On this blog you will find some errors, thought experiments, examples and ideas involving the ''special theory of relativity''.

What you will find here will prove that the ''special theory of relativity'' is wrong!!!

At first i will post some thought experiments, and afterwards i will post some ideas about:

• What we do when we measure ''time''.
• The speed of light and why is not always the same relative to its source.
• Errors in some famous thought experiments.
• The resolution of the ''Ehrenfest paradox''.
• The fast moving muons.

Some of you may think that the thought experiments are meaningless because they are not actual experiments.
This is wrong!!!!
A thought experiment is an idea that can show to us that another idea is wrong!!!!!!

In the thought experiments that you will find on this blog, sometimes i'm talking about simultaneous events, but those events are simultaneous not because of what someone sees, but because those events can be specified as ''simultaneous'' regardless of what someone sees!!!!
Also, some other times i'm talking about the order/sequence of some events, but i'm not talking about an apparent order of events, i'm talking about the actual order of those events, and the nature of the experiments that i present here, leaves no doubt about the actual order of events regardless of what someone may see!!!!!
So, the ''relativity of simultaneity'' has nothing to do in the thought experiments that you will find here!!!!!
The ''relativity of simultaneity'' has to do with the fact that, if we use light in order to be informed about some events, maybe we will not be informed about the actual order of those events.
But, in my thought experiments, there is no need for someone to be informed about something, and they can be conducted without the need for humans to be present!!! 
In my thought experiments, all that humans will have to do is to see what are the results when the experiment has ended!!!!
The actual order/sequence of events, gives a certain result.
If the actual order of events is different, there will be a different result.
By looking at the results, we can understand which was the actual order of events!!!!!

Let's see something about the length contraction.

If the ''actual length contraction'' does not exist, the ''apparent length contraction'' does not exist either.

If someone believes that an object that is moving at a speed close to the speed of light will appear contracted, although it is not actually contracted, is wrong!!!!!!!

An object that is moving at a speed close to the speed of light relative to us, if it is not actually contracted it will not appear contracted!!!!!

When an object is moving towards us at a speed close to the speed of light, if it is not actually contracted, it will appear expanded, but it would not be really ''expanded'', it would be an apparent expansion.

An object that is moving at a speed close to the speed of light relative to us, if it is not really contracted, it will appear contracted only when is moving away from us.

When an extremely fast moving object is exactly next to us, if it is not actually contracted, it will look normal.

How exactly an extremely fast moving object look like when is next to us, it depends on where exactly are the two ends of the object, where exactly do we look, and if we can see it all in a glance, meaning it depends on the length of the object.

{Of course, if the object is small, probably we will not be able to see it at all, when it moves at a speed close to the speed of light.}

So, what we need to do is to find if objects are actually contracted meaning if the actual length contraction occurs!!!

On this blog, you will find some thought experiments which will prove that the actual ''length contraction'' cannot happen.

The basic problem of the idea of the length contraction is that the scientific community believes that it is a reciprocal effect.

So what i will do is that i will show that a reciprocal actual length contraction cannot exist!!!!!!!

Let's see something about the time dilation.
When we talk about the ''time dilation'', there is the issue if we talk about just an ''apparent phenomenon'' or if we say that the time on another object is actually running differently.

For example, if we say that a spaceship that is moving relative to the Earth is actually having the same ''time'' with the Earth, but when a human from the Earth is looking towards a clock on the spaceship, he will see that it has different ticking rate because he will not see the actual ticking rate of the clock of the spaceship, this effect is not actual ''time dilation''.

This is an ''apparent'' effect, and it has nothing to do with what the clock actually displays!!!
That "apparent" effect is reciprocal for two observers in relative motion, but only that "apparent" effect, and there is nothing reciprocal to the actual "time" on two observers in relative motion.
Reciprocity is fundamental on "relative velocity time dilation".

When we talk about ''time dilation'', we are talking about what a clock actually displays, meaning we are talking about actual "time dilation"!!!!!

The scientific community says that the fast moving muons that are produced by cosmic rays in the atmosphere of the Earth, are having much longer lifetime than the slow moving muons, as measured by us.

And the scientific community says that the longer lifetime of the muons is caused by the ''dilation of time'' on the fast moving muons.
If the time on the muons actually runs slower than the time on Earth, this means it is not a reciprocal effect!!!!!!

..................................................................................................................................

Special relativity has emerged when Einstein and other scientists accepted that the speed of light is always c in all inertial reference frames, meaning that the speed of light is always 300000 km/s(approximately) for all observers regardless of their motion.

But this is wrong!

Yes, the motion of a photon is independent of the motion of its source.

But, the speed of photons is not always the same ''relative'' to their source or ''relative'' to every other observer.

..................................................................................................................................

I hope i did not make too many grammar errors.

It was difficult to write in English because it's not my native language and I don't have any certificate.