Through the analysis of light generation, traveling and interaction with the matter, it was found that Special Relativity theory is not correct. The detailed explanation is given in the attached file. Since 1905 when Special Relativity theory was proposed, understanding of light behavior such as generation and interaction with matter has significantly been improved through experiments and detections. This analaysis and interpretation is based upon those results. I would like to ask the critical review of my interpretation, and comments. Thank you very much.
Dear Dr. Chan our science is practicing speed of light (flashlight) since last century (Einstein's light) not speed of sunlight,
Sunlight has massive frequencies, wavelength, visible, and invisible characters and it does not have constant speed, simply SR is wring and it is not science..
This article might help your vision
Article Title: Science is wrong on…Light & Photon
Dear Preston, Thank you very much for the review comments and information. I will try to answer to your comments.
1. ""There have been published many experimental results on time dilation to support the Special Relativity theory", but then gave a single example"
Reply : The measured time difference in atomic clocks in earth and satellite is not the sufficient condition for verification of time dilation. The surrounding conditions, like electromagnetic field, around the atoms in atomic clock can causes the differences in measured time. It is applied to all the atomic clocks used in "significant number of other experiments including earth surface movement" you mentioned.
2. "In addition to many other experimental evidences of SR, my research results are the strongest proofs of special relativity, proving that particle structure and interaction are based in SR."
Reply : My paper analyzed light generation, travel and interaction with matter, and derived that light is kind of particle as one cycle of exciton generates light. In travel and interaction with matter, light shows also wave characteristic. By applying Newtonic mechanics on relative motion to light, light behavior such as elastic scattering with electron in mirror and splitter in Michelson-Morley experiment, and Doppler effects like redshift were clearly explained. These are the results which can be confirmed with light visible to our eyes. If it is confirmed in visible light, it can be also applied to others, including subatomic levels including muon, and accelerator physics.
3. "providing a solid alternative explanation for numerous experimental results"
Reply : If my argument on Special Relativity is worthy, I would like to ask physicists to apply it to their experimental results.
Thanks.
Dear Chan Bock Lee
It is good that more and more researchers are writing about the fact that in one way or another there is something wrong with the special theory of relativity, SR. But there are many people who write about the speed of light but often use the term "speed" incompletely or incorrectly.
1) "Interpretation on the Relative Velocity of Light", "Therefore, Special Relativity theory postulating that the velocity of light is constant regardless of movement of light source is not valid."
Maxwel: c = 1/(μ0ε0)1/2; If one accepts that the speed of light is c (the speed of light in a vacuum) then it is obvious that the speed of light (in a vacuum) is independent of the movement of the source of light and independent of the movement of the observer.
But as soon as you involve an observer who wants to measure the speed of light, then you MUST specify that it is about the relative speed between the observer and the wavefront of the light signal.
Why is it important? For example, if you talk about the speed of a car on the highway, it goes without saying that you are talking about the car's relative speed relative to the ground, the highway.
Can we talk about the car's absolute speed? Yes, you can. Which one is it? It is the resultant of all the known speeds to which the car is connected. These are speeds for the following moves:
- The Earth has a movement around its own axis
- Earth moves around the sun
- The solar system moves around the center of the galaxy
- The galaxy moves towards the Great Attractor.
- And …
So if SR says that the speed of light is constant then it is CORRECT if you mean c, but it is WRONG if you mean the relative speed between the observer and the wavefront of the light signal.
2) "After generation, light travels at high speed, about 300,000km/sec in vacuum, and interacts with the matter."
I am very interested to know if there are formulas that show how light is affected by its interaction with matter.
3) "In 1887, Michelson and Morley performed an experiment to examine the effect of Earth's movement on the
velocity of light"
I have analyzed the MME in detail and concluded that NULL results are caused by the design of the interferometer itself. Please see my books:
Book Special Relativity is Nonsense
Book Light - The Absolute Reference in the Universe
4) Feel free to consult my articles on SR and LT:
Article Mathematics shows that the Lorentz transformations are not s...
