"though there should exist an extremely difficult barrier for us to surpass the speed of light in the aether just as to surpass the sound barrier in the air"

just go ahead, follow Ereditato's neutrinos faster than light and note all standard gunfire "surpass the sound barrier in the air"

Amerit, the problems of your comments are that you just add assertions without strict logical reasoning. All abstract definitions of time are irrelevant to the time we use measured with clocks. What we call time is exactly what a clock tells!

Shen, how do you explain the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment?

James Amold, M-M experiment confirms that on the earth surface (more exactly the spots of the experiments) the speeds of light in all horizontal directions seem the same within the measurement accuracy. Fluid aether model can perfectly explain that if aether at the spots was dragged by the earth.

Shen and Thierry, what about the motion of the solar system through the "ether" in the galaxy. That could not be "dragged" by the earth, and could not be locally zero.

@ James Arnold: no, the Earth can drag the ether so that their relative velocities are always zero. In fact, that was Michelson's original interpretation of his own result, which was, however, rejected by most specialists.

@ Shen: The problem with ``dragged ether'' is that it is incompatible with a large number of optical experiments, including aberration, aberration in a telescope filled with water, as well as Fizeau's experiment.

By the way, your reanalysis of Fizeau's experiment doubling the value of the water velocity on the basis of an assumed ``parabolic profile'' for the water motion is technically unjustified: Poiseuille flow (parabolic profile) is only valid in the limit of low Reynolds numbers, which most certainly was not the case in Fizeau's experiments (water at 4 m/s in a tube of diameter about 5 mm, leads to Re=2'000). Under these circumstances one presumably has uniform velocity to a quite good approximation, so that Fizeau's estimate of the velocity was correct.

As many papers of its kind, it only mentions the original MM experiment, and completely fails to analyse the far higher precision results obtained in latter years. It also fails to address the problems inherent to a ``dragged ether'' hypothesis.

In other words, worthless.

It is correct that mass, as usually defined nowadays, namely as rest mass, does not increase with speed. That is generally understood, arises from a change in *definitions*, not in theory. The predictions made using the old fashioned longitudinal and transverse mass are still correct. It is just that we would not call these things ``mass'' any more.

Finally, this has, of course, nothing to do with the equivalence principle.

I agree that the Special Theory is false. However my  reason for believing it is false is that one can mathematically rigorously prove directly from the 1st postulate, that the 2nd postulate is false and thus that the speed of e.m. photon radiation is not an absolute constant. And further, that the speed of e.m. photon radiation is vectorally  additive.  The proof is on my website, www.jmkingsleyiii.info

The error of the special theory of relativity is derived from the logical contradiction of Lorenz's transformation.

Please read the paper, may be helpful for you.

A new approach to the correction of

Galilean transformation

To Christian Baumgarten:

You've stated, "in physics, theories of such importance are not "disproved" theoretically unless math is flawed, ..." 

This is precisely my point. The math is flawed.  One can mathematically rigorously prove directly from the 1st postulate, that the 2nd postulate is false and thus that the speed of e.m. photon radiation is not an absolute constant. Further, that the speed of e.m. photon radiation is vectorally additive. From the 1st postulate and the vectorally additive velocity of light, one can derive the Galilean Transformation and from the Galilean Transformation one can directly derive the negative results of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

The proof is on my website, www.jmkingsleyiii.info

Christian Baumgarten "in physics, theories of such importance are not "disproved" theoretically (unless math is flawed), but by experiment." That's not true. We can of course disprove STR theoretically. We can prove that the time defined by LT is no longer the physical time measured by clocks. Then all what the STR claims becomes irrelevant to physics due to its use of a fake time. Moreover, in the STR there still exists Galilean time which is absolute consistent with the clock time. The speed of light defined with the Galilean time (i.e. the clock time) has been proved following Newton's velocity addition formula which has directly falsified the postulate that the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames.

I don't need a second clock to say the time of a moving object. I need a reflecting mirror on the moving object. That's all.

Dear Xinhang Shen,

I totally agree with your work.

Then Randy Wayne seems to have the correct explanation of relativity.

Sincerely.

Christian Baumgarten, do you know how you can calibrate each clock going at the same rate relative to their own reference frame in STR? STR never tells you how to do that because it has not defined it yet and therefore can't be calibrated at all. That's why people are always get confused.

