Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The COLLAPSE of SR (Special relativity)


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#35 xersan

xersan

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 29 August 2008 - 06:55 AM

Posted Image

~modest


Karl Popper had said that as a good comparison: The developments of scientific methods are like a casting a net on natural realities. The intervals of net become narrower by time. In my opinion the intervals of net are large yet in analysis of SR. We have to acquire more precision.

Your successful figure supports my theory and it menaces the theory of SR; because SR needs isolation from natural reality. For example the theory uses single line and direction.

If we set again, the Lorentz's analysis step by step on your figure, the defects of SR will appear with clarity.

If the points "So" and "Dı" are marked on the light coordinate system, the distance "SoDı" is the reel amount of the light's road; because the light started to travel from the point "So" at the moment of "To" and arrived to the point "Dı" of detector at the moment of "Tı". I fixed exactly/absolutely the point "So" due to "light coordinate system". Henceforth the theory of SR never says "The light travels by the value "c" of velocity too in relative system which it has motion".

Let's go on: In the theory of SR the source is constrained to travel toward the same line and direction in the train example. This necessity may pass over due to your figure. To fix the light's velocity for the distance "SıDı" and for the time "t = Tı -To" gives a different absurd relation by Lorentz's procedure. The special isolation protects the theory or it is the reason of illusion (In fact this isolation obtain that the existing of flash impulse has singularity. But the reel form of events as your figure the flash impulse appears at two points (Dı and Fı)

To establish an absolute coordinate system (imaginary) and marking The point "So, Sı, Do, Dı, etc" on this system solve this illusion or confusion.

The original text of SR needs to establish a new point "Fı" for light (flash impulse) and the light passes the distance "SıFı" by the value "c" of velocity for the time "t = Tı - To" and SıFı = c.t.

If the observer or a detector is in operation together the source and the light, the results of SR are under menace.


#36 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 29 August 2008 - 08:37 AM

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

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

The answers to these 8 questions, for any theory describing light, are not long or complicated. Each is a single mathematical expression, evaluating to a single number, with a unit from some recognized system of units.

For example, according to the theory of special relativity, the answers are: 1) [math]299792458 \,\mbox{m/s}[/math]; 2) [math]299792458 \,\mbox{m/s}[/math]; 3) [math]299792458 \,\mbox{m/s}[/math]; 4) [math]299792458 \,\mbox{m/s}[/math]; 5) [math]299792458 \,\mbox{m/s}[/math]; 6) [math]299792458 \,\mbox{m/s}[/math]; 7) [math]299792458 \,\mbox{m/s}[/math]; 8) [math]299792458 \,\mbox{m/s}[/math].

According to the corpuscular theory of light, they are: 1) [math]299792458 + v_D \,\mbox{m/s}[/math]; 2) [math]299792458 - v_D \,\mbox{m/s}[/math]; 3) [math]299792458 + v_D \,\mbox{m/s}[/math]; 4) [math]299792458 - v_D \,\mbox{m/s}[/math]; 5) [math]299792458 + v_D \,\mbox{m/s}[/math]; 6) [math]299792458 - v_D \,\mbox{m/s}[/math]; 7) [math]299792458 + v_D \,\mbox{m/s}[/math]; 8) [math]299792458 - v_D \,\mbox{m/s}[/math].

Please understand that these questions are not intended as either criticism or support for your ideas, but to clarify them. Along, I think, with nearly everybody else who has read your posts and attempted to understand them, even after weeks and 35 posts, I can still only guess at what you’re attempting to claim!

#37 modest

modest

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4959 posts

Posted 29 August 2008 - 02:39 PM

Xersan, rather than responding to everything you’ve said, I will just hit the main points.

Your first objection is that we only measure c and we don’t know its “authentic” value. This is fine as far as SR is concerned. The important thing is that all inertial frames agree on the laws of physics and the speed of light. In fact, The actual value of c is incidental. c can be any positive value and SR will still work so long as everyone agrees on its value. It is something that is measured - not derived.

Your objection that we need mirrors to measure c is not exactly true. If accurate enough clocks are used then a mirror is not needed. A GPS satellite will send you a set of photons which can be translated into a time describing when they were sent. Two other satellites send you their time encoded signal. Because all three signals traveled at the speed of light it is possible to compare them and consider the time of propagation and know exactly where you are relative to the satellites.

