"To state that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer is very counterintuitive. Some people even refuse to accept this as a logically consistent possibility, but in 1905 Einstein was able to show that it is perfectly consistent if you are prepared to give up assumptions about the absolute nature of space and time." http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html

Physicists readily vandalize space and time (combine them into a preposterous "spacetime") and yet the speed of light remains obviously dependent on the speed of the observer. Here are two observers, stationary and moving:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE

The speed of the light pulses relative to the stationary observer is

c = df

where d is the distance between subsequent pulses and f is the frequency measured at the stationary observer. The speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer is

c'= df' > c

where f' > f is the frequency measured at the moving observer.

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 7:51:02 AM UTC-4, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> "To state that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer is very counterintuitive. Some people even refuse to accept this as a logically consistent possibility, but in 1905 Einstein was able to show that it is perfectly consistent if you are prepared to give up assumptions about the absolute nature of space and time." http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
>
> Physicists readily vandalize space and time (combine them into a preposterous "spacetime") and yet the speed of light remains obviously dependent on the speed of the observer. Here are two observers, stationary and moving:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE
>
> The speed of the light pulses relative to the stationary observer is
>
> c = df
>
> where d is the distance between subsequent pulses and f is the frequency measured at the stationary observer. The speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer is
>
> c'= df' > c
>
> where f' > f is the frequency measured at the moving observer.
>
> See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
>
> Pentcho Valev
The problem is that you use Galilean space and time while Einstein uses relativistic space and time (i.e. the space and time following Lorentz Transformation) to define the speeds, which you can't say right or wrong. But there is a way to disprove special relativity: relativistic time is not clock time. For a cesium clock, the clock time is always counted as the number of cycles divided by a constant k. In special relativity, the number of cycles is the product of relativistic time and frequency.

For a clock moving relative to the observer:

N' = t'f' = t'/T'
Tc' = N'/k
k = 9192631770

For the clock stationary with the observer,

N = tf = t/T
Tc = N/k

where N, N' are the counted numbers of cycles of the moving clock and the stationary clock respectively, f, f' are the frequencies of the corresponding clocks, t, t' are the relativistic times of the corresponding reference frames, T, T' are the periods of the corresponding clocks, Tc, Tc' are the clock times of the corresponding clocks.

According to Lorentz Transformation, the relationship between t and t' is:

t' = γ(t - vx/c^2) = γ[t - v(vt)/c^2] = γt(1 - v^2/c^2) = t/γ < t

where x = vt is the coordinate of the moving clock in the stationary frame. This is the so-called time dilation: the moving clock has a shorter clock time than the stationary clock.

Since period is an interval of relativistic time, it should follow Lorentz Transformation as well:

T' = T/γ < T

which means

f' = 1/T' = γ/T = γf > f

That is, the frequency of the moving clock is higher than that of the stationary clock (not lower as many mainstream physicists claim).

Thus, we have:

Tc' = N'/k = t'f'/k = (t'/T')/k = [(t/γ)/(T/γ)]/k = (t/T)/k = tf/k = N/k = Tc

That is, the clock time of the moving clock is always the same as the clock time of the stationary clock, which means, clock time is independent of the reference frame, absolute, completely different from relativistic time. Therefore, relativistic time is not clock time but an artificially defined meaningless time.

We know all what we can observe are changes of the statuses of physical processes, which in special relativity are the products of relativistic time and relativistic changing rate. The relativistic changing rate is similar to the frequency of a clock that becomes faster in the moving frame so that the relativistic effects of the relativistic time and relativistic changing rate cancel each other in the product to make the status changes on the moving frame always the same as the changes on the stationary reference frame. Therefore, special relativity itself tells us that the relativistic effects can never be observed in any physical process, and all so-called experimental proofs of relativistic effects are misinterpretations of other effects, nothing to do with special relativity.