as requested I attach pdf version

Dear Claudio,

Your article is fine up to the text immediately after Figure 4.

CDR: "Also for S2, for the same reasons of spatial homogeneity (I1), the distance between the tail ends of B and C must be the same at all times, before, during and after the flight program."

That is incorrect, the rod is the same length because it is at rest relative to rocket B and both are moving at the same speed after the acceleration phase but relativity of simultaneity means that rocket C sees rocket B accelerating at a lower rate for a longer time, hence in frame S2 it has fallen behind. Rocket B sees rocket C accelerating at a higher rate for a shorter time hence it has pulled ahead. All frame S2 observers will agree that the gap between the rockets has increased while the rod length was unaffected. That is the essence of Bell's Spaceship Paradox.

Just prior to the figure, you say

CDR: "At the end of the F1 phase of the program the observer in S2 will find at rest in its reference system two spaceships B and C placed at a certain distance (the value of this distance in S2 is not relevant for our purposes),"

In fact the cause of the change of that distance is crucial to understanding the scenario.

Dear Claudio,

Either I have not understood it correctly or here you have an error:

"We analyze the events from the point of view of the observer in S1. If the space is homogeneous (I1), the distance L between the tails of rockets B and C cannot vary during the flight program, instead the length of the rod connected to B varies due to the Lorentz contraction (I2). The rod will be shortened by the usual R(V) value at the end of phase F1 (Figure 2)."

It is not the length that contracts, it is all the space that contracts with the Lorentz transformation.

And I do not understand the relationship between contracting and being homogenous. It can be homogeneous and contract without problem

The Lorentz Transform allows us to calculate what distance will be assigned between two events in different coordinate systems, it is not the objects or "space" that is affected.

The problem in the paper is that the effect of "relativity of simultaneity" has been missed, including that correctly will remove the paradox.

Dear George,

But you misunderstand relativity of simultaneity in SRT. I proved that in very simple way that you misunderstand relativity of simultaneity in our discussion in the following thread. You can prove that I'm mistaken.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_a_known_fact_that_the_Universe_resonated_36_times_at_the_Big_Bang

AA: But you misunderstand relativity of simultaneity in SRT.

No Azzam, I don't. Remember we are all still waiting for you to solve a simple piece of algebra at the level of a 12 year old so until you learn how to do that, don't butt in on other people's conversations, OK?

George

Here is our discussion again. You do not know even the length contraction in SRT

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_a_known_fact_that_the_Universe_resonated_36_times_at_the_Big_Bang

So you lost man. Go and learn SRT before you discuss. What I expect from one man as you do not know the length contraction in SRT!?

Good luck

Azzam, stop polluting other people's questions with your childish insults. Claudio asked if anyone could assist with his paper and I have indicated where he has omitted an effect. I give him due respect in thinking that having had that pointed out, he is perfectly capable of incorporating what was missed.

George

But I'm telling the truth that you misunderstand simultaneity. You and anyone can review our discussion how you misinderstand simultaneity. There is no any insult relative to you if I'm telling the truth.

Dear Azzam,

AA: But I'm telling the truth that you misunderstand simultaneity.

No, you don't know the first thing about the topic whereas I've been explaining it others for over 20 years and have been an admin on a group specifically set up for that purpose for many years. Now stop polluting Claudio's thread, if you want to continue, do so in the other thread where we are waiting for your numerical distance between the pylons. Even that is a question by Marco that you spammed but we had reached some conclusions on that so I don't think he minded too much.

George

Here is our discussion again. Anyone can know who is mistaken

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_a_known_fact_that_the_Universe_resonated_36_times_at_the_Big_Bang

Good luck

Dear George

Thanks for your keen observation, which I share. In practice I have omitted to observe that for the relativity of simultaneity the two spaceships do not start simultaneously for S2 during F1.

Therefore during the phases of flight the distance between the two spaceships cannot remain the same for S2, because one starts before the other! But what can be said about the rule when both ships are at rest in S2 ??

the dependence of the Lorentz time transformation from the spatial coordinate, will it blow up the whole reasoning?