Your further objection to SR is that we only know the value of c from the standpoint of “materials” and not light itself. (As an aside, you would be better-understood saying “body” rather than “material”.) What you’re saying is not really an objection to SR. In SR, light propagates at c for an inertial frame. Light is not an inertial frame and no one expects the inertial laws of physics to work in light’s frame of reference.

Your attack on SR accompanies this statement:

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


Which is so ironic that I must assume there’s been some kind of mistaken translation. :shrug:

Lorentz had used the distance "SıDı = x - v.t" for the fixity of light's velocity on relative frame (in train).


Lorentz does not use “x - v.t” in deriving relative length, but rather:

[math]X = \frac{x-vt}{\sqrt{1-(v/c)^2}}[/math]

for each point where distance is [imath]D = X_2 - X_1[/imath] which reduces to D times the Lorentz factor. This is shown here.

The amount of time light takes to traverse such a distance is simply D/c. Lorentz does not use the Galilean method as you imply.


Your idea of implementing a coordinate system that is at rest relative to the whole universe is not unique. It is fine with SR if you want to do that. Calling such a thing the Vor coordinate system is confusing. Most people would call it the CMB reference frame. It is the frame that is most at rest with the visible universe.

The following is from Cosmic Microwave Background - Frequently Asked Questions

Doesn't this mean there's an absolute frame of reference?

The theory of special relativity is based on the principle that there are no preferred reference frames. In other words, the whole of Einstein's theory rests on the assumption that physics works the same irrespective of what speed and direction you have. So the fact that there is a frame of reference in which there is no motion through the CMB would appear to violate special relativity!

However, the crucial assumption of Einstein's theory is not that there are no special frames, but that there are no special frames where the laws of physics are different. There clearly is a frame where the CMB is at rest, and so this is, in some sense, the rest frame of the Universe. But for doing any physics experiment, any other frame is as good as this one. So the only difference is that in the CMB rest frame you measure no velocity with respect to the CMB photons, but that does not imply any fundamental difference in the laws of physics.


~modest

#38 xersan

xersan

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 30 August 2008 - 05:08 AM

The answers to these 8 questions, for any theory describing light, are not long or complicated. Each is a single mathematical expression, evaluating to a single number, with a unit from some recognized system of units.

For example, according to the theory of special relativity, the answers are: 1) [math]299792458 ,mbox{m/s}[/math]; 2) [math]299792458 ,mbox{m/s}[/math]; 3) [math]299792458 ,mbox{m/s}[/math]; 4) [math]299792458 ,mbox{m/s}[/math]; 5) [math]299792458 ,mbox{m/s}[/math]; 6) [math]299792458 ,mbox{m/s}[/math]; 7) [math]299792458 ,mbox{m/s}[/math]; 8) [math]299792458 ,mbox{m/s}[/math].

According to the corpuscular theory of light, they are: 1) [math]299792458 + v_D ,mbox{m/s}[/math]; 2) [math]299792458 - v_D ,mbox{m/s}[/math]; 3) [math]299792458 + v_D ,mbox{m/s}[/math]; 4) [math]299792458 - v_D ,mbox{m/s}[/math]; 5) [math]299792458 + v_D ,mbox{m/s}[/math]; 6) [math]299792458 - v_D ,mbox{m/s}[/math]; 7) [math]299792458 + v_D ,mbox{m/s}[/math]; 8) [math]299792458 - v_D ,mbox{m/s}[/math].

Please understand that these questions are not intended as either criticism or support for your ideas, but to clarify them. Along, I think, with nearly everybody else who has read your posts and attempted to understand them, even after weeks and 35 posts, I can still only guess at what you’re attempting to claim!


I have said "your answer is very long....." that it is for Modest's long submission. Not for you. I had answered your question. I prefered theoretical explanation generally against your 8 questions.

And I perceived that also you are analyzing the space-time by memorization SR. And you have a powerful evidence as measurement Of light's speed.

But I want to say it requires thinking performance by the form of "a step forward".

Yes your answers in second group are correct for my new concept. I am sure.

The interval distance of detector and flashing point is traveled by the value "c +/- Vd"; but you acquire the value "c" at the result of measurement by known device*. The construction of measuring experiment never measure the value "c +/- Vd". You will find always "c". If some one has axiomatic thinking he can suppose that the light travel the interval distance "SoDo" by value "c". But he is on the point "Di" instead of "Do". This an illusion, because dedector is never stationary.

