Searching for just "Ersan O." turned up a result for a Polish medical researcher.

Can you please provide a valid source for your ideas? Failure to follow the site rules of supporting your claims and responding to moderator requests can lead to limitations in your ability to make posts here.

#24 modest

modest

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4959 posts

Posted 24 August 2008 - 07:33 PM

I am here for the questions.


I have attempted to understand your post. This is my understanding so far...

You propose 2 coordinate systems:

1) ”Original” coordinate system (a normal reference frame of a normal body in our universe)

a. light is measured at C in this frame


2) ”Light” coordinate system (how things appear from outside the universe)

a. light is measured at C in this frame
b. observations of frame 1 (original frame) obey Newton’s laws of motion


This is all I have. Hopefully we can fill in more letters (b, c, d, etc) completing the picture until we have a set of transformations with good theoretical backing.

I’m sure some of what I have above is not what you intended to convey, so we should correct that first. Maybe doing so will answer my first question:

If one frame is outside the universe or “Light coordinates” then we need a total of three frames to describe motion of two bodies (“materials”). We need a frame for each body (because they are not in the same frame) and your Light coordinate frame. Is this how you see it?

I hope you can answer thoroughly so as to avoid misunderstandings.


As a moderator I will reiterate what freeztar said above. In particular, you need to give a source preferably in the form of a link that backs up this claim:


The theory of SR supposes and loads the meaning that the value "c" is relative according to its source



This is a website rule at Hypography. If you keep making unsupported claims such as this, you will continue getting infractions and have your account suspended. I hope that's avoidable, so please private message me or any other moderator or administrator if you need help with this or any other rule


This is very important because what you claim above is in direct opposition (it is exactly the opposite of) the second postulate of relativity:

The Principle of Invariant Light Speed - Light in vacuum propagates with the speed c (a fixed constant) in terms of any system of inertial coordinates, regardless of the state of motion of the light source.

-SR


What you say is therefore completely in error. Please provide a scientific source (a link or reference) backing up (agreeing with) your quoted statement.

All the best,

~modest
  • Galapagos likes this

#25 xersan

xersan

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 25 August 2008 - 11:53 AM

MASTER-KEY (2)

The inverse explanation of reconstructed postulate.


We are at some place in immense between macro and micro cosmos. We look to universe from here.

But If we live out of universe and if we organize a relativity analysis between the light and its source which is in a train of a planet, we would need to ensure the value of the train's speed* as character of "Vor" by vector methods. We would use the value "c" for light. And it would have consistency of scientific integrity; because in fact the value of "c" is in character of "Vor" automatically.

* We will have to send a spaceship that its mission is to measure the speed of train according to the planet and the speeds of other chaining relative systems.

In this case the list of reference systems:

Light coordinate system (Macro reference system) We suppose we live in it.

The general form of Universe
Super cluster
Local cluster
Milky Way
The Sun
The Earth (or Einstein's rails)
A material or any one (The source of light or Einstein's train for SR)

We suppose the light's speed is according to the first coordinate system without selective notice, because of measuring the velocity of light on the earth. If we measure the light's speed on the macro reference system, also we suppose that it is according to the first coordinate system again. But this reference system is the macro coordinate system automatically, why we are there.


I'll answer all questions.

#26 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 25 August 2008 - 01:02 PM

I'll answer all questions.

Good.

What, specifically, are you predicting about the speed of light?