In my paper, I have presented the definition of the time of STR in the moving frame as a function of Galilean time and space, and the time of STR at the origin of a moving frame is equal to Galilean time divided by the factor gamma. When it is observed on the stationary frame, it is then multiplied by the factor gamma (i.e. dilated by gamma) to recover Galilean time same as the time at the origin of the stationary frame. That's why it is just an illusion. 

Christian, you write " Time dilation always concerns the comparison of at least 2 clocks in different "frames"". 

One frame is sufficient SR, as well as one system of coordinates in GR, to describe all the physics.  This includes all the clocks of all observers too.  This is one of the points of Bell's paper "how to teach special relativity".  

Christian, why should one formulate a "relativity theory" at all?  

It is, of course, useful to care about various possibilities to describe the theory, based on various coordinates or frames of reference and so on.  And then one has, of course, to care about rules of transformation between such different descriptions.  But this is what every physical theory has to provide.  Newtonian gravity as well as quantum theory have also different possibilities to describe the same physical situation, and rules how to transform them in a coherent way.   

In fact, I can simply use Maxwell theory in its original form.  It is a theory which has Lorentz symmetry for its observable effects, but this fact was initially not observed.  So what?  Has this somehow harmed Maxwell theory?  Prevented its empirical tests?  

Christian,

“…what space-time exactly is, but I doubt that it is the fundamental modality of existence…”

- in the reality – and without any doubts - the Matter’s spacetime is fundamental for Matter, moreover – the Spacetime for the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set is absolutely fundamental also –because of It  is simply obligatory necessary grammar two-Rule/ possibility (“Space”+ “Time”) for any informational system, including the system “Set” to exist.

And where this [Set’s] Spacetime has at least [we cannot exclude that absolutely] infinite number of dimensions. As well as any singled out sub-system – a sub-Set – has own concrete spacetime with concrete number of dimensions, which [concrete spacetime] is sub-region of the Spacetime; this [concrete] number is equal to the [concrete]  number of independent degrees of freedom at changes of some primary logical statements/conditions that are basic for this [concrete]  system.  If the system is a system of fixed information, for it there exists (the system is placed in) some space only; if the system contains changing (dynamical) informational patterns, it is placed in a spacetime.

But in the Set, and in every dynamical system in the Set, for every dynamical process always the “true time” Rule/possibility acts – any change of some pattern of a [concrete] system or of a configuration of the system,  i.e.  every change of the system is accompanied by necessarily non-zero “true time interval”  

Matter is a dynamical sub-Set where Its basic  “fundamental logical elements” (FLE) has 4 basic degrees of freedom – 3 for placing of fixed, in certain sense, Matter’s informational patterns/system of patterns  (particles, bodies, etc.), and one “temporal” degree – as an addition to always acting “true time Rule/possibility”, so in Matter two Rules/possibilities “time”act.

Though indeed, as any grammar rule/ possibility these Rules/ possibilities act in Matter implicitly, and constant concrete changing of the system “Matter” in Its spacetime is determined, first of all, by concrete other properties/ logical rules/conditions (nature laws) that act in Matter.

But if somebody thinks/believes in something that isn’t adequate to how the real system of Rules/possibilities “space”/ “time”/ “spacetime” acts in a concrete system, then this somebody will obligatory erroneously understand – how this concrete system operates. Already seems a classical example – the special relativity theory, where instead of the real Euclidian [5]4D spacetime the “Minkowski Spacetime” is postulated as real. From what followed immediately such a strange, and non-adequate to the reality “relativistic effects” – “the time dilation”, “the space contraction”, etc.; in the GR analogously equally non-real “non-linear spacetime transformations” appeared.

The cost – more 100 years of mostly senseless work of physicists and rather sophisticated instruments…

Cheers

dear Amrit, I would like to inform you: LIGHT ARE ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES!

next, dear Amrit, what is now exactly a constant, homogeneous electric field, E = (E,0,0), with constant E? 