* Simply, The interval distance is not passed by only the light. If you think that this distance is passed by the only the light; it means, you are influence of illusion. We must understand that the velocity of light has fixity absolutely by the form of authentically.

I want to explain this claim on a figure:

to be continued...

#39 xersan

xersan

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 30 August 2008 - 05:37 AM


Lorentz does not use “x - v.t” in deriving relative length, but rather:

[math]X = frac{x-vt}{sqrt{1-(v/c)^2}}[/math]

for each point where distance is [imath]D = X_2 - X_1[/imath] which reduces to D times the Lorentz factor. This is shown here.


~modest


You and I, we said same thing. But you prefer to take as a chance of negativeness for me.?????:naughty:

Lorentz reduced the distance ;)with

[math]{1}/{\sqrt{1 -(v/c)^2}}[/math]

. Here he had . ;)

I said that: You don't find same relation If you follow the Lorentz's way for your figure.

#40 xersan

xersan

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 30 August 2008 - 05:50 AM

.

#41 modest

modest

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4959 posts

Posted 30 August 2008 - 06:18 AM

You and I, we said same thing. But you prefer to take as a chance of negativeness for me.?????:naughty:


It was not a negative toward you. In fact, I'm sure we were talking about two different things. Despite my best efforts, your posts remain incomprehensible. I think if you had some kind of valid point it would have been understood by now.

~modest

#42 xersan

xersan

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 30 August 2008 - 01:24 PM

in other words NEW CONCEPT

Posted Image
Diagram of Natural Special Relativity in space

1- The source is on the point "So" at the moment of "To".
2- The detector is on the point "Do" at the moment of "To".
3- The flash impulse starts to travel by its velocity "c" at the moment of "To". And it arrives to the point "Dı" at the moment of "Tı".
4- The detector travels by its speed "VD" and arrives to the point "Dı" at the time of "Tı".
5- The source travels by its speed "Vs" and arrives to the point "Sı" at the time of "Tı".
6- The distance "SoDı" is traveled (passed) by the flash impulse with fixed value "c" for the time "t = Tı - To"
7- The distance "DoDı" is traveled by the detector with its fixed speed "VD" for the time "t = Tı - To".
8- The distance "SoDo" is traveled by the light and the detector together with the value of relative speed "c + VD"
9- The distance "SıDı" is traveled by the light and the source together with the value of relative speed "c + Vs".
10- We find the value "c" If we measure the light's speed.
11- Somebody objects immediately "The value of any velocity is never bigger than "c". But relative velocity is formal. If the detector is chosen as inertial frame it does not mean the light travels by "c + V" authentically. Relative value of speed is formal. The meaning "formal" is simple. In other words "operational". Yes of course, any subject never travels by the bigger velocity than lights' authentically; but it is possible in mathematical operations. I guess you will refuse this idea. If this nuance will be not understood, I can't help to anyone. And I will decide that everybody is dogmatic because of Einstein; anyway I will not want to contribute more insistently for this forum.

#43 modest

modest

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4959 posts

Posted 30 August 2008 - 02:09 PM

There is no consideration for relativity in the above at all.

1- The source is on the point "So" at the moment of "To".


"To" relative to what?

2- The detector is on the point "Do" at the moment of "To".


Point "Do" relative to what?

3- The flash impulse starts to travel by its velocity "c" at the moment of "To". And it arrives to the point "Dı" at the moment of "Tı".


Veclocity "c", moment "To", point "Dı" relative to what?

4- The detector travels by its speed "VD" and arrives to the point "Dı" at the time of "Tı".


The detector travels at speed "VD" according to who? Speed is relative - it can't travel at VD relative to itself. It arrives at "Dı" as seen/measured/determined by who? Who's time "Tı" are you talking about. Clocks on D will work different than S - they won't have the same "Tı".

5- The source travels by its speed "Vs" and arrives to the point "Sı" at the time of "Tı".


"Vs", "Sı", "Tı" relative to and according to who?

6- The distance "SoDı" is traveled (passed) by the flash impulse with fixed value "c" for the time "t = Tı - To"


distance "SoDı" according to who, time "t = Tı - To" as measured by who?

7- The distance "DoDı" is traveled by the detector with its fixed speed "VD" for the time "t = Tı - To".


Distance, speed, time, according to who?

