Dear Basudeba
I'm catching up with conversations, including ours above. I was disappointed you didn't manage to read and comment on my essay, which is the most challenging of current paradigms to reach the top group. All the more disappointed you missed it on reading your comment on the video;
"The video suggested by you simply ignores the fact that for two frames of reference to be related, they must be the part of a bigger frame of reference, which is a special frame of reference for the other two frames making the relativistic term to vanish. We will be happy to offer any clarification."
clarification isn't needed because it is clear this view embodies the most basic of mistakes of looking at it purely from your own prior assumptions. It's my fault as I should have advised you read the essay first. There are a also number of thought experiments in my string. The conceptual dynamics are difficult to grasp at first, but around 1 in 3 non physicists have succeeded, and 1 in 6 physicists (who have more deeply ingrained assumptions). I will explain the initial assumptions;
1. There is no 'fact' as you suggest above, but your opinion. You must firstly be able to put that to the back of your mind and consider another view, which, when understood may then be tested.
2. We assume space is actually "Infinitely many spaces in relative motion" (as Minkowski and Einstein said). These are 'Inertial Frames.' They are REAL volumes of space (not abstract 'sets of co-ordinate' points/lines). Einstein indeed defined these as 'rigidly attached to a body' We'll call them 'inertial fields' to remind ourselves. A bus moving through air (a background field) represents a discrete inertial field.
3. Any matter can only be IN one field at a time. If a boy on the bus runs his toy bus along the floor, the toy is the inertial field, the bus the background.
If you're not ON the bus you're not IN the field. Glass has a refractive co-efficient 'n'. Light takes a fixed time to pass through the glass of a window. If the window is moving (i.e. it's part of a bus) that DOES NOT CHANGE! The light Doppler shift instead. Viewed from an observer outside the bus the light is 'carried' in the direction of the bus.
4. Now here is the real breakthrough. The Plasma 'fine structure' (free electron etc. particles) which we know surrounds ALL mass is a very effective refractor (see essay references). Current science also doesn't understand how it can 'build up' like it does around matter as it accelerates, through a vacuum as well as in a gas! (The Earths Ionosphere & plasmasphere, heliosphere bow shock, Halo's, Photoelectrons in the LHC pipe, etc etc). So they're ignored! and Flyby, Pioneer, Voyager etc 'anomalies' continue. This takes the place of glass as the refractive boundary between frames. (Eddington was wrong).
5. Our eye lenses have fine structure, as do instrument lenses. If the boy ran along the bus HE IS an inertial field. His eyes would receive light Doppler shifted but AT 'C', because the fine structure ions of his eyes convert it to 'c' when it arrives. (indeed his eye lenses are anyway n=1.38.) The glass lense of ALL instruments does the same.
6. SO;.. ALL matter in motion is in motion with respect to a LOCAL background. Light entering the galaxy is Doppler shifted by the Halo to the galaxies 'c', again at the heliopause to the Sun's 'c', and at the Ionosphere to the Earths 'c', and on ad infinitum.
In logic it is incorrect ASSUMPTIONS that invalidate conclusions. In SR only the assumption of no background '3rd frame' is incorrect. But the mind must be able to manipulate more dynamic variables than it's current state of development can normally compute. The video is an aid. There is much more in the essay and the string.
In conclusion, the LT is not required, Stokes/Planck 'Ether Drag' was essentially correct, and CSL is explained with Local Reality. Bells inequalies are irrelevant, and SR is derived with a quantum mechnanism. Furthermore this diffraction at low densities is precisely equivalent to curved space-time, also explaining GR. It is fully falsifiable and has predictive power (see evidence in refs).
My essay was rejected on pure 'belief' terms by most conventional physicists here, but the solution seen by a substantial proportion of others. What has not yet been fully seen are the implications, which are substantial, across all science. I do not however expect the member judges to see or believe it. I am however trying to find out how to better get it across. Please do read it, let me know if it 'clicks' into place for you, and and comment.
Many thanks, and very best wishes.
Peter