My personal view of the SRT is that it is wrong because the observed time dilation is only and apparent phenomenon. Instead of using the Lorentz Transformation (LT) we should use Voigt’s Transformation (VT), which was published before the LT. By the VT clocks in a moving frame runs at the same pace, but the Minkowskian spacetime appears scale-contracted by the factor [1-(v/c)2]. The time dilation is caused by this scale difference. This scale-factor also explains the inertial force as being a purely gravitational kind of force induced by acceleration, which changes the scale factor. With this “inertial” scale factor all acceleration will take place on geodesics of General Relativity. This will also mean that there is an absolute cosmological time and that there is no constraint to how far one may travel in a given time.

I agree that the Special Theory is false. However my reason for believing it is false is that one can mathematically rigorously prove directly from the 1st postulate, that the 2nd postulate is false and thus that the speed of e.m. photon radiation is not an absolute constant and further, one can directly prove from the 1st postulate that the speed of e.m. photon radiation is vectorally additive. From  the vector additivity of the  velocity of light, one can derive the Galilean Transformation and from the Galilean Transformation one can directly derive the negative results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. The proof is on my website, www.jmkingsleyiii.info

If somebody claims that he has disproven special relativity, one does not really have to check the proof and to find an error there, it is quite sure that this is nonsense. 

SR is, of course, false, it does not correctly describe gravity, therefore it has to be replaced by GR.  In this sense, even the mainstream scientists do not doubt that SR is false.  But it is logically consistent, and far too trivial that a logical error could be hidden there.  

I am sorry Schmeizer, but you are terribly wrong and yes, one does really have to check the proof before making pronouncements that it is false.  SR is not logically consistent, the two postulates upon which it is based are provably inconsistent with one another.  The proof is very important as it means that E does not =mc^2 and the false expression m=E/c^2  is how mass is put into GR theory.  The consequences that  E does not =mc^2 for nuclear energy and the energy emitted by the sun and for the Q.M. atom are derived in my text which is online www.jmkingsleyiii.info

I commented the article (Shen) in "comments" form of the article page.

Here just few remarks:

1. People talking about "infinite mass", MM experiment ... 

"Infinite mass" is meaningless in STR, and that is not just "matter of definition". There is a geometry behind STR and "relativistic mass"  blurs that. "Relativistic mass" is connected to the second Newton law, and in that context obtains really funny  formulas. This is well founded in literature, Russian especially.

MM is just one among a number of positive experiments, so, please, how to abandon all of them?

2. In the article is  "defined" displayed time, invariant regarding LT. "Proof" is that angles of arms of clocks are the same. But angles here represent just number of thick of clocks, it is invariant in any possible theory. It is not time at all. "Displayed time" here is just something like frequencyXtime, this is a high school physics. But what about time passed during one click? That is the question in STR.  

3. "Galilean transformations" from the article are an old mathematical trick, one can find it in relativity texts, especially Russian. There is no need to explain further.

4. STR postulates: there is no logical need for two of them. Just use principle of relativity and some reasonable assumptions regarding isotropy (and homogeneity). But invariance of light speed is highly experimentally founded and fits well in STR. 

Some additional remarks, not connected to Shens articles:

5. There is a problem with time in STR, as I see it. I believe that time is not a "forth dimension", a concept introduced by Minkowski. Euclidean 3D space is ideal to formulate STR, with time as just an parameter.  But general relativity and quantum mechanics are relatively easy to formulate in 3D as well. Time as fourth dimension is one of big problems in quantum gravity, but here one can find that there is no need to regard time as fourth dimension at all. Besides, what experimental fact forces us to think about time that way? I do not know any. Time as forth dimension became a some kind of physicists dogma. Even Einstein and Gödel seriously speculated non-existence of time during their walks, relying on solution of GR equations by Gödel (information that should be checked).

Mathematics needed to formulate relativity in 3D fallows from simple question: how to multiply vectors, ie, is there a possibility to define product of vectors that relies on scalar and cross products? Yes, there is one. 

5a) First, square of vector is a (positive) scalar, ok?

5b) Second, product of two vectors is not commutative, because a cross product is not.

5c) From 5a and 5b:

(a + b)2 = a2 + b2 + ab +ba

so, ab + ba is just double scalar product.

Now we use obvious identity:

ab = (ab + ba)/2 + (ab - ba)/2,

so, product of vectors is sum of scalar product and something  anticommutative. That anticommutative fellow is not a vector from 3D, it squares to negative real number (proof is quite easy). Call it a wedge product: this is a new one! And we have some object that is not scalar or vector! Cal it a bivector (it is a dual of cross product.)

