DimaMazin

and v2=c(velocity of light) is relative to the car.And Vt is velocity of the light relative to the initial reference frame Vt=(v1+c)/(1+v1c/c2) Vt=(v1+c)/(1+v1/c) Vt=(v1+c)/[(c+v1)/c] Vt=(v1+c)c/(v1+c) Vt=c

If photon has time of life then photon of very far object should have decay in vacuum.You can ensnare them and they after a while should die.

Try to use relative simultaneity and relative length contraction.

Then we should see products of decay of photons from very far objects .

Photon has no energetically inertial frame,but it can have particular inertial frame. Our clocks have some own kinematic slowing of time, it doesn't mean we have no particular inertial frame.

I would like to see the wrong equation of OP. You have forgotten contracted distances in light frame.The fastest spaceship motion has insignificant change of distance between the fastest spaceship and the Earth in light frame,though changes exist.

We discuss question about speed.We don't discuss energy question. I meant our speed is half of speed of light relative to light.

We are moving at c/2 relative to light.

No.Mathematically wrong thing can't be experimentally right in the same case.

Mathematical exploring in two frames is exacter thing than unilateral experiment. Relativity is mathematically wrong in two frames of observings with own measurements.

Scientists with relativity have sufficient financing therefore they don't need right theory.

For example.Traveler travels (only in our galaxy) at 200,000,000 m/s relative to us(we measure it).Then he measures our speed relative to him as 119,966,779 m/s

Scientists don't disprove my equations.I think because they can't. My equations make predictions(Einstein and Minkowski didn't make the same predictions). Financed experiments can check the predictions.

I do make math of indication of clock in two frames.Einstein and Minkowski can't make any math of indication of clock in two frames.Your advertising of their nonsense is inappropriate here.

Approaching objects and escaping objects have different length contraction factors. I already made length contraction factor for approaching objects,it is R/R'=gamma*(c+v)/c Let's make length contraction factor for escaping objects. Time of travel of light in twin frame on the first animation t=R1/(c-v)=R2/(c+v) R1 - distance between source1 and twin' in twin frame R2 - distance between source2 and twin' in twin frame R2/R'2=gamma*(c+v)/c R'2 - distance between source2 and twin' in twin' frame R'1 - distance between source1 and twin' in twin' frame R'1=R'2=R2*c/[gamma(c+v) R2=t(c+v) R'1=R'2=t(c+v)c/[gamma(c+v)]=tc/gamma R1/R'1=t(c-v)gamma/ tc=(c-v)gamma/c

Somebody has wrongly understood me.The Earth is rotating.The Earth gravitational field is rotating with the Earth. But you should calculate a plane speed for a slowing of the plane time = speed of rotation of the atmosphere+speed of the plane in the atmosphere when the plane has eastern direction. a plane speed for a slowing of the plane time=speed of rotation of the atmosphere - speed of the plane in the atmosphere when the plane has western direction.

There speeds work(for a slowing of time) relatively of center of the Earth,not gravitational field of Earth.Maybe relatively of gravitational fields of Earth and Sun.

I already made math of approaching twins to each other.Let's consider math of escaping twins from each other. Indication of twin' clock in twin frame=tic/[(c-v)gamma] indication of twin' clock in twin' frame=(tiv' +tic)/(gamma*c) tic/[(c-v)gamma]=(tiv'+tic)/(gamma*c) v'=vc/(c-v) v' is negative relatively of light speed therefore v has negative value I don't see any problem in my idea.

You should have moderator warning.Because here the problem is forbidden by moderator.

I don't discuss the problem here.I just have corrected ajb . Sometimes a consumer is right.

We don't need make theory for everything.When relativity doesn't make prediction for some thing then relativity is wrong for this thing.When I do make prediction for the some thing then my idea is right for this thing.

When "your clock running slow" then signals of other frames are changed.

Of course neutrino (which is in gravitational field of Earth and the gravitational field is dominant) can't see speed of the Earth faster than 1/2c. Because speed of counter neutrino should be much faster . Therefore the neutrino has different Lorentz's factors for calculation of energy of the Earth and of energy of neutrinos.The neutrino has usual Lorentz's factor for calculation of neutrinos energy. The neutrino has another Lorentz's factor for calculation of the Earth energy ; the Lorentz's factor~1/(1-v2/[c/2]2)1/2

Don't look down to my exploring. I do make mathematical predictions of indication of clock in my experiment for two frames. You don't make. Einstein wasn't making also. Explanation without mathematical prediction is nonsence. I was mistaken with length contraction factor. Really it is; dx/v - dx/(c+v)=gamma(dx'/v' - dx'/c) v'=cv/(c+v) then dx/dx'=gamma(c+v)/c

I incorrectly took length contraction.I should define v' in first place.Twin and twin' are moving to each other.Twin is radiator of two photons to twin'.Twin' atomic clock recieves the photons.The first photon includes the clock.The second photon switches off the clock. dx - distance between the twins in twin frame dti - time between radiation of first photon and radiation of second photon in twin frame dx/(c+v) - time of travel of first photon in twin frame (dx-v * dti)/(c+v) - time of travel of second photon in twin frame [dti+(dx-vdti)/(c+v)-dx/(c+v)]/gamma=dtic/[(c+v)gamma] - indication of the clock predicted by twin dx' - distance between the twins in twin' frame dti/gamma+(dx'-dtiv'/gamma)/c-dx'/c=dti(c-v')/(gamma*c) - indication of the clock predicted by twin' then dtic/[(c+v)gamma]=dti(c-v')/(gamma*c) then v'=cv/(c+v) Now let's define length contraction factor dx/v - dx/c = gamma * (dx'/v' - dx'/c) dx'/dx=(c-v)/(gamma*c) I make particular predictions in two frames.Are they right?