Assuming a simple measuring device consisting of a short pulsed light source and detector separated by a known distance [math]d[/math] with precise clocks, where the speed of light measured is [math]v_c = \frac{d}{\Delta t}[/math], what do you predict the speed of light to be
  • Near Earth, when the source is stationary relative to the center of the Earth and the detector is moving directly toward the source at speed [math]v_D[/math] relative the the center of the Earth?
  • Near Earth, when the source is stationary relative to the center of the Earth and the detector is moving directly away the source at speed [math]v_D[/math] relative the the center of the Earth?
  • Near Earth, when the detector is stationary relative to the center of the Earth and the source is moving directly toward the source at speed [math]v_D[/math] relative the the center of the Earth?
  • Near Earth, when the detector is stationary relative to the center of the Earth and the source is moving directly away the source at speed [math]v_D[/math] relative the the center of the Earth?
  • Near Jupiter, when the source is stationary relative to the center of the Jupiter and the detector is moving directly toward the source at speed [math]v_D[/math] relative the the center of the Jupiter?
  • Near Jupiter, when the source is stationary relative to the center of the Jupiter and the detector is moving directly away the source at speed [math]v_D[/math] relative the the center of the Jupiter?
  • Near Jupiter, when the detector is stationary relative to the center of the Jupiter and the source is moving directly toward the source at speed [math]v_D[/math] relative the the center of the Jupiter?
  • Near Jupiter, when the detector is stationary relative to the center of the Jupiter and the source is moving directly away the source at speed [math]v_D[/math] relative the the center of the Jupiter?


#27 xersan

xersan

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 26 August 2008 - 11:21 AM

Can you please provide a valid source for your ideas? Failure to follow the site rules of supporting your claims and responding to moderator requests can lead to limitations in your ability to make posts here.




At first, the new concept is concerning the space-time directly.

It points some contradiction for SR indirectly. For example the theory of SR uses the value "c" and "v" together in transforming relations. But they do not match; they have not similarity of characteristics. So, if the speed of vehicle "A" is Va on the Earth and the speed of the vehicle "B" on the Mars is Vb. We must adapt one of them according to same coordinate system. For example We must find the speed of the vehicle "B" according to the earth (Vb'). After adapting we can use them (Va and Vb') in a relation for example in proceedings of relativity. Lorentz and Einstein had violated this scientific principle.

Does it need a valid source or reference article/publication? In my opinion it has clarity, it is logical and simple.

Besides I want to say the evidences and experiments of new concept.

MASTER-KEY [3]

1- The velocity of the light is measured by the value "c" in everywhere of universe according to Galileo's relativity principle: Yes, the light's velocity "Vor" is measured in everywhere of universe.
2- The experiments of measuring of light's velocity: The known systems of measuring for light's speed measure always the value of "Vor =c" (Vor: The velocity of light according to most external reference system).
3- The Hubble's constant (Ho) can be reduced to a singular value by the new concept (Ho= 43,7 +/- 0,3 km/s/mpc).
4- The age of universe can be determined exactly (T = 19,3 +/- 0,6 Gyr) by the new concept.
5- The experiment "Michelson-Morley": This experiment supports also that the known systems of measuring for light's speed never measure the relative value of light's velocity according to relative systems (c +/-v).
6- I have an experiment for Fitzgerald's contaction on the Earth: We know that a conductor wire has a value of electrical resistance by proportioned its lenght. But this value is never increased or decreased because of Fitzgerald contraction by relative speeds.


Forums are the effective places for debate. I can not understand the resistances against new ideas. The members of scientific forums have perfect performance of mind and independent volition.

My mission consist of announce my idea. No one will be upset, if you don't pass over the recent paradigm. The sun remains to turn around the Earth. Also OLD idea is natural and harmless.

Even if you don't agree, you will have a file in your mind for the new concept. Please allow you yourself to think or to analyze the space-time by new concept. I hope it will be realized at future.

#28 xersan

xersan

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 26 August 2008 - 11:28 AM

I have attempted to understand your post. Maybe doing so will answer my first question:

If one frame is outside the universe or “Light coordinates” then we need a total of three frames to describe motion of two bodies (“materials”). We need a frame for each body (because they are not in the same frame) and your Light coordinate frame. Is this how you see it?

I hope you can answer thoroughly so as to avoid misunderstandings.