Define unit vectors e1, e2, e3. 

e1e2 = (e1e2 + e2e1)/2 + (e1e2 - e2e2)/2, so,

(e1e2 + e2e1)/2 = 0 (this is a scalar product), meaning that:

e1e2 = - e2e1

Orthogonal vectors anticommute!

To summarize:

eiej + ejei = 2 KDij (K. delta)

You see, it is just a property of Pauli matrices! In fact, Pauli matrices are just 2D representation of 3D vectors.

From this follows an amazing  mathematical world: geometric (Clifford) algebra. The one just described is G(3, 0), algebra of physical space (Baylis). 

Now, define paravector:

p = t + x, where t is scalar and x = xn is a vector, n is a unit vector. 

n2 = 1, so paravector is something like combination of scalar and "hyperbolic unit". It means that it is natural to define "amplitude of paravector" as 

p2 = ( t + x)( t - x) = t2 - x2. Bingo!

(In fact, there is an involution ... )

Miroslav,

“p = t + x, where t is scalar and x = xn is a vector”

- in mathematics it is possible (by definition) to multiply a scalar and a vector, but there cannot be their sums…

Cheers

Shevchenko,

that "plus" is more algebraic relation than summation as we understand it with real numbers. What is Your opinion? That 2 + 3i is impossible? Or that quaternions are impossible? If You like, think of it as a list: {t, x1, x2, x3}. Or, You can use some other "plus" sign. Nevertheless, mathematics is ok, due to Grassman, Hamilton, Clifford (from 19. century) and Hestenes, Sobczyk and many others from 20. and 21. c. Algebra is well mathematically founded as Clifford algebra (preferred among mathematicians) or geometric algebra (due to Clifford, Hestenes, ....) 

What is Your point?

Valentin,

among others ( Thorndike and Kennedy. 1932), there are some astronomical evidences, Bonch-Bruevich (1955.), for example. I do not see any "precision" problems, What is Your point? Do You have any arguments against any of numerous experiments? If so, please, write article, I will be glad to read it.

Hello Xinghan,

I fully agree with you.  Let me cite an example.  Suppose two observers standing at the ends of a long hall, say 1000 km apart.  Their atomic clocks are synchronized to millions of a second.  One of the observers remain still while the other moves toward him with a somewhat large speed.  According to Einstein, the observer at rest observes the clock of the moving observer slowing down and that he is shrinking.  The moving observer, due to symmetry, observes the same slowing of the clock and the shrinking of the the other observer. But neither observer see any changes  about themselves.

Isn't this ridiculous? It says that slowing of the clock and shrinking of the size of the observer is OBSERVER-DEPENDENT, and not the reality.

All that is observed about time dilation is expressed in "clocks" slowing down.  Clocks are not time.  Time is a continuous "thing", part of the nature.  Einstein nor anybody else can dictate how nature should behave. Einstein's mathematics was elementary and quite inadequate.  His unwavering adherence to the constancy of speed of light forced him to come up with the notion of time dilation and length shrinking.  What a nonsense.

People have been saying that SR is "ridiculous" for over a century, but it continues to be confirmed by experiments. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity)

Also, see my diagram at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275947135_A_diagram_of_the_Special_Relativity_relationship where the relativistic effect can be seen as perfectly reasonable and due to different orientations in spacetime.

Denial is a waste of time. You can instead fill your thoughts with productive ideas.

Article A diagram of the Special Relativity relationship

Josipovic,

Mathematics now is mostly some purely abstract science, where anybody can invent and define any mathematical objects and any operations with these objects; that is well known. Including you can in some your own invented “algebra” introduce the operation, say, “p = t + x, where t is scalar and x = xn is a vector” and further prove any number of theorems and make any consequences in this algebra.

 But when humans use mathematics as a language aimed at the true (and convenient at the analysis)  analysis of Matter in our Universe, in this thread – in physics, everyone should understand that in this case mathematics is nothing more then a tool, which must be adequate to the physical reality.

Though a lot of people indeed frankly believe that all, what exists in mathematics, exists also in Matter, when that isn’t so. Seems a classical example now – the relativity theories, where Minkowski/pseudo Riemannian spaces are postulated as real Matter’s spacetime(s),  where either the time or the space are imaginary and a large part of distances between points are imaginary also.

