Occam's Razor and the Special Theory of Relativity.

[socratus]

Once again.
My opinion about SRT.
1.
One of Einstein’s postulate says that quantum of light moves
in a straight line with constant speed c=1 in the vacuum.
2.
The other Einstein’s SRT postulate says that even the speed
of quantum of light is relative.
3.
It means that quantum of light can change its constant speed.
=.
The book: Albert Einstein and the Cosmic World Order.
/ Six lectures delivered at the University
of Michigan in the Spring of 1962 /
by Cornelius Lanczos / The lecture № 3 /
=============.
Cornelius Lanczos (served as assistant to Einstein during
the period 1928–29 ) wrote:
SRT was created on two postulates.
First postulate – there isn’t absolute speed of movement.
Every movement is relative.
Second postulate – the speed of light ( quantum of light)
is constant.
Lanczos wrote: from the first point of viewit seems that
to unite these two different postulates is impossible,
trying to do this is absolute nonsense. (!)
But . . . . It was be done. (!)
Einstein made it. (!)
. . It was needed the Einstein’s courage to do this unity. (!)
How did Einstein connected them ? (!)
He solved this problem saying that Newton’s absolute space
and time are relative.
And they can be united in negative spacetime - 4D.
==.
Very well ! !
There is only small problem in this conception:
What is the negative 4D spacetime ?
Nobody knows. ( ! )
===.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Using our view as the center and the sun at the a distance that allows each planet we have to cause an total eclipse of the sun from our advantage point and just off the sun are the 2 stars at distance. Would there be a difference in the different cases as to how the position of the distant stars were in an observed position. Would the same results show up in all the various wavelengths of would it just affect visible light?

Same results in each case, the critical factor is the mass of the sun, not the size of the eclipsing body or our distance from it.

...the suns atmosphere that is 'clear' should have a greater effect the closer the position to the sun is. If the ones farthest away do not show any deformation of position does the theory hold or are there more elements at play?

The sun's corona is pretty tenuous, it might produce a very slight refraction and diffraction, but that wouldn't be affected by how far away the light passing through it is coming from.

So a galaxy blocking my vision cannot be part of at nature of space that a mirage can be caused? Does the gravitational lensing example include just a very few pics or is it a pattern that is seen in every different galaxy shot that is 'similar"?

I have no idea what you mean. These aren't mirages we're talking about.

Exact same diagram as the one with the sun but at the 100unit mark would be a galaxy and that should mean a black hole enters the parameters and I'm assuming a star in the far distance would 'disappear' some distance from being blocked from sight from matter in the galaxy.

Unlikely we'd be able to detect a single star farther away than a galaxy, but anyway... The presence of a black hole doesn't really make any difference, except insofar as it contributes to the gravitational distortion caused by the galaxy's mass. There are some good photos from Hubble of what appear to be foreground galaxies lensing background galaxies, it's exactly the same effect as the sun shifting the apparent position of a background star whose light grazes its edge.

So you are saying no mirrors and nothingh that is going to alter the 'percieved position or relative size of any object that is visible'.

I don't think that's what I'm saying, but I really don't know what you mean here either.

And no Socratus, those are not the postulates of SRT in your post #21. The correct postulates are that the speed of light has the same constant value in all inertial reference frames, and the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames.

 

[socratus]

And no Socratus, those are not the postulates of SRT in your post #21.
The correct postulates are that the speed of light has the same constant value
in all inertial reference frames, and the laws of physics are the same
in all inertial reference frames.

Maybe you are correct, but there is a small problem:
all inertial reference frames are relative.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Yes, I am correct, you can look it up, and that's not a problem, that's the essence of it, that's why it's called relativity.

 

[socratus]

Yes, I am correct,
you can look it up, and that's not a problem,
that's the essence of it, that's why it's called relativity.

You don’t see here a problem, and
I think that here there is one problem.
==..
You correct that all inertial reference frames
( planets and stars in many galaxies ) are relative.
Each of them have own spaces and own time.
But Minkowski negative 4D spacetime continuum is not relative.
He is Absolute.
“ Henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself,
are doomed to fade away into mere shadows,
and only a kind of union of the two will preserve
an independent reality.”
/ Herman Minkowski. /
#
It is correct that for all inertial reference frames the laws
of physics are the same.
But can laws in the Minkowski 4D continuum be the same
as in inertial reference frames ?
I think that they are different because Minkowski continuum
differs from all another inertial reference frames in many ways.
What is interaction between Minkowski 4D continuum
and all another inertial reference frames ?
===.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

MInkowski space is just a mathematical setting in which it's convenient to formulate special relativity.
Minkowski space - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia