vanholten

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure

Thanks you are right..sorry it should be: f=√( c²-v²), f/c=√( c²-v²)/c, c²=x, f/c=√(x-v²)/ √x, f/c= √ (1- (v²/x)), c/f=1/√(1-(v/c)²) The lorentz transformation is c/f.

Yes exactly, I derived it a bit differently and it took me much longer, haha. I will show you later.

f=√( c²-v²), f/v=√( c²-v²/v), c²=x, f/c=√(x-v²)/ √x, f/c= √ (1- (v²/x)), c/f=1/√(1-(v/c)²) The lorentz transformation is c/f.

I will work on it. Take a look at the updated picture above. The line pointing downwards from the centre equals the radius of the circles. Of course it's c.

Indeed, "γ" is the Lorentz factor.The rhombus connects the midpoints of the circles and the intersection point of these circles. All sides are c. The dashed line to the midpoint of the image is also c. I will upload another image, takes some time though. I uploaded the image.

If you decided you don't want to understand it, what's the use of me trying. My posts were a serious attempt to introduce you to another point of view. However you are degrading them even before you worked out the difference between a theory and equations. After that becomes clear you might want to begin researching why energy might be a mechanism of nature.

It pictures geometrical relations based on the constant c. v is velocity. Sorry about that unclear c, it expands to the dashed line. The lorentz-transformation γ= c/f The kinetic energy supplement is (γ-1)= a/f I did not write the calculations of SR are wrong. I said a theory should explain the mechanism resulting in SR calculations. This diagram results from a theory concerning the universe. It will eventually show that the calculations regarding e=mc²( γ-1 ) should not result in (∞ -1). You might be surprised what else is to derive from this simple and fully natural relationship.

I found a simple example of the Lorentz-transformation working in accelerated events. You can derive the lorentz-transformation from this diagram consisting of two intersecting circles. Next you can derive (γ-1); the addition for kinetic energy. The diagram gives you insight in the geometrical proportions of γ-1 and why it leads, or better why it shouldn't lead to infinity. Both circles will maintain a mutual point of rest, and require a minimum overlap to make sense. I meant to also reply you, by inserting the image above.

Calculations are not the same as theory. And yes I do have some evidence.

This is not my postulate , I copied it from Wikipedia. Why should you want to derive something that contradicts Newtons laws? I think we need a theory that explains the mechanism that causes the calculations to work in reality. To free our minds first we have to be aware that that SR is no valid theory.

Why is that? The observer is subjected to a force resulting from observation, because he needs to receive light to make his observation.

It works only to a certain point. It's possible to derive the relativistic formulas without respecting the first postulate; to show it actually doesn't work.

I am thinking of the theoretical implications. The first postulate only mentions inertial frames of reference. While the second postulate is about the observation concerning the propagation velocity of light in vacuum that inevitably results in forces. The relativistic formulas have no parameter to account for this. In general when the postulates of a theory contradict each other, the theory is not valid. For those reasons I think Special Relativity is no valid theory.

Thanks for the right translation. It was kind of do it myself, from German into Dutch to English. Wasn't sure about " when" or "if", so I guessed wrong. I appreciate the link. Do you agree with swansont on this? Thanks swansont. When you have an observer of a certain light source in inertial relative motion, the change of momentum due to the light making the observation possible, should boost the velocity. I expect the inevitable change of momentum to result in acceleration. However, the first postulate only accounts for internal frames of reference. The contradiction I think of is that an accelerated frame of reference is not an inertial frame of reference.

Hello, I have a question regarding uniform motion and Special Relativity. How can the first postulate of Special Relativity hold on to inertial frames of references when these three statements have to be accounted for: 1- “In an inertial frame of reference an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.” Newtons first law. 2 - “The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.” First postulate of Special Relativity. 3- “When the theory matches the facts radiation transfers inertial mass between emitting and absorbing objects” A. Einstein. Quote from „Does the inertia from a body depend on its energy contents? (E=mc²)” A.Einstein Analen der Physik 17. p.891.1905 In other words: Putting these elements together implies that when radiation transfers inertial mass between emitting and absorbing objects, there should be acting a force on these objects also in case mutual observation through light is involved. It appears to me the combination results in a theoretical contradiction.