What  rather evidently contradicts with the realty – nobody observed till now something imaginary in the spacetime; and indeed  the real Matter’s spacetime is  Euclidian [5]4D manifold. And just studying these unreal spacetimes, authors of the SR/GR “discovered” rather strange “relativistic transformations of the real Matter’s spacetime”, what, quite naturally, has no any relations to the reality.

As well your post on 4-th page here has no relation to the reality; I commented only one point since that is enough.

Cheers

Christian,

Can you tell us what is "time?"

Christian, I disagree, in the classical Newtonian view time is something objective, and this philosophy of time is viable today too.  In this world view, change is objective and the mind is secondary, only necessary because all information about reality we obtain via our mind. 

Christian,

“…nobody knows what time really "is"….”

- that isn’t so; the  quite correct definition of the notion “Time” (and “Space”) exists (and can exist only in, though) in the “The Information as Absolute” conception (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute  ) ; the application of the definitions in physics – see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics

Though to understand these definitions for somebody is necessary sometimes to be capable to non-standard thinking; and, in this concrete case – not to be sombed by “relativistic imprint” [when to believe that the real space and the time are just in Minkowski/ pseudo Riemannian space(s) is necessary to be capable to tooo non-standard thinking]. 

Ilja,

“…I disagree, in the classical Newtonian view time is something objective, and this philosophy of time is viable today too….”

Yea, indeed Newton’s definitions of the space and the time are well adequate to the reality – in contrast to the SR/GR. But in some points they are incorrect, in other – non-complete. For example:

“…Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration…”

- in the reality “absolute time” doesn’t flow to anywhere and doesn’t  carry anything to somewhere, i.e. it is in this case just like Newtonian space, i.e.:

“…Absolute space, in its own nature, without regard to anything external, remains always similar and immovable…”;

when both – the space and the time in Matter’s spacetime have no properties beside to be an “absolute empty container”. And, besides, Matter’s spacetime is [5]4D Euclidian manifold, where two Rules/possibilities “Time” act. However this fact became be clear only after humans understood essentially enough unknown for Newton EM phenomena and the kinematics/ dynamics of fast particles; regrettably not for all humans and even not for all physicists till now, though…

Cheers 

Article the Information as Absolute

Article The Informational Conception and Basic Physics

Christian, of course, given that all physical theories are only hypotheses, theories about time are only hypotheses too.  Then, of course, as any theory, a theory of time will be a human invention too.  These two things are IMHO trivialities, therefore I have not interpreted your claims as simply being these general trivialities.  

But I have interpreted your "it is first of all a concept of mind" as a particular theory of time, namely that time is a concept of mind.  Something like there is a 4D spactime with worldlines of people, and along these worldlines somehow mind worldlines start to create some imagination of time or so.  And the "then it is" as a definite conclusion, excluding other theories of time.  Looks like I have misunderstood you. 

Christian, that it is a viable theory of time I have shown in http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205035  That it may be a necessity for quantum gravity, I have tried to show in http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.1408 which argues that a background-free quantum gravity theory is impossible.  Together with the violation of Bell's inequality, which provides a strong argument for a preferred frame, this already gives a Newtonian spacetime.  Of course, in a variant where absolute distances and time cannot be measured with rulers and clocks because they are distorted by gravity.  

The problem to explain "what time is" is not really a problem in the Newtonian approach. It is simply a parameter of change.  The mathematical model, R, is sufficiently simple, and explaining such simple things always tends toward circular reasoning.  The job of explanation is to derive some complex things starting with a simple base.  So to explain things which are, from the start, already simple seems close to impossible.  

How then you feel older and can't go back?  Is getting older a mathematical construct?  Mathematicians deal with abstract concepts.  I don't recall having heard anyone referring to anything as time.

“….Then do we agree that physics is neither obliged nor able to explain "what time is"…”

- till physicists will not understand -  "what time is" – till physics, instead of to study the real processes that go in the real and objectively existent Matter, will “study” fantasies of some people that have possibility to organize – by some or other reason/way – a groups that are discipline and large enough to control the content of physical investigations and to block information about physical approaches and results that aren’t agree with their theories, approaches, etc. Even when their theories and approaches are evidently wrong.