I don't think it can be like this, at the end of the F1 phase the rod should in any case be longer than the space that separates B and C, to return at the end of phase F2 to the same initial position

Dear Claudio,

CDR: Thanks for your keen observation, which I share.

That is good, it is the key to the solution.

CDR: Therefore during the phases of flight the distance between the two spaceships cannot remain the same for S2, because one starts before the other!

Yes, in S2 the rockets are initially moving right to left and C fires its engine first. It starts slowing to rest for some time while rocket B and the rod continue moving at the original speed. That is when the gap starts to appear.

Then rocket B starts its engine and both rockets are slowing but their speeds still differ and the gap continues to grow. The length contraction of the rod (and the rockets) reduces as their speeds drop but by less than the growing gap between the rocket bases so even when they come to rest, there remains the gap you show.

CDR: I don't think it can be like this, at the end of the F1 phase the rod should in any case be longer than the space that separates B and C, ...

As measured in S2, at the end of F1, the rod has its full proper length rather than being contracted so it is longer than the gap that separated the rocket bases at the start of F1, but that gap has also grown by a greater amount due to the difference in engine firing times as measured in S2.

in fact you are right, there is no inconsistency.

as the prof. Umberto Bartocci argues "it is not possible to refute special relativity through kinematics, because the Lorentz transformations are mathematically consistent"

I had the illusion of succeeding

Dear George

I greatly appreciate your contribution and I thank you for your time, this mental attitude is very rare and is the only one, in my opinion, able to contribute to the evolution of scientific thought

Thank you Claudio. While the transforms are guaranteed to give consistent answers, it isn't always easy to find where each of the effects comes into play. I always recommend drawing a Minkowski Diagram if anyone is in doubt, that usually makes things a lot clearer.

Best regards

George

In any case, I am convinced that it is necessary to overcome the SR and the GR in order to overcome the current stalemate in the study of the physics of space and time. Professor Franco Selleri with his work has laid solid foundations to start a new path in this direction

I invite everyone to deepen his theories

The scientific method is based on developing theories from observation. As long as neither SR nor GR deviates from observation, we have a serious limitation.

Merging QM with GR is one approach, the most obvious discrepancy being the inability of QM to give even a ball-park prediction for cosmological dark energy.

The other approach is to test GR in more difficult regimes which is why the work of LIGO is crucial. BNS and perhaps one day BH-NS mergers will give the best chance of finding an inaccuracy in GR.

SR and GR deviates from observation in many case, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Inflaction are speculations that have little to do with the scientific method

In the attached book you will find many detailed arguments, the result of thirty years of study by a great scientist, Professor Franco Selleri, appreciated and known for his rigor and his honest intellectual, I advise you to give him a look.

I have studied the GR for many years and I was a passionate supporter, but I hope you will be surprised by the argometations and the method of Professor Selleri as they surprised me

Dark matter was first suggested by Zwicky based on observation of the dispersion velocities of galaxies in the Coma Cluster. It was confirmed by Vera Rubin's observations of velocity profiles of galaxies and has since been confirmed by observation of the early formation of galaxies, the abudance of deuterium, gravitational lensing, the displacement of the mass versus light distribution in the Bullet Cluster and so on.

Dark energy is inferred from the measured geometric flatness of the universe and the relation of luminosity to redshift.

Inflation comes from the observed uniformity of the CMB temperature (a.k.a. the "horizon problem") and the QM prediction of the spectral index of inflation was confirmed by the Planck measurements.