8- The distance "SoDo" is traveled by the light and the detector together with the value of relative speed "c + VD"


What you call "relative speed" is vector addition and is nothing to do with relative speed in relativity.

9- The distance "SıDı" is traveled by the light and the source together with the value of relative speed "c + Vs".


As measured by who? Do can't possibly measure Sı from Dı as it's outside D's lightcone.

I've come to the conclusion you have no idea what relativity is. You give distances and speeds as if they are the distance and the speed with no sense of relativity at all. Studying relativity would be a better use of your time than trying to redo it incorrectly.

~modest

#44 xersan

xersan

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 31 August 2008 - 05:47 AM

There is no consideration for relativity in the above at all.



"To" relative to what?



Point "Do" relative to what?



Veclocity "c", moment "To", point "Dı" relative to what?



The detector travels at speed "VD" according to who? Speed is relative - it can't travel at VD relative to itself. It arrives at "Dı" as seen/measured/determined by who? Who's time "Tı" are you talking about. Clocks on D will work different than S - they won't have the same "Tı".



"Vs", "Sı", "Tı" relative to and according to who?



distance "SoDı" according to who, time "t = Tı - To" as measured by who?



Distance, speed, time, according to who?



What you call "relative speed" is vector addition and is nothing to do with relative speed in relativity.



As measured by who? Do can't possibly measure Sı from Dı as it's outside D's lightcone.

I've come to the conclusion you have no idea what relativity is. You give distances and speeds as if they are the distance and the speed with no sense of relativity at all. Studying relativity would be a better use of your time than trying to redo it incorrectly.

~modest



YOU ARE WELCOME !

I waited this questions.

Yes the points are marked on the light coordinate system. The distances are interval these points.

The speeds (even "c") are according to the most externel system (Light coordinate system).

Why do I take the base the light coordinate system as a refernce system for everything? Because the characteristics of light are according to this reference frame. Scientific integrity requires that we must use the values of other partner's parameters according to the same frame.

If we establish/define a reference frame outside of universe or comprehensive for everything, the all results will be normally. And The units of parameters remain classical values and definition.

#45 modest

modest

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4959 posts

Posted 31 August 2008 - 12:51 PM

As I've said before - what you describe is called the CMB-reference-frame. It is not a special frame or a special coordinate system. It is not a "light coordinate system" as you say. Light has spacetime separation of zero which your picture above certainly doesn't show.

If you ask the perfectly normal question "how would D and S look from light's frame? Then the answer is not what you've drawn above. If you ask the question "how would D and S look from the CMB reference frame" then your diagram is proper and understandable.

The CMB-reference-frame is the frame that is motionless to the cosmic microwave background. It is what you've been describing. It is motionless or at rest with the largest known structure of the universe. There is nothing special (more than what I've just said) about this frame. It follows the rules of SR just like every other inertial frame. If you read my reference in the post above, you'll see that.

To consider relativity in your three frame example above, you would have questions like these:

Between [imath]T_0[/imath] and [imath]T_1[/imath] in the CMB (or Vor) frame, how much time passes for S and how much time passes for D?

If time T passes for D, then how much time passes for S.

The distance [imath]S_0D_1[/imath] in the CMB (or Vor) frame is what distance in the D and S frame?

There are a dozen other questions like this that can be asked which SR can easily answer because we have a way of transforming between these three frames. You can't answer these questions. They are questions of relativity and what you have is not.

All you've done is propose a frame that is not new or special and given it a funny name. Further than that, you don't understand how to apply relativity to this frame which is the simplest and easiest problem of relativity.

Special Relativity - Wikibooks, collection of open-content textbooks

~modest

#46 xersan

xersan

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 01 September 2008 - 11:48 AM

I have only one hour per day. Excuse me for today.

#47 xersan

xersan

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 02 September 2008 - 10:05 AM

All you've done is propose a frame that is not new or special and given it a funny name. Further than that, you don't understand how to apply relativity to this frame which is the simplest and easiest problem of relativity.

~modest


To answer by saying "you don't understand" is negative at the forums anyway.