As that is in physics now, and the quite objective result is well known:

- all mainstream physical journals are filled by papers that publish “studies that offer clear evidence for important new advances in physics ” (that was editorial ground of rejection of the paper “Measurement of the absolute speed is possible?” by some rather respectable physical journal), but in the reality physics-2016 practically doesn’t differ from the physics-1980.

I.e. nearly 40 years of work and  hundreds of thousands of paper, where every paper reported about "next advance in physics",  in the reality are nothing more then many  tons of recycled paper.

Returning to the problem - "what time is" – this problem was solved a few years ago already and is explained in a large number of threads here, including in this thread  (see, e.g., SS post on 4 page). But the problem is discussing  again and again, when debaters again and again attempt to solve it in framework of mainstream physics and philosophy, i.e. quite naturally without any reasonable answer – as that continues not only on the RG seems more then hundreds of years already, though…

Cheers

Time is the dynamic that makes things happen. Without time nothing happens. How can anything happen without time?

I believe you need to distinguish time from the perception of time.

Shevchenko,

mathematics is just a tool,perhaps, but , again, what is Your point. Are You using complex numbers? Or quaternions? Are quaternions, for example, are meaningless? 

It could be that I have some misunderstanding about Your text. I am talking about new concept of number, if You like. Nothing is strange about it. Are hyperbolic numbers (a + hb), h2 = 1 meaningless? (Number h is not a real number.)

In 3D geometric algebra there is a multivector:

t + x + iw + ib

Every part of it have natural geometrical interpretation (in subspaces):

points + lines + planes + volume, last three are oriented

For me it is not jiber-jaber, it is "vow!". Take t +  iw  and you have a powerful and superior tool for rotation and dilatation. Lorentz transformations or half-spin, for example, appear here from geometry of our space. Why geometry? Because geometry has natural language in geometric algebra. And all that follows from just one source: how to multiply vectors. If this is nonsense than Hamilton, Grassman, Clifford and many others are guilty. 

Cheers :)

Miroskav,

For physicists mathematics is certainly a tool.  Most often, if they have not taken courses in pure mathematics (not the applied version), they will commit horrendous errors.  I have seen physicists use mathematics  that are strictly developed for bounded functions, for unbounded functions.  The reasons they give:  They produce satisfactory results within the range of their interest..  One area I have often seen used improperly is the nonlinear mathematics.  Often the equations they use have no bounded solution.  Nevertheless, not being aware of the problems involved,  they linearize the equations (or use other methods such as perturbation technique) and arrive at a solution.  But they are solving different equations because the original one has no bounded solution.

Josipovic,

Since you next time write about some mathematical exotics,  seems you didn’t understand SS post on 5-th page here.

So again – in the physics the mathematics is nothing more then a convenient tool that simply guarantee that some result of some concrete mathematical calculations are consistent with some given conrete physical postulates and given concrete initial values of physical parameters and boundary conditions. Nothing more.

If this principle is vialeted, then anything, including absurdic, results can be obtained; including – when somebody doesn’t understand that physics studies the logical system Matter, which is organized  basing on some rather limited set of rules (“Nature laws”) and only - but fundamentally - necessarily is placed in Matter’s spacetime, when at that all/every – the space and  the time, are fundamentally absolute  and only constitute some absolute 4D Euclidian “empty container” - the spacetime;

where Matter’s objects – particles, bodies, etc. “interact with the spacetime” only by that they occupy different the spacetime’s points – and any configuration of material objects by any means doesn’t impact on the spacetime (and if somebody sets an coordinate system, then this somebody can only specify concrete coordinates for every material object to describe a system of objects)

– and that is all how “the geometry impacts on Matter” – i.e. – nohow.

 If somebody doesn’t understand this fact, then,  again, anything, including that is rather far away from physics, is possible. A  seems classical example – the relativity theories, where some “relativistic transformations of the spacetime”  - which, at that, in these theories are determined by purely subjective  “reference frames” (!?), really impact on material objects; an example – the “time dilation” in the SR, when a concrete material body,  a clock, doesn’t change its tick rate (in the reality clocks only indicate rates of changings of their internal states) after it was impacted by some real material force that changed the clock’s spatial speed (what is indeed true),

but just “the geometry of the spacetime acts on the clock” and  the clock “shows real "dilated" time in a real spaectime point” (!);

etc., – the number of rather strange consequences from the SR/GR - where "mathematics is the first"  - is infinite, though.