Regrding Selleri, I suggest you read this:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.6888.pdf

George,

The geometry of Minkowski is not true physically, and now we prove that very simply, and thus SRT is not true according to the Geometry of Minkowski by hiding the entanglement and the uncertainty (vacuum fluctuation) and he appeared that the world is moving according to his continuity . Reexplaining SRT according to my theory as a result of retardation according to the relativistic invariant and the entanglement will lead to the relativistic quantum field and the uncertainty ( vacuum fluctuations). Vacuum fluctuations in this case are gravitational dipoles and the dark matter is no more the local effect of the vacuum polarisation and dark energy is no more the global effect of vacuum polarisation. Infinities are disappeared now and no need to inflation field. When will you reply to me and correct your mistake in understanding SRT, the principle of relativity and simultaneity. https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_a_known_fact_that_the_Universe_resonated_36_times_at_the_Big_Bang

My apologies for the irrelevant interruption Claudio, I'm being stalked by a clueless spammer.

George

You challenged me in that RG, so when you understood that you mistaken, you escaped as usual. It is very simple elementary school math that proving you are mistaken in understanding SRT, principle of relativity and simultaneity. ;-)

Good luck now and bye

I challenged you to work out the distance between two pylons, a simple exercise in linear simultaneous equations, and after five weeks you still haven't even understood the question even though James Garry showed you the complete and correct answer with all the working. You have already polluted Marco's question, keep your nonsense in one place.

George,

Stop your lies as usual! The question was related to SRT and length contraction and time dilation in SRT! When you understood that you are mistaken you changed your question without understanding to how to ask your question. You were very embarrassed. I answered you according to SRT and my theory and you refused. So if James is right in his derivation and he worked according to SRT really, then where is time dilation in his solution. LOL! According to James solution t'=t=L0/c. You said in James solution there is time dilation. SO where is the time dilation in James solution if t'=t=L0/c. I answered you according to my theory also it is expressing to field and retardation. So if James solved the question right according to SRT, then where is the time dilation in his solution if he is right!? Or you do not understand SRT and the relativity of simultaneity.

Good luck man

AA: The question was related to SRT ..

No, the question was about your ability to do physics, not SR, I told you you could use other transforms if you wished but again you didn't listen. You are just proving what I said, you never even understood the question.

Take this back to the other thread, I won't respond to your nonsense here again.

Once more my apologies to Claudio, feel free to complain to RG about Azzam's behaviour if you wish.

Dear George

I have already read Kassner's article, and he adds nothing new to what was analyzed by Selleri, he simply says that the two theories derive from two equally legitimate synchronization procedures.

However, Selleri's theory perfectly explains Sagnac's experiment while SR cannot explain it

Selleri's theory is reasonable in explaining Bradley's aberration, while SR explains it numerically but not conceptually, in fact it is possible that the earth has exactly the same relative speed compared to all the stars in our galaxy ...

Selleri's theory does not involve the universe-block while SR involves the universe-block, and therefore our discussion was already determined .... and you and I have no free will in deciding what to write to us ....

and so on

we are not joking, if we want to grow we must understand that it is time to look elsewhere, with rigor, scientific method and intellectual honesty

George

You wrote "I challenged you to work out the distance between two pylons, a simple exercise in linear simultaneous equations"

This is not true. The question was related to SRT, length contraction and time dilation. You thought in James' solution there is time dilation.

That what you wrote to me when I told you AA: The length contraction will lead in this case to t'=t.

You replied to me;

That is your nonsensical claim, you have to stop posting that James said it. Stop telling lies.

You thought in James solution there is time dilation. So you are lying that your question was in linear simultaneous equations. When you understood now how you are mistaken and you can't even solve an elementary school equation, you changed your question by using lies and straw man again.

Good luck now and do not send to me after that.

On the Selleri Transformations: Analysis of Recent Attempts by Kassner to Resolve Selleri’s Paradox

Stephan Gift

Abstract

This paper is a response to recent attempts by Kassner (2012) to resolve Selleri’s paradox, a construction involving light speeds on a rotating disc that undermines the validity of special relativity. Kassner’s first approach employed Einstein synchronization and failed as it led to an unphysical time discontinuity. His second approach ironically involved the introduction of the Inertial (or Selleri) transformations which explain the associated Sagnac effect using light speed anisotropy but preserve the paradox. His core methodology based on his belief that a clock synchronization procedure can be freely chosen is shown to be without foundation and therefore the paradox stands unresolved.