#48 xersan

xersan

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 02 September 2008 - 10:13 AM

Master-Key of Collapse of SR (4)

1- It is possible and effective the isolation some secondary factors for scientific analysis. So, it is obtained the elementary analysis on master axle of the event or subject. For example, the traveling line is straight and the speed of subject is fixed in SR; also the observer, the source and the light travels on parallel lines. They present easiness for basic analysis.
2- But, we have no the rules of these isolations or reductions. The scientists may use and decide the appropriate dosage. The optimum dosage is defined by the concept of necessity and adequacy. If the isolation is exceeded, the claims can be defended easily. But if needless isolations are removed their precision may be impaired.
3- In my opinion the possibility of scientific isolation is used over optimum or extremely in SR analysis. For example the theory is set by an inertial system and the light in the original text. And so it has consistence easily. It may be not perceived as a problem the light at the opposite direction according to the direction of its source on relative subject.
4- Lorentz's analysis has clarity for the light at the opposite according to its sources'. But also he analyzed the light at the same direction of its source. Here it is a needless isolation. If we analyze the opposite light by the rules of SR, this time we find "the time contraction" instead of dilation.
5- The theory of SR organized between only two actors with train-rails example or Earth-spaceship. But universe is never composed of only two subjects. The third and other actors menace the results of SR like in a marriage.

For example: If the relative speed of the train is Ve according to the earth; Vv according to Virgo; Vf according to the cluster Fornax; Vc according to the super cluster Coma; Va according to Abell 2246; V326 according to 3C 326.1 etc…The contraction of the train's length will be the values of e %, v %, f %, c %, a %, …..x % etc. simultaneously because of SR. And the time dilations for the train will be the values of e' %, v' %, f' %, c' %, a' %,……x' % etc. simultaneously by SR. But it is impossible the different values of deformations simultaneously.


#49 freeztar

freeztar

    Pondering

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8445 posts

Posted 02 September 2008 - 11:52 AM

To answer by saying "you don't understand" is negative at the forums anyway.


Stating a fact is never negative on this forum. If you believe you understand relativity, then prove it.

#50 xersan

xersan

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 03 September 2008 - 06:46 AM

1 - "how would D and S look from light's frame?

2 - Between [imath]T_0[/imath] and [imath]T_1[/imath] in the CMB (or Vor) frame, how much time passes for S and how much time passes for D?If time T passes for D, then how much time passes for S.

3 - The distance [imath]S_0D_1[/imath] in the CMB (or Vor) frame is what distance in the D and S frame?

~modest



Dear modest,

If the velocity of light is endless we can see the cosmic structures simultaneously. And we have no problem about the complexity of space-time. The light's speed is high but it is limited.

The reason of complexity of the space-time is limited velocity of the light. Bu SR claims that the reason is relative speeds of materials and the fixed value of light. Of course to distinguish the precision is difficult between these hypotheses. But we have a chance: We can analyze any problem by both of the. And we may examine the consistency with data of observations.

I want to answer your questions:

1 - The most external reference system is functional and effective for theoretical analysis. We can think it as an animation perfectly in our mind.


2 - The tempo (rhythm) of time is same for both of S and D. If we take the values as character "Vur" (Vur : The relative value of speed according to universe) for the speeds of S and D; Time runs by the same tempo. To and Tı are the moments of a single clock or synchronized clocks.

3 - The distance interval of the points So and Dı does not require to deform or to contract by their relative speeds; because we can use the values for their speeds according to a single and collective reference system.

We may think the light of a star or a similar source as flash. This flashing light has a form of spherical surface. The radius of this sphere grows by the value of speed "c".

I have a question for you: Which value of speed does the diameter of this sphere increase?

#51 modest

modest

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4959 posts

Posted 03 September 2008 - 05:01 PM

To answer by saying "you don't understand" is negative at the forums anyway.


Well, it's certainly not a positive thing.

Nevertheless, you've demonstrated it's true. I've given you the benefit of every doubt. Forgive my idiomatic language... but I've gone to bat for you. My conclusion that you don't understand SR was not lightly made.

The tempo (rhythm) of time is same for both of S and D.


S and D have different velocities relative to the CMB (or Vor) frame. They therefore have different rates of time.

The distance interval of the points So and Dı does not require to deform or to contract by their relative speeds; because we can use the values for their speeds according to a single and collective reference system.


But, my question is... what is the distance as measured by S and what is the distance as measured by D? Experimentally, we know they are not the same. You avoid answering by bringing up your third frame with its funny properties, but this does nothing to answer the question. What do D and S measure? If you can't answer that, then what's the point?

I have a question for you: Which value of speed does the diameter of this sphere increase?


Twice c, or 2 light seconds per second.

~modest