Cheers

Danci,

I saw Your articles and "variable speed of light": c+v, c-v. You see, those are relative velocities, not velocities of any object (photon or moving clock)  in any reference frame. Relative velocities are possible to be greater or less than c, that is simple result in STR. Photon travels toward wall (c), wall travels toward photon (v), their relative speed is c+v, that is in accordance to STR. So, in Your "frame-0" photon travels with speed c, not c+v. This is at least undergraduate relativity, if not a high-school one.

Second, Your comments about relations of mathematics and physics are really inadequate, to be polite. You see, here we are (mainly) high educated physicist or mathematicians, so, we know such a things. Do not patronize, please!

And yes, there is no any scientific elaboration about some known relativity experiment in the article You suggested me, just general statement that they are all wrong. You see, they are not. For example, HLC works fine reallying on STR. I challenge You, or dr Shen, or anybody to calculate a movement of proton beam without STR. It would be something! Really something. 

For geometric algebra, it is superior mathematical frame to formulate known physics. It has a potential to be universal language of physics (and mathematics). I am not sure that You know geometric algebra. But You are eager to comment. Interesting.

Finally, question of mathematics was just additional remark in my first answer. We are lost the central point, question asked by dr. Shen.  His interesting confusion about time and number of clock ticks in his articles about relativity, for example. 

Dear Danci  ,

it is elementary, c+v is relative speed. You can think what you want. 

And dear Shevchenko,

 that "exotic" geometry is due to Hamilton, Grassman, Clifford ... Hestenes, Sobczyk, ...,

I know mathematical physics quite well and I never saw something that nice, natural and powerful. All from simple and natural, but ingenious, "correction" to vector multiplication. To your knowledge, Pauli and Dirac rediscovered Clifford algebra, ie algebra of Pauli and Dirac matrices. Pauli matrices are just 2x2 matrix representation of 3D Euclidean Clifford algebra. Ie, unit vectors are represented with Pauli matrices from quantum mechanics textbooks. Really "exotic". 

But if somebody claims that fundamentals of physics are  wrong completely, then I am talking to the wind. 

Again, it is really interesting how discussions here easily depart from central question. Dr Shen asked something, you know. 

To end this, you both are wright, I am wrong. Satisfied?

And to ResearchGate discussions: Live long and prosper! 

Miroslav out!

Best

@Danci,

"Relative to what? I wrote in my article that it is relative to Frame-1, and you wrongly accused me that I said relative to Frame-0! You should apologize for such unfair accusation!"

c+ v is NOT relative to any frame, 0 or 1, it is relative (collision) velocity BETWEEN photon and the wall in ONE reference frame (0 or 1, I forgot, it doesn't matter). It is NOT the velocity of any single object in any frame, including the photon in frame 1. I have no intention to "prove" it to you, take any book about SRT and learn something useful. 

@Thiery,

articles of your "genius" are full of mistakes about special relativity. Interesting one is about co-moving observer, which, according to your "genius", sees relativistic effects in HIS reference frame because he is "moving". And this is really funny, For example, in "Correct use of Lorentz–Einstein transformation equations for electromagnetic fields" there is a statement about capacitor which in rest frame has surface charge density s. But, when capacitor moves then co-moving observer sees density s' = s/gamma. No! He sees s, because in his reference frame capacitor is at rest. Such misconception (probably related to absolute reference frame) leads to many wrong conclusions about the field transformations.   

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”

Socrates

To try and explain Miroslav's remark, which is quite correct: if you have two objects, 1 and 2, moving towards each other with speeds v1 and -v2 respectively, where both speeds are measured with respect to a frame A in which *both* objects move, does indeed lead to the ``relative velocity'' between the objects being given by v1+v2. This simply means that, if the objects are initially separated by a length L measured in frame A, then, still measured in frame A, the two objects will meet within a time L/(v1+v2). This is true in Galilean physics as well as in relativity, since all calculations are performed in one frame only, namely frame A.

Now define frame B as the rest frame of particle 1. Then in frame B particle 2 moves with a speed obtained by the relativistic addition law:

v2(B)=v1 + v2/(1 + v1 v2/c^2)

The relative velocity between two moving particles is thus generally different from the velocity of one particle in the rest frame of the other.