Article Analysis of k-calculus from Introducing Einstein's Relativi...
Article Special Relativity: Analysis of the mathematical model from ...
Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted
Preprint Lorentz Transformations -Mathematics and Symmetry
To consider really scientifically topic
“Velocity of Light and Incorrectness of Special Relativity theory”
- it is necessary before to understand what is “light” and SRT, for what, in turn, it is necessary to understand, first of all, what are postulates in a physical theory, what is “inertial reference frame”, what are material objects at all [including light], i.e. what is “Matter” , and what are “space” and “time”.
The last 3 phenomena/notions [and not only, though] are completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational in mainstream physics, and so logically inevitably really SRT is fundamentally incorrect,
- what, say, directly, rigorously and unambiguously follows from that from the at least two SRT postulates: (i) – that there is no absolute Matter’s spacetime, and (ii) – so all/every inertial reference frames are absolutely equally equivalent and legitimate,
- any number of really senseless consequence follow; the utmost evident is the Dingle objection to the SRT – if the frames are absolutely equivalent, than if there are two relatively moving frames, then in both frames every of observers absolutely really ages simultaneously faster and slower each other. What is evident nonsense.
From this completely directly, rigorously and unambiguously by the completely rigorous Proof by contradiction it follows that really Matter’s spacetime is absolute, and there can exist “absolute frames” that are at rest in the absolute 3DXYZ space.
However SRT is also based on the really extremely mighty Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle, which states that the frames, though non-absolutely [Poincaré and, say, Lorentz, understood that the spacetime is Euclidian and absolute], but very essentially, equivalent; including since, as that Poincaré has shown, Lorentz transformations form the “velocities group” , and so any inertial frame is logically traceable to absolute frames, which are inertial ones by definition.
At that the frames are practically absolutely necessary in physics sets of scaled rulers and specifically synchronized distant clocks, by using of which scientists measure the main initial data at any description and analysis of what exists and happens in anything – i.e. distances between objects/events processes and time intervals between, and further other parameters of studied objects – velocities, momentums, energies, etc.
That’s all, and in this case it is necessary to understand that parameters of everything in Matter have real values only in absolute frames, and so in any moving frame measured parameters aren’t real,
- however according to the relativity principle only using these parameters values, having at that no any knowledge about what are real values, it is possible really adequately to the objective reality to describe and analyze what is in any studied material system.
So, despite that SRT is fundamentally incorrect, its application in everyday physical practice is well effective; while some pointed in innumerous “SRT rejections” things, including in this thread, really are incorrect. The SRT incorrectness really reveals itself only if is applied at solving really fundamental problems.
More see the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, in this case it is enough to read
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics , where, including, it is rigorously scientifically explained what really exists and happens in Matter in this case, including what is SRT physical sense of Lorentz transformations, etc.
Cheers
Reply to Jan Slowak,
Dear Jan, Thank you very much for the comments and the explanations. Could you kindly summarize your points or arguments ? For the speed and velocity, speed is just the magnitude of velocity while velocity has magnitude and direction. Therefore, for the analysis of relativie motion, velocity should be considered. Thanks. Best Regards, Chan Bock
Chan Bock Lee
In all thought experiments described within SR, the direction in which the two reference systems move is determined from the start. This means that you do not need to talk about velocity, but the concept of speed is sufficient. Even the direction in which the light signal moves is determined from the beginning.
It is clearly demonstrated in figures in my article
Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted
I uploaded 3 files on dependence of light velocity upon movement of light source. Please review them and give me comments. Thanks.
Dear Dr. Chan Bock Lee
I am going through your presentation titled Dependence of Light Velocity on Movement of Light Source.
1) Already here I believe that this is different: The 'velocity' of light is independent of the motion of the observer and the source.
2) "Common Sense not working"
But mathematical logic reveals exactly how it works.
3) "...light can be considered as discrete one, particle or photon"
Light is a wave motion. ("Radar uses radio wave")
4) "Radar (Radio Detection And Ranging)"
Have you seen anywhere here the Lorentz factor from STR?
5) "Michelson-Morley Experiment"
I have analyzed this experiment in detail. Everything is published in
Book Special Relativity is Nonsense
Book Light - The Absolute Reference in the Universe
A question, not just for you, but for all researchers:
Why is the light signal going sideways in the second figure?
6) "Length contraction and time dilation were derived"
Because of figure two which is wrong.
7) "Velocity of light depends upon velocity of light source"
Wrong
8) "GTR may not be necessary"
It is just as absurd (nonsense) as STR.
Chan Bock Lee
I am going through your article titled Dependence of Light Velocity upon Movement of Light Source.
9) "Special theory of relativity proposed by Albert Einstein in 1905 postulates that velocity of light is independent of movement of light source. It is different from the conventional Newtonian mechanics."
STR is about light (wave motion), Newtonian mechanics is about physical bodies. These two theories have nothing in common. It is wrong to compare them.
10) "Through analysis of results of Michelson-Morley experiment and working mechanism of radar, it was found that velocity of light depends upon velocity of light source."
It is just an interpretation of the results of the experiment.
11) "Therefore, Newtonian mechanics can be applied to light as same as to all other objects."
Wrong
12) "Light travels like transverse wave with both electric and magnetic fields
oscillating perpendicular to each other, transversely to the direction of travel"
Yes
13) "Therefore, light having characteristics of transverse wave shows Doppler effect as same as other waves such as sound wave, which is caused by relative motion of wave source and receiver."
The mathematical model for the Doppler effect does not contain any Lorentz factor!
14) "Michelson-Morley experiment shown in Figure 2 can be re-analyzed as follows."
This figure does not show the path of light when the device is in motion.
15) "Travel time of light in horizontal direction" & "Travel time of light in perpendicular direction"
These two times are NOT the same.
16) "Through analysis of results of Michelson-Morley experiment and working mechanism of radar, it was found that velocity of light depends upon velocity of light source."
This is not true. In the case of radar, the light source is not moving.
Chan Bock Lee
I am going through your article titled Interpretation on the Relative Velocity of Light.
17) "Interpretation of Relative Velocity of Light"
“The velocity of light in vacuum is the same in all inertial frames, or the same for all observers, regardless of their motion”.
The speed of light in vacuum, c, (according to Maxwell, c = 1/(μ0ε0)1/2) is the absolute speed of light. If we mix in the IRF then we are talking about the relative speed between the IRF and the wavefront of the light pulse, c±v, where v is the absolute speed of the IRF in space (the medium, vacuum).
These two physical quantities should not be confused. That is what many (if not all) scientists do.
The thread question is rigorously scientifically answered in SS post November 9, 2024, on previous page; after which some strange posts series appeared. Often that happens after SS posts as special spam of special spammers, who write some trash – that, in contrast to any really scientific posts – is quite easy job . Why that is so? - see, say, last passages in SS post, May 21, in
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is-it-true-that-physicists-do-not-want-to-understand-quantum-mechanics/330, - the Kiev group real authors liquidators obtain order from their financers to solve sooner the living real “incorrect” authors of the really fundamental “The Information as Absolute” conception and Planck scale informational physical model problem,
- since some well authoritative “correct” people very want to be correct authors of the above, and he alive real authors are evident obstacle in this case; at that now – see the link above - activity of the group is sharply increased, since the conception and the model become more and more known in physical society. Such my notifications decrease to some extent the activity, so now I’m forced to do this again.
In this case the spammer by a few posts in a hour shifted the SS post from visible page.
More see the pointed SS post on page 1, here only a few notes. First of all – again, physics describes and analyzes of what exist and happens in Matter practically always basing, first of all, on the data about positions/lengths of material , events time momentums, distances and time intervals between objects and events, etc.
- for what at every experiment absolutely obligatoriliy correcsponding “inertial reference frame” is established, which is the humans’ set of scaled rulers and specifically synchronized distant clocks + some 3DXYZ coordinate system; as a rule the experimentalists establish also that they and the frame are at rest.
Again – without the data above any experiment is senseless; while if there are relatively moving frames, then the measured in the frames distances, time intervals [so, say, velocities, momentums, energies, etc.] values of the same studied objects/processes, etc., evidently are different.
That would be quite different if in the frames some arbitrary schemes of the rulers and clocks settings are set, but that is also so even if all frames are set identically,
- however, since in Matter really extremely mighty the Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle acts, if the frames instruments are set in accordance with this principle - more concretely in accordance with the Lorentz transformations that follow from the principle, according to which MEASURED in all frames speed of light must be equal only to c; so, say, the distant clocks synchronization can be, and mostly is, made by “Poincaré-Einstein [light] synchtonization”.
At that, including, if there are, say, two relatively moving with a speed V frames, every observer see that the opposite frame observer really measures not just c. but something proportional (c+/-V), but that is really strange only in that both observers see this simultaneously, what, if the SR postulate that all/every frames are absolutely equally really equivalent and legitimate, is evident nonsense.
Really, as that rigorously proven in the SS physical mosdel above, Matter’s spacetime is absolute, and in every concrete case all frames somehow are non-equivalent. However in everyday practice that is quite inessential, say, if a car with speed, say ,100mph, crashes into a pillar, for physics it is the same – what , the car [pillar is at rest] or the pillar [car is at rest] was moving, in both frames; and at that, say, the car driver, if sets that he is at rest sees that pillar’s observer measures not V but -V, etc.
Including the M&M experiment result FitzGerald and Lorentz interpretation is in the accordance with the relativity principle, and so is undoubtedly correct.
For those readers who really want to understand what is physical sense of Lorentz transformations, etc., see the SS post on page 1, and links in the post. For real physicists whole SS posts content in this link above would be interesting as well.
Cheers
Recent 3 SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_origin_of_Lorentz_transforms#view=6838a9ad5b32a1bb1404e430 , page 57,
- are relevant to this thread question.
Cheers
Recent SS post in
https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_origin_of_Lorentz_transforms#view=6838a9ad5b32a1bb1404e430/1/2/3/4/5/6/7/57/58/58 , page 58,
-is relevant to this thread question.
Cheers
Dear Sergey, Thank you very much for the comments and information. I would like to comment on Lorentz transformation as follows.
Lorentz transformation does not result in or derive the Special Theory of Relativity, that is, velocity of light is independent of movement of light source while that assumption on light velocity results in or consistent with Lorentz transformation. Lorentz transformation is just mathmatical transformation and it does not have any physical evidence without STR. My argument is that velocity of light depends on movement of light source.
Chan Bock Lee
"Lorentz transformation does not result in or derive the Special Theory of Relativity"
The derivation of LT is used as proof that they agree with STR. But my analysis of these derivations shows that they lead to contradictions.
Article Analysis of k-calculus from Introducing Einstein's Relativi...
"Lorentz transformation is just mathematical transformation and it does not have any physical evidence without STR."
Yes
"My argument is that velocity of light depends on movement of light source."
Can you prove this?
Hello, I am uploading the file explaining the Radar Paradox caused when Special theroy of relativity(STR) is applied. I think it would be much more effective than Twin Paradox to show the incorrectnesss of STR.
For Maxwell Equation, we need to consider its limited capability to describe the light. It can not predict the difference of frequency of light depending upon the energy of light. It does not describe the specific single direction of movement of light such as laser. It can not cover generation process of light. Thanks.
Chan Bock Lee
1) "the Radar Paradox caused when Special theory of relativity(STR) is applied"
Yes, it is true that if you apply SR to known physical phenomena, paradoxes arise.
2) "Velocity of light depends upon velocity of light source"
Is that your conclusion? Because it is not true! The speed of light is independent of its source and the observer!
Dear Jan Slowak,
Yes, my conclusion is that velocity of light depends upon velocity of light source. My paper explains why it is true. The Postulation that the velocity of light is constant regardless of velocity of light source is not correct, while he speed of light which is just magnitude of velocity, not vector is constant. Thanks.
Chan Bock Lee
From your article:
1) "Relative velocity and direction of light changes depending upon the movement of light source or observers, the same as normal object in the inertial frame."
Of course. Here you are talking about the relative speed between the source/observer and the wavefront of the light signal.
2) "This is different from the Special Relativity theory that light is propagated with a definite velocity c in empty space, independent of motion of a light source or observers."
Of course. Here you are talking about the speed of light in a vacuum. These are two different concepts that many physicists confuse.
For me, this is nothing strange. In my research, I show how the concept of SPEED is used incorrectly in various contexts, especially in SR.
Preprint The concept of speed in our reality and in physics
Jan Slowak
Velocity, speed, relative velocity and relative speend can be defined as follows.
Velocity is a vector quantity that describes both the rate and direction of an object's motion.For example, "5 meters per second East" is a velocity.
Speed is a scalar quantity that describes only the rate of an object's motion, without considering direction. It is the magnitude of the velocity vector.
Relative velocity is the velocity of an object as measured from a different moving object or frame of reference. It is a vector quantity. For example, if car A is moving east at 60 mph and car B is moving east at 50 mph, the relative velocity of car A with respect to car B is 10 mph east.
Relative speed is the magnitude of relative velocity. It is a scalar quantity.
My argument on light is that relative velocity of light depends upon velocity of light source, as same as normal object in Newtonian mechanics. Thanks.
Chan Bock Lee
1) "Velocity, speed, relative velocity and relative ..."
Speed & velocity must be defined relative to a reference frame, RF, otherwise it will be wrong. When it comes to SR, it's about inertial reference frames, IRFs.
And if we define them relative to IRF then they become relative velocity and relative speed!
So, basically, there is ONLY relative velocity and relative speed!
2) "My argument on light is that relative velocity of light depends upon velocity of light source"
It's not an argument if you have one. It's reality, it's definition.
If the speed of light relative to the medium (vacuum) is c then the relative speed relative to an IRF is c ± v where v is the IRF speed relative to the same medium! NOTE! No one knows this speed v!
The thread question “Velocity of Light and Incorrectness of Special Relativity theory” is clarified in SS posts on pages 1, 2 and the links in the posts, first of all to the SS&VT Planck scale model paper https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391209088_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics
- where both points - what is “Velocity of Light”, which really exists - in Matter light really propagates in 3DXYZ space of Matter’s utmost universal “kinematical” fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian” [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Zct), and makes this only with the “speed of light”, c.
- and what really is “Incorrectness of Special Relativity theory” - really that are the SR postulates that there is no absolute Matter’s spacetime and so all/every inertial reference frames are absolutely completely equivalent and legitimate - are clarified.
From these postulates really any number of physically, biologically, etc., senseless consequences follow, utmost known is the simple Dingle objection to the SR, however note also , that besides light and all the rest in Matter – particles, stars, galaxies, etc. that move in the 3D space, in the space some fundamentally non-material entities “humans consciousnesses” also move, which attempt to understand what exists and happens in Matter, inventing some theories for this.
At that any reliable information about what exists and happens the consciousnesses can obtain only experimentally;
- and at/in any/every experiment it is absolutely necessary first of all to measure in at least 3D space coordinates of studied material objects/events/processes, and time momentums and interval between/durations of events/processes.
Correspondingly at/in any/every experiment the experimenters absolutely obligatorily establish “inertial reference frame”, which is a set of scaled rulers and specifically synchronized distant clocks, using of which is possible to measure the primary data above in established also coordinate system.
But Matter is very rigorously organized informational system, and the setting of any IRF instruments by no means can be arbitrary, and in this case that must be done only in complete accordance with the Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle, which dictates, including, that the measured in all IRFs speeds of light must be identical - equal to c..
So, say, that allow to make very simple distant clocks synchronization – “Poincaré-Einstein synchronization”, after which, of course, in all concrete speed of light measurements it is c.
At that it fundamentally objectively is equal to c in the Matter’s 3D space above, however though this
“…if the speed of light relative to the medium (vacuum) is c then the relative speed relative to an IRF is c ± v where v is the IRF speed relative to the same medium! ….”
- is really correct, but this
“….NOTE! No one knows this speed v!…”
- is quite really correct also – the relativity principle above is extremely mighty principle,
- and so the previous quote [ and most of posts above also, though] is senseless - in any concrete IRF it is fundamentally impossible to measure “own c ± v”.
The post is rather long, so
Cheers
Sergey Shevchenko
“…if the speed of light relative to the medium (vacuum) is c then the relative speed relative to an IRF is c ± v where v is the IRF speed relative to the same medium! ….”
“….NOTE! No one knows this speed v!…”
Shouldn't you specify who you're quoting?
"- is really correct, but this"
"- is quite really correct also – the relativity principle above is extremely mighty principle"
If they are correct, where is the error?
Dear Jan and Sergay
Let's find the solution or verification in a very simple case. By measuring distance and travel time, velocity of light can be estimated. Radar and laser are now widely utilized. Radar or laser paradox which I proposed clearly shows that velocity of light should depend upon the velocity of light source and STR is not correct. Thanks.
Chan Bock Lee
"Radar or laser paradox which I proposed clearly shows that velocity of light should depend upon the velocity of light source"
If you have a paradox in your proposed method, the theory, then there must be something wrong somewhere. That's what logic says.
I'd be happy to look at your work, please provide the link to the article. Thank you.
So let’s continue
That in the yesterday SS posts happens since everything in Matter is/are only some disturbances in Matter’s ultimate - and utmost universal base of Matter - [5]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE] that have [5]4 utmost universal – “kinematical” degreases of freedom at changing its state – “FLE binary flip”. The lattice is placed in the corresponding Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), where cτ,X,Y,Z, are 4 space dimensions, ct is the time dimension. FLE “size” and “FLE binary flip time” are Planck length, lP, and Planck time, tP.
The disturbances “particles” are created if some the lattice FLE is impacted with transmission to it some momentum and energy, what causes in the lattice, and so in the 4D space, sequential cyclic FLE-by-FLE flipping along the 4D helix –and so by this way particle exists always at every time moment as “particle-point” that has ~ lP size, momentum P=mc, [“bold” means 4D vector”] energy E=Pc=mc2, while this point is on the helix that has radius, r, if particle is at rest in 3DXYZ space, r is equal to the particle’s Compton length λ= ћ/P= ћ/m0c, m0 is the particle’s rest mass.
If such particle is impacted also by some 3DXYZmomentum, it moves also in this space, and the helix is observed as de Brogile wave.
Etc. – but in all cases every particle [really everything in Matter] moves in the lattice/4D space only with the speed that is determined by FLEs – “the speed of light” c= lP/ tP.
If a lattice FLE is impacted by purely 3DXYZmomentum, the created particle moves only in the 3D space – now that are known photons.
So, again, everything in Matter fundamentally moves only with the 4D [3D] speed of light, including fundamentally independently on – something that impacts on FLE moves in 3D space or not, including if a something is a source of light [light is intense flow of particles “photons”] the created light moves in 3D space only with c.
However that is what really exists and happens in Matter in “its absolute inertial reference frame” , while, again, - see yesterday SS post – if some non-material objects “consciousnesses” attempt to understand what exists and happens, they are fundamentally forced to establish inertial reference frames, which can move – and really all humans’ frame really move – with an “absolute” speeds in Matter’s frame, V,
- which till now cannot be measured because of the Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle, so a frame’s observer can assign to his frame arbitrary speed,; utmost convenient – and so mostly applicable in physical practice - is establishing that the frames are at rest in 3DXYZ space.
___ ___
Jan Slowak,
- SS posts are intended for all readers, who read the posts attentively, and, since the posts content is fundamentally new and non-trivial, who spend some time to understand what is written; while you instead to read and to think write your post practically at once. Including that
“…if they are correct, where is the error?...”
- is quite clear in the yesterday SS post: though the wording “relative speed relative to an IRF is c ± v” is correct, but the wording .”NOTE! No one knows this speed v!” is correct also,
- and 2-nd wording means that the first wording, though is correct. really is senseless since principally cannot be experimentally tested in mainstream physics – and for you - and so be applicable in practice.
Cheers
So let’s continue.
In the SS posts above it is briefly explained what are “particles” – and so what are bodies since they consist of the particles; and is underlined that everything in Matter exits and happens in the utmost universal absolute spacetime that has [5]4D metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct);
- and so in “absolute frame” that “is established” in the 3DXYZ space; and is at rest in this space, so the frame by Newton definition is absolutely inertial.
For Matter it is all the same – there is or not established any frame, but for fundamentally non-material consciousnesses at studying of anything in matter the– really mostly inertial - frames are absolutely necessary; however because of the Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle action humans cannot till now to observe their absolute motion, and as a rule observers in the frames set that the frame is at rest in the 3D space.
Nonetheless, though the principle is really extremely mighty, but it isn’t so mighty as that is postulated in the SR 1905 and [standard in mainstream physics now] 1908 versions, where because of the SR relativity principle there is no absolute Matter’s spacetime and Lorentz transformations. which follow from yet G-P principle, link real transformations of the space and the time in different relatively moving frames, describing as quite real “space contraction”, “time dilation”, and
- postulating that these contraction and dilation, which, of course, never were experimentally observed, that is principally impossible, really contract real lengths of real moving bodies and slow moving clocks tick rates – what is experimentally observed – and in full accordance with the Lorentz transformations.
What really exists and happens in this case really rigorously scientifically explained only in the SS&VT Planck scale model, see paper https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391209088_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics.
Though firstly note, that physics of everything in Matter is, of course, utmost simple if is in an absolute frame, as that is so further:
If some body, standardly in physics – a rod having length L, is at the absolute frame rest, its particles, and the rod as a whole, move with the speed of light only in the cτ- direction,
- while particles are [why? – see the SS posts above] “gyroscopes” the 4D rotations axes of which are oriented always along the 4D momentum P0=m0c.
If the rod is impacted by a 3D momentum p, along, say, X-axis,
-it moves also in the 3DXYZ space with a 3D speed V,
- the whole 4D momentum P=P0+p correspondingly rotates in the (X, cτ) plane on the angle, cos of which by the Pythagoras theorem is (1-V2/c2)1/2 [inverse Lorentz factor], and
- the rotated particles rotate the rod as a whole in this plane, so the rod’s projection on the X-axis [along motion direction], L’, is lesser than L also in the inverse Lorentz factor – what Michelson and Morley firstly observed.
The post is long, so now
Cheers
So let’s continue.
..... If the rod is impacted by a 3D momentum p, along, say, X-axis, it moves also in the 3DXYZ space with a 3D speed V,
- and so, because of the moving along X-axis rod rotation in (X, cτ) plane of the 4D space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z), its projection on X-axis of 3D space is observed – and really is at interactions of the rod in Matter at all – as contracted in Lorentz factor; fundamentally nothing at that happens with the space.
