Is special relativity incomplete?

[flexible_time]

You've stated this several times and it has been explained to you that (and how) it is wrong several times. I'm not sure what else can be said - it is up to you whether you want to believe the reality or not.

Sorry if I did something wrong. I did not know there were enough explanations provided and I was thinking to keep asking a new question which is not stated before although the purpose is the one to see the possibility for the existence of absolute time and space.

 

[flexible_time]

So, assuming the same speed of light in this frame too, how can you get the events of the pulse reaching the two ends be simultaneous? Please note that when we say the speed of light is constant we mean wrt the frame where you measure it, not wrt the light source.

What if I move the position of a pulsing light slightly from middle to the leading end after considering the velocity of the rod relative to light? In this way, I think it would be possible to get the events of the pulse reaching to two ends be simultaneous measured with regard to my frame.

These experimental results have been confirmed to such an overwhelming extent that there is no room left for doubt.

I don't agree the validity of SR is confirmed in the region of singularity point such as black hole. If not confirmed there, then I believe that there should be room left for doubt although it may not be possible to test in practical point of view.

 

[A.T.]

I don't agree the validity of SR is confirmed in the region of singularity point such as black hole.

SR fails way outside the black hole. That's why GR was introduced.

 

[Ibix]

One more thing I would like to point out is that it is impossible to see only the notion of absolute moving without the notion of absolute rest. I think the opposite notion of moving is resting. So if light is absolutely moving in space, then we need to accept that there exists the notion of "absolute rest" because the notion for moving and rest is like the head and tail of a coin as we always can see the relative resting and relative moving between two inertial frames. If you agree with light is moving absolutely in space, you must also accept the notion of absolute rest. What do you think that?

I think you need to read the paper by Pal that I linked to earlier. He shows that the principle of relativity leads to either Newton or Einstein (and no other option) without invoking a constant speed of light. The idea of a constant speed falls out of the maths. So no, the two ideas are not contradictory.

The rest of your post is you attempting to reason verbally about something best described by maths. Try learning the maths; then you'll understand the theory, not the caricature you keep describing.

 

[russ_watters]

What is concerning is that you don't seem to be acknowledging the simple explanation you have been given - that light behaves differently from objects with mass or sound. I'm not sure that you get that what you think is a contradiction, if it were really a problem it would show up in experiments. In fact it is the other way around: the idea that light behaves same as sound or objects was causing problems didn't work. That is the whole reason special relativity was developed.

You seem to be taking a posture that you are trying to argue around this idea rather than learning it. That is not what PF is for and this posture is preventing you from learning how it really works.

 

[Ibix]

What if I move the position of a pulsing light slightly from middle to the leading end after considering the velocity of the rod relative to light? In this way, I think it would be possible to get the events of the pulse reaching to two ends be simultaneous measured with regard to my frame.

Of course. But then they won't be simultaneous in the other frame.

 

[flexible_time]

SR fails way outside the black hole. That's why GR was introduced.

Yes, thank for correcting me. But my understanding is that GR , another theory of relativity supporting only the relativistic nature of time and space is not perfect to describe all behavior around BH so I still think there may be room for doubt.

 

[Dale]

This thread is closed.

This forum is for people who want to learn about relativity, not for people who wish to ignore the evidence and explanations to cling to an outdated philosophy.