Einstein and others suppose that the value "c" for light's velocity is determined according to local frame. In fact local frame is first reference for the materials' speed (and for the light's source or observer). This judgment must be interrogated seriously for the light as motion actor. Also it is an alternative that the velocity of light is relative according to most external system instead of local frame. The point of flashing is transferred to the light coordinate system instantaneously at the moment of flashing (To). The source leaves the point of flashing after To and goes to its way independently. A flash impulse spreads as spherical surface. But its source can go to a single direction. The point of flashing is light coordinate system for this light. If we organize a relativity analysis between a point of spherical surface of the light and the source; the value of the source's speed must be defined according to the flashing point (as Vor) for using classical methods of relativity.

Remember the relativity problem in school: Two cars - from two towns. We can solve this problem easily but the values of their speeds are defined according to the Earth. The Earth has the role as common reference system for the values partners' speed. And so, these values have the same character. If the relativity partners are on different frames, we need a large and common reference system comprehending all actors. For example, if a vehicle "A" is on the Moon and if the other "B" is on the Mars; their speeds must be defined according to the Sun.

If the first reference system of a partner is most external system; the common frame must be light coordinate system. To choose a local frame for this deals wrong like SR.


This is very important because what you claim above is in direct opposition (it is exactly the opposite of) the second postulate of relativity:



The second postulate of SR supports my alternative theory exactly. The value of light's velocity is fixed, never suspicious. Just the problem is at this point. If somebody wants to measure the relative velocity of the light according to local frame, he believes that the light goes away by the value "c" of speed from its source or local place; because he measures always the value "c". He finds the value "c" while he waits the value "c-v". Perhaps we may reconstruct the second postulate by more discipline. Please allow you yourself to think deeply about this.

If he can think that he measures the value of characteristic "Vor" There is no problem when he find the value "c". In fact Foucault' experiment allows to measure the value of characteristic "Vor". Because the experiment is not realized a singular flash impulse of light. In light experiments the light actor is used as continuous form (uninterrupted form). If we can realize this experiment with a flash impulse and without mirror, we may find the value "c-v". We are not allowed to decide as the second postulate unless we success to measure the velocity of light with only single light impulse.


#29 modest

modest

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4959 posts

Posted 26 August 2008 - 05:25 PM

xersan, why not answer CraigD's questions 1-8?

For example the theory of SR uses the value "c" and "v" together in transforming relations. But they do not match; they have not similarity of characteristics.


A transformation must have both C and V. It must have C because the speed of light is equal for both frames. It must have V because V describes the relative difference in motion between frames. Without V there would not be two frames and therefore could not be a transformation between them.

But they do not match; they have not similarity of characteristics.


C and V are both measures of length per time. In SI units they are both meters per second. When they are divided, such as in the Lorentz factor,

[math]\gamma = {\left( 1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}\right)}^{-1/2}[/math]

the result is a dimensionless quantity. This shows that your description of "not similarity of characteristics" is not correct. It is the similarity of characteristics between them that makes the Lorentz factor unitless making the Lorentz transformation possible.

So, if the speed of vehicle "A" is Va on the Earth and the speed of the vehicle "B" on the Mars is Vb. We must adapt one of them according to same coordinate system.


I would say we need to transform one frame into the other.

For example We must find the speed of the vehicle "B" according to the earth (Vb').


Correct - This is the variable or quantity "V" in the Lorentz transformations.

After adapting we can use them (Va and Vb') in a relation for example in proceedings of relativity. Lorentz and Einstein had violated this scientific principle.


This sounds like a normal SR consideration of velocity.

It is not correct that Va would be around 100 kph (in your car or train example). Neither would Vb be around 100 kph. In other words, they should not be measured in comparison to the planet. In special relativity, Va is measured relative to Vb and Vb is measured relative to Va. Va (normally called V) would be closer to 70 thousand kph (between earth and mars) which would make Vb (normally called V') negative 70 thousand kph.

You've demonstrated nothing against Einstein's treatment (his way of doing things)

Does it need a valid source or reference article/publication? In my opinion it has clarity, it is logical and simple.


