I dont accept relativity since theris strong reason. Light speed IS DEPENDENT on the observer's motion.?

Question

An assumption of the Einstein's theory of relativity was the claiming that light's velocity is INDEPENDENT of the relative motion of its source as well as the observer. By pointing that since there is no difference between the speed of light in directions back-and-forth of earth's motion and perpendicular to the earth's motion, because of that, there is no ether wind. But I claim that the speed difference between both trips of light's travel could not be detected because the difference is so so extremely minute to be detected by anything. If anyone dont approve my thinking , then just work out diagrammatically on a paper and see how much extremely minute, the difference between both speeds is.If one day we find so accurate an equipment to detect suchminor differences (if there is any difference), still we can say light's speed is DEPENDENT onthe relative speeds of the mediumof light (the air dragged by the earth or even ether may be dragged). If so, why time dilation?

Give me proof for your answer rather than making stern statements on my question. I am neither among the PhD candidates on top programs or one who hasn't read details of the theory of relativity.

John,

By 'back-and-forth trips', I mean one complete back-and-forth trip. I agree that the time difference is measurable if the measurement is made in one direction only, suppose only back trip or only forth trip. Again, I mean one complete back-and-forth trip.

I mean time difference is barely measurable for one complete back-and-forth trip.

and of one complete perpendicular trip.

Answer 1

Are you one of the leading astrophysicists of our time? A PhD candidate in a top program with fresh new ideas that just might revolutionize the way we understand the universe? If not then I don't think you really have the level of understanding necessary to debunk relativity.

I don't accept gravity because when I am at the top of a mountain I don't feel lighter and when I am in the bottom of a canyon I don't feel heavier.

Answer 2

This claim is well known by astronomers because much of the data astronomers use is through the fact that light’s speed is constant, but if a light source is moving away from you, then you see the light’s wavelength get ‘redshifted’ or elongated without affecting the speed. A physical example is when you hear a vehicle honking its horn as it passes you. The horn seems to become a lower pitch as it passes you (which is really the elongation of the wavelength).

As for the Michelson–Morley experiment (the Earth going through ether), it should be extremely measurable. I think by diagrammatically, you may have not taken into account the extreme speeds/distances involved with the Earth. Here’s some quick math:
Earth-Sun distance: 1.5*10^11 meters = r
1 Year: 365.25 days = 3.14*10^7 seconds
Speed = distance/time
Speed = (2*pi*r) / (3.14*10^7) = over 30,000 meters per second, or 17 miles per second, or over 60,000 miles per hour!

If we can’t measure this difference, I think we are in trouble.

Time dilation is a consequence of the constancy of the speed of light that is very detectable and has been observed repeatedly. One example is our detection of muons. Technically, a muon’s lifespan (because of decay) should not be able to reach the ground of Earth, but we detect these things >700 meters underground! The reason is time dilation! Their time is “dilated” compared to ours.

Hope this helps…

Answer 3

You are wrong and clearly do not understand the experiment.

The experiment as carried out over 100 years ago was at least 100 times more sensitive than required to detect the motion, and it can now be repeated with even greater accuracy.

Experimental accuracy is quite easily determined - its not some sort of mystery that you can dispute because you don't like the result.

Answer 4

If you really want people to take a contrarian view such as this seriously, you're the one who needs to "give me proof". "But I claim" type statements motivated (apparently) by intuition, aren't really an effective call to arms, metaphorically speaking. Why don't you track down what the intrinsic sensitivity of the interferometer used for the Michelson–Morley experiment is, compare it to the speed of the earth's surface due to rotation, and get back to us. Or, do you feel that the numberless eloquence of your intuition is so convincing that the effort is unnecessary? You did, after all, put "IS DEPENDENT" in full caps.

Answer 5

You're wrong. The speed of light in a vacuum is independant of motion - that's the entire basis of special relativity. I suggest you find a textbook on it and read up a bit.

Answer 6

of cource easy, and if u dont believe and % to work out it virtually some day.. hav u ever considered crackers tht explode in the sky far faraway from u, in such circumstances u see the easy first however the sound comes after a on an identical time as because of the fact velocity of sound is ver very much less whilst in comparison with that of light

Answer 7

At last! Somebody against relativity. I'm one among those rare people today. The theory of relativity is too entertaining and has interesting 'proofs' that totally mislead the 'adventurous' people into believing it. I like not to believe in it. Unfortunately it is very much proved by experiments and I'm not a scientist to try to disprove it. Totally, I'm not sure of my view in the end. People with a view against relativity stand in a side of one against thousands.

My reason for not believing in it is I think light's velocity is dependent on source and observer.

Answer 8

Happily, greater minds than yours have validated relativity by many different methods and all agree it reflects reality.