Special relativity is an artefact of human stupidity. Time dilation is a brain flatulation

[Marvas]

Wikipedia wrote:
Time dilation can be inferred from the observed constancy of the speed of light in all reference frames dictated by the second postulate of special relativity. This constancy of the speed of light means that, counter to intuition, the speeds of material objects and light are not additive. It is not possible to make the speed of light appear greater by moving towards or away from the light source.

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

The speeds of material objects and sounds waves are not additive either. It is not possible to make the speed of sound appear greater by moving towards and away the sound source. The frequency yes, but not the speed. So what are these relative scientists arguing here ? That because the speed of light does not increase with the speed of the source, Einstein's theory is right ? They are clearly confused and do not understand how waves propagate in a medium.

The reason why you cant combine the speeds is because the speed of the sound wave, or any other wave, only depends on the properties of the medium. It does not depend on the properties of the source. A moving source will only change the perceived frequency and wavelength of a sound wave due to the Doppler effect. The speed of sound waves in different frames remains constant because it is entirely and absolutely dependent of their medium of propagation and has absolutely nothing to do with the moving of the source in the medium. That is why the speed of sound waves remains constant in different frames, no matter how fast the source or observer is moving.

Why would one expect the speed of light waves to be different in different frames ?

In a static medium with no wind, the speed of sound remains constant. The Doppler effect changes the frequency and wavelength based on the relative motion of the source and observer, but not the speed of sound itself. The speed depends on the properties of the medium, like temperature and pressure, not on the motion of the source or observer.

NASA wrote:
The speed of transmission of the sound remains a constant regardless of the frequency or the wavelength. The speed of sound only depends on the state of the air (or gas) not on the characteristics of the generating source.

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/doppler.html

Even the relative scientists from NASA understand that the speed of sound waves remains a constant regardless of the movement of the source or observer (which changes frequency/wavelength due to Doppler effect), because it only depends on the medium. But they can't apply the same basic principle of wave propagation to light waves and aether, because they are fools. Just like Einstein and all relative scientists are.

Who interpreted the Michelson-Morley experiment in the most foolish way possible, based on their foolish assumption or 'intuition' that the speed of the light wave should change depending on the movement of the earth source through the aether. And foolishly concluded that if there was no such change detected experimentally, then the medium of light waves did not exist. And on this basis rejected the aether. On the same basis, they can conclude that air does not exist either !

This just shows once more that Einstein was right...when he said that human stupidity is infinite.

 

[Gibsense]

The speeds of material objects and sounds waves are not additive either. It is not possible to make the speed of sound appear greater by moving towards and away the sound source. The frequency yes, but not the speed. So what are these relative scientists arguing here ? That because the speed of light does not increase with the speed of the source, Einstein's theory is right ? They are clearly confused and do not understand how waves propagate in a medium.

Yes, I agree. But I do not think it is appropriate to call Einstein a fool. However he got there does not alter the fact that his mathematics from out-of-the-box thinking is still undefeated. Otherwise I found this useful.

Interestingly this is also the case for ships plowing through water. The bow wave does not progress faster if the ship moves faster. Again it depends on conditions of the wave medium.

 

[Marvas]

Well then he was a smart fool. A smart-fool duality. Who has succeded in fooling the whole scientific community that aether does not exist, because he was so smart and invented time dilation and length contraction. Except those were invented by Lorentz, and first appeared in his aether theory, ironically. So not even the maths are Einstein's, but of this other smartfool who made them up in order to save the aether after the failed MM experiment. If he was any smarter, he would have realised that MM did not disprove aether at all. But anyway Einstein was a real genius to take these concepts straight from an aether theory and reject the Lorentz aether theory with...Lorentz aether theory ! But without the aether. The smartest fool ever by far.

 

[Gibsense]

he reason why you cant combine the speeds is because the speed of the sound wave, or any other wave, only depends on the properties of the medium. It does not depend on the properties of the source. A moving source will only change the perceived frequency and wavelength of a sound wave due to the Doppler effect. The speed of sound waves in different frames remains constant because it is entirely and absolutely dependent of their medium of propagation and has absolutely nothing to do with the moving of the source in the medium. That is why the speed of sound waves remains constant in different frames, no matter how fast the source or observer is moving.

Why would one expect the speed of light waves to be different in different frames ?

I am trying to understand your reasoning. You argue that the speed of waves is dependent on the medium they exist in. Ok sounds reasonable. I prefer water as an example and you prefer sound in the air. No problem there.

You then seem to argue that light is the same and that its speed is dependent on the medium space. That seems reasonable.
You note that the speed of the source is irrelevant. Again, it seems ok.

On this basis somehow, to you, Einstein is foolish. So tell me how objects approaching a light wave do not add velocities. They meet at 'c'. A speedboat hitting an oncoming wave makes a big splash. The analogy breaks down when applied to light; there would be no big splash.

I may have missed something you have said otherwise you seem to ignore the one remarkable fact that relativity mathematics explains: light always 'impacts at c' irrespective of source or receiver.

Perhaps you have an alternative explanation for this. Interpretation of mathematics in a common sense way is difficult in relativity but Einstein's old Teacher had a go maybe you should too. To save some time read Spacetime Physics by E. F. Taylor and J. A. Wheeler. An alternative explanation for reality would be fantastic if you could do it. Trying is great fun. There's no point in getting so upset

 

[Classical Motion]

Light is not sound and it has two velocities. One of those velocities is constant, the other velocity depends on the speed of the emitter. Two velocities.

Light is not a wave, it is a duty cycle. The on time velocity of that duty cycle never changes. But the off time velocity does with emitter motion.

One cycle of light has an on time and an off time. Light blinks. The so called frequency of light is one on time plus one off time. When light shifts, only the off time changes or shifts. Not the on time.

And therefore any time the off time changes, the “frequency” changes. BUT it’s not an alternating frequency, it’s a duty cycle. The length of the duty cycle changes. Because the off time changes.

Now, how can an off time have a velocity? Because the change in distance, the off time changes. And the on time remains constant. Because that on time, or on length, is emitted as a chunk, not a stream that takes time.

Light is quantum. And the on time is constant. It’s a quantum presence with a space in between the quantum's. It’s that space that changes with emitter motion. Not the quantum.

Comparing the on duration to the off duration, measured from a stationary point, will give you the relative velocity of the emitter.

And if you know the “frequency” of the emission, the difference in the on time will tell you, your relative velocity. Only your velocity can change the on time.

Once you understand how a quantum duty cycle shifts, SR, GR, and expanding space disappears.

As it should.