Even more "logical and simple" are the forum rules. If you are unable to understand a couple very simple rules, then - trust me - you have no capacity to collapse SR and overturn Einstein.

You keep saying SR assumes the speed of light depends on the velocity of the emitter/observer. Why, you ask, do we want you to give a source for this rather than to just keep repeating it? The answer is that the internet is filled with agenda-driven, conspiracy theorists who would quickly fill up science forums like Hypography with unscientific and blatantly false crackpot posts. No real and beneficial science could be done without rules of this sort. I'm not saying you're this type - I'm saying everyone must follow this rule and the rule weeds out such a type.

The other reason is that everyone but you knows that the orange line above is false. Asking you to find a source agreeing with it may help you realize it is false. It's obvious that our attempts to show you it is wrong and show you sources that say it's wrong isn't accomplishing anything.

Those are the reasons for the rule. You agreed to them when you signed up and everyone must follow them if they want to share and discuss with other scientifically minded people here at Hypography.

The velocity of the light is measured by the value "c" in everywhere of universe according to Galileo's relativity principle:


This is not true and cannot be true. According to Galilean relativity the speed of light depends on the motion of the observer. Note what NASA says:

Physicists also reasoned that Earth moved through the ether as the planet spun on its axis and circled the sun. Thus, any object on Earth's surface -- including Michelson and Morley's laboratory -- moved relative to the ether. The speed of light relative to the lab would therefore be different for light rays moving in different directions relative to the lab. And one could use Galilean transformations to calculate the speed of various rays relative to the lab.

-World Book at NASA


If you do not use Lorentz, but rather use Galilean or Newtonian rules then you could speed up to c and catch up to light. It would be sitting still next to you at v=c. But, this is not how things work and that is very much the reason we need special relativity.

Your problem appears to be a lack of understanding relativity (both modern and classical) and you would be better served by studying it rather than attacking it. Here is a good place to start.

Can you support your claim that it is possible to use Galilean relativity to find a value of c for light "everywhere in the universe"?

Yes, the light's velocity "Vor" is measured in everywhere of universe.
2- The experiments of measuring of light's velocity: The known systems of measuring for light's speed measure always the value of "Vor =c" (Vor: The velocity of light according to most external reference system).


This doesn't explain anything. General relativity describes an "external" reference frame (you might say) with coordinate time and coordinate space. Is this something like you're saying? I'm unsure - you don't explain nor give a workable example. Did you consider answering Craig's simple questions?

3- The Hubble's constant (Ho) can be reduced to a singular value by the new concept (Ho= 43,7 +/- 0,3 km/s/mpc).
4- The age of universe can be determined exactly (T = 19,3 +/- 0,6 Gyr) by the new concept.
5- The experiment "Michelson-Morley": This experiment supports also that the known systems of measuring for light's speed never measure the relative value of light's velocity according to relative systems (c +/-v).
6- I have an experiment for Fitzgerald's contaction on the Earth: We know that a conductor wire has a value of electrical resistance by proportioned its lenght. But this value is never increased or decreased because of Fitzgerald contraction by relative speeds.


Should be easy to answer Craig's questions then.

Forums are the effective places for debate. I can not understand the resistances against new ideas.


Your first sentence implies that you want us to debate you. The second sentence implies you do not. :shrug:

The members of scientific forums have perfect performance of mind and independent volition.


Then you should certainly have no trouble following the very, very simple rules that nobody else is having trouble with.

My mission consist of announce my idea.


Yeah, I noticed that.

You also say you will answer all questions which is good being this is a discussion forum. Besides, if we cannot make sense of your idea - there's a fair chance nobody else will be able. And, if you toned down the extraordinary claims and approached this like a problem needing solving rather than the next paradigm of science :rolleyes: then you might find people willing and wanting to help. You might find that you could accomplish more.

I hope it will be realized at future.


I also hope relativity is better understood in the future. Through cooperation and willingness to learn we can accomplish anything.

