Recent content by Ernst Jan

That's indeed what I said where SR and my view disagree. Even though I also said this is where SR and my view disagree. Light goes with the speed of light in SR, so the "problem" of movement stays. (In GR you get the same problem at the event horizon of a black hole.) I'm unaware my view of...

In my view all velocities are absolute, in SR they are relative. In my view the change of velocity is absolute in SR it's absolute too. Define "make sense". If someone says "it took me a day to do something", it would make sense if the one listening knows how long it took without having to...

Again... just saying that the principle of relativity is TRUE doesn't make it so. I'm not sure what you mean. I'm simply exploring 2 possible ways of looking at the animation. In order to find out which is the right one I'm asking questions. Let me describe the difference between SR and my...

Sorry, I thought you meant this postulate: The speed of light in vacuum has the same constant value c in all inertial systems. since it was the one I was questioning. This is strange, because according to me the ONLY thing different is the reason why clocks slow down. Other than that I'm...

This is correct. No, I'm saying there is a difference between the clock moving away from the observer and the observer moving away from the clock. Only the Doppler effect will be the same in both cases. We've only been discussing the animation in a way that all observers know what the...

Of course. You can proof everything with 0=1 indeed. Obviously, it will not stay synchronized when you start to move. Well, "correct" time can only be a question of definition. Measuring should be done by something that's the same for everyone. Like calling one rotation of the Earth a day...

No, the Doppler effect only depends on the difference in velocity, so it makes no difference if speed is relative or absolute. For a "universal observer" it will look different though, but the effect is the same. Actually, the easiest solution should always be preferred over a more complex...

Your question is a bit strange, since measuring implies actually looking at the clock. It brings up all kinda new problems like the Doppler effect. Let's just keep looking at it as if an observer just knows what's happening. Obviously, in my view only the clock moving at high speed will slow...

A "correct" clock would be a clock that would show a "universal observer" that one second has passed when the Earth has made (1/24 * 1/60 * 1/60=) 1/86400 of a rotation. Let's agree that I can't stop time by smashing a clock, so that a clock does not necesarrily tell the "correct" time.

I know, my question is why would you think the first postulate is true. Thanks, I hope to find my answer there then :) Yeah, we can agree to that, but I was hoping you'd tell me which of those test disagree with my view. Since my view also explains that atomic clocks will slow down with high...

I think this is how everyone interprets the animation. According to my "universal observer" you can't do this. The reason seems obvious; the photons do not hit the mirrors at the same time. Under the premisse that you can measure "time" with for example such oscillators, you will get no...

I said that the animation in my original post compared 2 different photons, exactly like in your animation. I mean the photon going between two mirrors. With stationary frame I mean the mirrors that are stationary and with moving frame I mean the mirrors that are moving. Good, but why do you...

With time dilation and length contraction it seems no longer possible to see what a 3 dimensional space looks like for a "universal observer", these are real physical effects right?

Thanks, this was the answer I was hoping for. Too bad there are a lot of experiments in the link, could you say which of them contradict my view please, or did you mean all of them?