So there is a distinction between velocity and relative velocity. Personally I think one might leave relative velocity alone. But it is true that several people believe that the elementary fact I quoted above, that two particles moving with speeds v1 and -v2 meet after a time L/(v1+v2), actually contradicts relativity because it implies ``superluminal'' velocities. That is not so: the fact is absolutely correct, both in SRT and in Galilean physics. So, independently of the choice of words, the fact itself should be understood clearly.

@Thierry,

Here is one of many examples. In "Correct use of Lorentz–Einstein transformation equations for electromagnetic fields" we see:

lambda = gamma x lambda'

E' = k lambda'

E = k lambda

Conclusion: E and E' are the SAME!?

Then again, the same error with another configuration. It is hard to follow all that mess.

``That *is* Galilean relativity, and was also Einstein's calculation in 1905.''

It was Einstein's calculation all right. But there was *no* relativity of any kind involved. If you look at two particles moving in the same frame, you are always considering the same space and the same time, so that the equations

x1 = v1*t              (1)

x2 = L - v2*t         (2)

are both valid without restriction, and solving for

x1 = x2

yields

t = L/(v1 + v2)

This is true whether or not any principle of relativity is true: it rests merely on the fact that the definition of velocity implies (1) and (2).

BTW, of course, when I said ``one frame'' in my earlier remark, I meant what I am saying here: all measurements are  made in the same frame, hence no transformation is needed, so the nature of the transformations you use, whether Lorentz or Galileo, does not come into play.

You are hopelessly confused: I merely say that the computation of the time for 2 particles initially separated by L and moving towards each other with velocities v1 and v2 is *always* L/(v1+v2), whether you are doing Galilean or Lorentzian physics, because that statement involves *no* change in reference frame. So when no change of frame is performed, it surely cannot matter in which way you perform the change.

Einstein's proof is a bit long, and at one stage he does make that calculation: he has a point moving away (or towards) a light beam in one given reference frame. He then proceeds to say that *in that reference time* the light beam and the point will meet in a time L/(v+c). I insist that there is no relativity, Galilean or otherwise, in that particular statement.

Surely, in the rest of the proof, Einstein does use both relativity and the constancy of the speed of light, but makes no Galilean assumptions.

``Nobody talked here about 2 particles separated by L. ''

At this stage, we are talking about lying: the remarks I made and that you started criticising were exactly about two particles separated by L and going toward each other with velocitioes v1 and v2. That is also what Miroslav was talking about, and it is the essence of this particular part of the Einstein argument: he at some stage requires to compute the time for a light beam to meet a point moving towards it at velocity L. There Einsteins says that the two will meet after a time L/(c+v). And that is the moment when all the people who have barely failed to understand what velocity is start foaming at the mouth, and convulsively yelp: Einstein is using Galilean kinematics. What I was trying to do was to correct this eminently mistaken impression: to show that the time for the light beam and the moving point to meet is L/(c+v), one needs *nothing* except simply a correct definition of velocity.

Since you clearly cannot read, and will not remain even marginally honest, I leave you as you are.

@Thierry,

"Since you are hopping between pages without understanding anything of it"

I commented THE article, with obvious error (and there is more in mentioned article). Why don't you comment the error? Socrates was right. 

@Danci,

You are in the lab frame and there are two particles to collide (along the x-axis).  Speeds of particles are 0.9 c. Please, calculate the collision time if initial distance between particles was L. 

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Spooky_action_at_a_distanceWas_Einstein_wrong2   The  above  link   conclusively  proves  that  special  theory  of  relativity  has  been  revised.

@Danci,

1. Tcollision = L / (0.9c +0.9c) = L / 1.8c

This formula is valid, but it has nothing to do with the "Galileo's mechanics", or SRT, or any other relativity, it simply follows from the definition of the velocity. Velocities of both particles are defined in the same (lab) frame, there is no need for any transformation, because there is no other reference frame, there is no relativity. 

2. To find the collision time in the frame of one of particles we have to transform (here comes relativity), so,  " that means in your case that each particle sees the other particle moving at *superluminal* speed: v = 1.8c" is wrong. What does it mean "According to Einstein's 1905 paper". There is no v > c in Einstein's paper (any). 

3 Your statement about the "stationary frame" is really strange, no comment.

"It seems you really can't read simple texts"

Again, the old Socrates was right.