I have attempted to understand your post. Maybe doing so will answer my first question:

If one frame is outside the universe or “Light coordinates” then we need a total of three frames to describe motion of two bodies (“materials”). We need a frame for each body (because they are not in the same frame) and your Light coordinate frame. Is this how you see it?

I hope you can answer thoroughly so as to avoid misunderstandings.


Einstein and others suppose that the value "c" for light's velocity is determined according to local frame.


All you have to do is find one scientific source out of all the thousands of online papers and books and pages on relativity that agrees with this. If it is true like you've repeated some five or six times now then you should have no trouble. I can't imagine why you wouldn't do that. Please back up this claim.

In fact local frame is first reference for the materials' speed (and for the light's source or observer).


The local reference frame is the coordinate system that moves with a body. It is the geometry that describes space and time in terms of this body. Nothing "on" an inertial frame moves relative to anything else on it. If something moves with constant speed relative to an inertial frame then it must also be an inertial frame (by definition). It is a different, but also inertial, frame.

Special relativity concerns these inertial frames. It says that the laws of physics (including the speed of light) are the same on all of them (on any inertial reference frame).


This judgment must be interrogated seriously for the light as motion actor. Also it is an alternative that the velocity of light is relative according to most external system instead of local frame.


Do you have an equation that describes how the frame of the light emitting body relates to the frame of the observer and the "Vor frame"?

If you do not, can you at least answer CraigD's questions 1-8 above?

The point of flashing is light coordinate system for this light. If we organize a relativity analysis between a point of spherical surface of the light and the source; the value of the source's speed must be defined according to the flashing point (as Vor) for using classical methods of relativity.


Until you define this Vor frame and how it relates to the frame of observer and observed - what you say seems to have no specific meaning. How can we use this idea to solve between frames?

Remember the relativity problem in school: Two cars - from two towns. We can solve this problem easily but the values of their speeds are defined according to the Earth. The Earth has the role as common reference system for the values partners' speed. And so, these values have the same character. If the relativity partners are on different frames, we need a large and common reference system comprehending all actors.


The speed of light is the common reference for all frames. We already know this and we already use it. It is built into the Lorentz transformations. What you call the "Vor coordinate system" may be exactly: Minkowski spacetime in normal relativity. I think there is a very good chance of this.

Consider, when you say the speed of light is c for both "material" reference and Vor reference, Minkowski would say that light is always 45 degrees on a Minkowski diagram. Light appears 45 degrees to all observers and to the diagram itself.

If we were to set aside some of the misconceptions you seem to have about SR and look a bit closer at it - you might end up seeing it in a whole new light and perhaps agreeing with the scientific community at large. Let me recomend this link again. If you don't look into anything else I say, just this one link would be the most helpful:

Special Relativity - Wikibooks, collection of open-content textbooks

~modest

#30 xersan

xersan

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 27 August 2008 - 04:15 AM

Good.

What, specifically, are you predicting about the speed of light?

Assuming a simple measuring device consisting of a short pulsed light source and detector separated by a known distance [math]d[/math] with precise clocks, where the speed of light measured is [math]v_c = frac{d}{Delta t}[/math], what do you predict the speed of light to be

  • Near Earth, when the source is stationary relative to the center of the Earth and the detector is moving directly toward the source at speed [math]v_D[/math] relative the the center of the Earth?
  • Near Earth, when the source is stationary relative to the center of the Earth and the detector is moving directly away the source at speed [math]v_D[/math] relative the the center of the Earth?
  • Near Earth, when the detector is stationary relative to the center of the Earth and the source is moving directly toward the source at speed [math]v_D[/math] relative the the center of the Earth?
  • Near Earth, when the detector is stationary relative to the center of the Earth and the source is moving directly away the source at speed [math]v_D[/math] relative the the center of the Earth?
  • Near Jupiter, when the source is stationary relative to the center of the Jupiter and the detector is moving directly toward the source at speed [math]v_D[/math] relative the the center of the Jupiter?
  • Near Jupiter, when the source is stationary relative to the center of the Jupiter and the detector is moving directly away the source at speed [math]v_D[/math] relative the the center of the Jupiter?
  • Near Jupiter, when the detector is stationary relative to the center of the Jupiter and the source is moving directly toward the source at speed [math]v_D[/math] relative the the center of the Jupiter?
  • Near Jupiter, when the detector is stationary relative to the center of the Jupiter and the source is moving directly away the source at speed [math]v_D[/math] relative the the center of the Jupiter?