Besides at the motion another effect appears: particles [see SS posts above an linked paper] are cyclic algorithms that run as sequential FLE-by-FLE flipping, the algorithm “space length”, if a having rest mass particle is at rest in the 3D space, is equal to its Compton length, λ= ћ/P0= ћ/m0c, so “logical length”, N0 FLEs, is = λ/lP0
If a particle moves in 3D space, its speed in cτ-dimension decreases in Lorentz factor, while algorithm’s length increases in Lorentz factor because of additional 3D spacve flipping,
- so the “intrinsic own” algorithm tick rate N0decreases in the Lorentz factor – correspondingly, say, if a particle’s algorithm has a defect, and the particle so is unstable and decays with some [from experiments follows constant for all particles] probability at any algorithm’s tick, the moving particle lives longer in the Lorentz factor. As that was observed yet in 1930s, at detection of muons that are created on tens km heights in Earth atmosphere. However that happens fundamentally only with the muons, nothing, of course, happens with time – and with space, of course.
These two [length contraction and the algorithms’ ticks slowing down] effects and geometry above constitute the Lorentz transformations, which describe what exists and happens in some moving in a given IRF other IRF – that is the transformations’ physical sense, and to derive the transformations it is enough to know Pythagoras theorem – and to know that all happens in the 4D space, that particles are algorithms in FLE lattice, etc., also, though.
And, besides, it is necessary to remember, that the space cτ- dimension in standard version of the transformation - and in whole mainstream physics and everyday humans practice at all – is the time dimension; and really till Earth absolute velocity will be measured, that really – and rather correctly - works, since the velocity practically for sure is rather small – seems near the derived from CMB dipole velocity ~370 km/s.
Though note that the absolute velocity with a well non-zero probability can be measured, see proposed yet in 2013 experiment in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259463954_Measurement_of_the_absolute_speed_is_possible
Cheers
Chan Bock Lee ,
RADAR experiments confirm the two-way speed of light (SOL) as c (like a wave carried by a medium):
a clock and a mirror at constant distance, to measure the out and back SOL.
Sagnac effect, experimental evidence, shows that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter (like a wave carried by a medium).
What remains is the ONE-WAY speed of light. SR assumes that, for synchronization purposes, light is always c, or it is independent on the speed of the observer. This has never received an experimental verification (since it is very difficult) and it is most likely not true since that is not the behave of a wave.
Stefano Quattrini
"What remains is the ONE-WAY speed of light. SR assumes that, for synchronization purposes, light is always c, or it is independent on the speed of the observer. This has never received an experimental verification (since it is very difficult) and it is most likely not true since that is not the behave of a wave."
See 1ANM, Description:
Apparatus for measuring of the absolute velocity in space – 1ANM (One Arm, No Mirrors)
Book Special Relativity is Nonsense
Book Light - The Absolute Reference in the Universe
In Radar Paradox, radiowave or light are emitted to each other from both the stationary and the approaching one at the same time as explained in the pdf file on Radar Paradox.
The other pdf file of Dependence of light velocity upon movement of ligh source explains why the characterisitcs of light such as its generation, travel and interaction with the matter shows that velocity of light depend upon the velocity of light source obeying Newtonian mechanics. I would very welcome any comment and question on this report. Thanks.
The thread problem is really scientifically clarified in the series of SS posts on page 3;
- where, including, it is a few times underlined that Lorentz transformations completely rigorously follow from the Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle, which, including,
states that the observed – i.e. measured in any/every inertial reference frame – any/every, i.e. one- two ...N - way speed of light,
- while fundamentally nothing can be observed really scientifically if some inertial reference frame isn’t established,
- is equal to c; since in accordance with the relativity principle distant clocks in any/every IRF are synchronized just by one-way light flashes.
At that any other synchronization violates the relativity principle, and so such “IRF” is fundamentally non-applicable in really scientific researches.
More see the SS posts above, though here it is possibly necessary to add that the IRF instruments must compose rigid system, what really practically always happens on at least Earth and near region, say, including satellites, what is provided by Earth gravity. If a system isn’t rigid, the Lorentz transformations aren’t applicable, and so the absolute velocity can be measured - see linked paper in last SS post above, 2 days ago now.
Cheers
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Materials Science
- Materials
- Semiconductor