yea i concur with the idea of light being relative. einstein had limited technology to work with and can be easily be proven wrong. http://www.aliceinphysics.com/
check out that site. it gives great proof of light being relative disproving einsteins theory
I could reply to almost all of your "doubts", but I won't because I have limited time on my hands.
Einstein DID have limited resources, but with our resources today, almost everything that has to do with relativity has been proven to be correct.
You can't disprove Einstein's theory because of it is near perfect. The best you could do is slightly revise it, which will probably be done in upcoming years, but it's certainly not as crazy as you are talking about and will NEVER be disproved.
Welcome to Physics Forums, urtalkinstupid and nakayama!
Here at Physics Forums we have a sub-forum devoted exclusively to the exploration of new theories, such as alternatives to Relativity, namely Theory Development. Perhaps a Mentor could move this thread there?
Some of the views expressed on the two sites for which links were provided are relatively common; many folk have difficulty understanding relativity, and are lead by their misunderstanding to try to build alternative theories. IIRC, some university lecturers sometimes give these as homework near the end of their Relativity courses, so students can sharpen their own understanding by seeing how others have gone astray.
In any case, the real test of Relativity isn't gedunken experiments, it's experiments in the lab and out in the universe. AFAIK, both SR and GR have passed all these experimental and observational test. In fact, if you consider tests of QED as also being tests of SR, Relativity has been shown to be consistent with experiment to approx 1 part in 1018.
So a suggestion for those who think they have a good alternative theory: please provide details of an experiment whose results should clearly distinguish between your theory and Relativity.
sorry theories are always disproved...but not this one. thanks for the correction. SR has been revised and has given a new definition for the "speed of light" seeing as it is not constant. according to einstein time dilation and length contractino play a role in keeping the speed of light constant, but if one were to take a closer look, length contraction plays no role in determining the speed of light. the speed of light depends on the velocity of the source or object it is transmitted :grumpy:
Air is the medium that carries sound. Water is the medium that carries waves. Since sound and waves are composed only of air and water, aren't these what is the sound and wave? If this is true, then isn't light the element that made up the ether, the ether that was being sought after? Or did they think it was a totally separate resistive entity, which the light traveled through and around?
Omin. Well done. Light is the element which makes up the ether. Light is emission and everything absorpts and emits. Emission travels faster when encountering emission of lesser density and slower when it encounter emission of greater density. This is the basis of the length variability in relativity theory. It is, of course, wavelength.
Each day I pursue the application of the paradigm and either make new discoveries, confirm existing knowledge, or extend existing knowledge. The physics establishment is still playing with the old paradigm, the measurements and mathematics paradigm.