Thanks for opening my theory due to your questions.

Firstly I want to emphasis some peculiarity of new concept:

1- We use the light actor as a point or flash impulse (never uninterrupted light). It starts to run at the moment of "To".
2- The point of flashing (So) is marked on the light coordinate system (The source never uses for the point of flashing. Also the source has transited this point (So) at the moment of "To". The point of flashing is absolute fixed on the light coordinate system; henceforth the fixity of the source has not importance. It can move to anywhere independently. It and its light are independent exactly after the flashing time.

The relativity problems are set between the light and observer as yours. But the master results and relations of Lorentz and Einstein are produced by the analysis of relativity setting between the light and its source also. A similar analysis of theirs may be set for football game: let's realize:

The ball: As the role of the light actor (flash impulse or light as a point) or a photon.

The stadium: The light coordinate system

Player S /Active player: For the role of the source

Player D : For the role of detector.

1- At the moment of "To" Player S sends the ball from the point of "So" to player D.
2- At the moment of "Tı" the ball arrives at the player D.
3- At the moment of "Tı" the player S takes his new position at the point of "Sı" The players are on the points of So, Do and Sı, Dı for the moment of To and Tı.

The moment "To":

……………£*……………………………………………………..&……
……………So……………………………………………………..Do…
……………..+…………………….Lo……………………………+

The moment "Tı":

………………………………...£…………………*&…………………..
…………………………………Sı………………...Dı…………………
…………………………………+……..Lı…………+
……………...+…………..L(reel)……………..+


For determining the speed of the ball we use the distance SoDı and t= Tı - To. But Lorentz considered the distance SıDı for finding the light's speed. Yes, we measure the value "c" in everywhere. This argument is enough for everyone except me. The measuring is meaning to travel by measured value. But I don't agree. We may be measuring the velocity of light according to most external system instead of according to its source or local inertial system. Our measuring device (with mirror and by uninterrupted light) measures the character "Vor" for light.

Indeed, the some results may be different* by the light instead of ball, but the distance of SıDı is wrong to calculate the speed of light everytime.

The reel way of the light is interval the points So and Dı (because the light is at the point "So" for the moment of "To" and it is at the point "Dı" for the moment of "Tı" absolutely). Others (distances of SoDo or SıDı) are illusion. Lorentz had could not established a macro coordinate system for marking this points. This points can be marked independently (without the source or anything) for theoretical analysis.

You may solve your problems by this rules (The speeds of source and detector must be preferred by the character "Vor"). If you have any contradiction, I am ready to precise.

* I have an optional idea. For example the light comes by the value "c" to any detector.

#31 xersan

xersan

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 27 August 2008 - 04:23 AM

xersan, why not answer CraigD's questions 1-8?



~modest


Your answer is very long. Allow me a little. I'll work to answer. And thanks for debate and your serious regarding.

#32 modest

modest

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4959 posts

Posted 27 August 2008 - 03:53 PM

For determining the speed of the ball we use the distance SoDı and t= Tı - To. But Lorentz considered the distance SıDı for finding the light's speed.


This is simply not true. Look at your example on a spacetime diagram:

Posted Image

In SR the observer D does not measure the speed of light with [math]S_1[/math] and [math]D_1[/math] as you say. The speed of light is:

[math]\frac{D_1 - S_0}{T_1 - T_0}[/math]

notice [math]D_1 = D_0[/math] from D's point of view (nothing moves relative to itself)

I honestly think you're trying to reinvent the wheel here when the wheel isn't broken.

~modest

#33 xersan

xersan

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 28 August 2008 - 05:17 AM

"... because the speed of light is equal for both frames."


~modest




Yes good. Also I work to explain the nuance at root of this postulate of SR.

Your statement is usually accepted as an absolute judgment. Perhaps, it is more significant by this form of the sentence:

"…the speed of light is measured the fixed value "c" in all of frames."

It is measured but it is an axiomatic prejudice the traveling of the light by the measured speed. This axiomatic prejudice is correct for materials exactly. But for light it has no precision. It may be not correct for the light. We may be measuring always the value "c" for velocity of light. But this result does not mean for light the flashing impulse travels by the value "c". We measure the "c" but the flashing impulse may be traveling by the value of speed "c - V" authentically*.

Traditionally we have primary opinion that a subject travels by its measured speed. This is a local postulate especially for materials. We are sure, because we measure the speed of materials by classical methods (with a single defined actor, distance without mirror and the relation v = L/t)

* The measurement device for light can not measure the speed of light according to local frame. If it can measure this speed, master postulate of SR would be correct and functional. But known systems can not measure the speed according to local frame, because the experiment are organized by uninterrupted light and by the mirrors.

Yes we can measure it; but it is very important which characteristic of light's velocity we can measure.

The light is the reason of confusion. Lorentz supposed the distance "x - v.t" is the road of the light interval the moments of "To" and "Tı". And he supposed the light traveled this distance by the value of velocity "c".

The postulate of SR has locality and linear thinking and it is not effective or functional for light's analysis. The light passes 300 000 km per second according to light coordinate system. We can measure it but we suppose that the measured value "c" is speed of velocity according to local frame. The nuance is here. Please allow you yourself to think this nuance. The measuring and the traveling concern different definitions. Our minds may have a short circuit/contact for this point.

The pure reality : To measure

The wrong interpretation: To travel

To prefer lucky between this activities requires serious examination.


The value of measuring may be deceptive for light analysis. In my opinion we are not allowed to use the measured value for the meaning to travel by this speed.

Yes we use for materials' analysis but we are not sure to use for light analysis.

to be continued

#34 xersan

xersan

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 28 August 2008 - 12:22 PM

This is simply not true. Look at your example on a spacetime diagram:

Posted Image

In SR the observer D does not measure the speed of light with [math]S_1[/math] and [math]D_1[/math] as you say. The speed of light is:

[math]frac{D_1 - S_0}{T_1 - T_0}[/math]

notice [math]D_1 = D_0[/math] from D's point of view (nothing moves relative to itself)

I honestly think you're trying to reinvent the wheel here when the wheel isn't broken.
~modest


I don't like to engage in a polemic. The polemic is asymmetric way of behaving.

Allow you yourself to distinguish the illusions*. If such of human understand the measured light's velocity by the linear form of meaning, I will be desperate.

Your figure is beautiful (thanks, also I have similar figure in space condition) but the source and the light travel always at same direction and parallel lines for the theory analysis:

The moment "To":

……………£*……………………………………………………..&……
……………So……………………………………………………..Do…
……………..+…………………….Lo……………………………+

The moment "Tı":

………………………………...£…………………*&…………………..
…………………………………Sı………………...Dı…………………
…………………………………+……..Lı…………+
……………...+…………..L(reel)……………..+


1- Lorentz had used the distance "SoDı" for the fixity of light's velocity in analysis of light's motion on reference frame (The rails or the earth).
2- Lorentz had used the distance "SıDı = x - v.t" for the fixity of light's velocity on relative frame (in train).

It is just only illusion the measuring the speed by using the distance "SoDı" or "SıDı". It never be realized for SoDı or SıDı. (*)It is defined by your intending. But these distances are used perfectly or distinguishable on theoretical analysis. The measuring are not realized authentically by using these distances. In fact human supposes the value "c" is according to every frame.