Leaderboard

Besides the obvious difference between a religion and a cult in numbers of worshipers, isn’t majority of modern cults led by a living person treated like a deity by the worshipers where as in religions, a deity is a long time dead (or rather non existant) entity being worshiped? I also do not understand why the quarell about the differences between a cult and a religion, there obviously are differences depending on the countless types of religions and cults out there. Frankly I don’t get what you two are fighting about, theres a big drawer called „religious faith” inside which there are boxes with various cults and religions. There are differences but they all sit in a single drawer. Edit: Here a joke for both of you @dimreepr & @Moontanman: Atheism and Religion are two sides of the same coin. One relies on heads while the other is just based on tales.

Thanks for the replies. Here is my take on it. Looking back over the centuries, there were a very large number of cases where the result of a practical experiment overturned conventional wisdom and thinking. Sometimes the experiment was actually an accident as with Rutherford and the nucleus. Sometimes the experimenter was up to the job of explaining what happened, as with Ruthrford, sometimes not as with Hertz and the photelectric effect. The Great Men of their day were therefore more often than not forced by practical experimental results to particular conclusions, rather than by prior theorising. So if and when Einstein is superceded, it may well be a practical anomaly like the one that led to Relativity in the first place, or the Quantum theory or the structure of the atom or........ Einstein's greatness was that he realised the significance of the results, as did Newton in his time, and Maxwell in his. However you don't need to be so great to perform the crucial experiment, just a first class technician.

I don't really believe so. But one would I suggest be at least educated in that appropriate discipline and be familiar with whatever he or she is trying to come up with. Seredipity could also play a part. In reality even though Einstein's theory trumped Newton, does that mean he was cleverer then Newton? Perhaps what Newton said about standing on the shoulders of giants is relevant. Einstein in that scenario, had more shoulders to stand on.

Nice explanation Janus, as usual. It never ceases to amaze me that after more than a 100 years of SR/GR verification, experimentation and observable validation, by many many qualified, credentialed experts and young up and coming physicists, that we still have those few that despite not having served the time in this discipline, can have the gaul to stand up bare faced and claim they have invalidated Einstein. As an amateur, and no more then an observer in the face of those that claim SR/GR is wrong, I ask myself the following. [1] SR/GR has been put to the test continually for more then a 100 years, and according to the credentialed experts, has passed all tests with flying colours. [2] Why do then so many fellow amateurs, that have claimed to have read up on relativity rather then study it, then assume the mantle of an expert and on equal footing with those that have put in many years of hard yards in studying it. then claim that it is wrong. [3] If these amateurs are so sure SR/GR is wrong, why do they not write up a paper for professional peer review? [4] Relativity has passed essentially every single test to which it has been put for the past 100 years It has literally been tested millions of times a day in particle accelerators, and such, so why should/can any reasonable thinking person accept the rhetoric and claims of an "self proclaimed" amateur? [5] While GR is incomplete, it is not wrong when applied within its broad near all encompassing fields of applicability. [5] In recent times GR has been further put to the test and passed with flying colours, with the discovery of gravitational radiation. [6] SR of course is simply a subset or special case of GR, as even this old amateur knows. [7] When finally science does formulate/discover a more encompassing theory [a QGT] that can be validated as well as GR, it will almost certainly be by some professional, well versed in the finer points of SR/GR, as one of the criteria of any new scientific theory, is first know perfectly the incumbent theory which you are hoping to replace. Likewise science in general for me. And likewise I also do not have any formal education. But I'm not disputing something that has already run the gauntlet so to speak and passed all tests with flying colours. So I say to you, first get some formal education and know inside out, the theory you are trying to invalidate. That is simply wrong and a obviously deceitful claim to make. SR and the more encompassing GR, are put to the test everyday in particle accelerators and many other applications. Again claiming no one has ever searched finding any solution is deceitfully wrong. I'm also no genius and probably further down the genius ladder then you are, but I'm not burdened with delusions of grandeur and fooling myself that I am able to invalidate that which has been continually validated for more then a 100 years. Nothing wrong in thinking certainly, as long as your thinking and self proclaimed logic is not clouded by any agenda and/or affliction. Even as an amateur lower on the genius ladder then yourself, I do know that putting yourself in the frame of reference of a photon is impossible because a photon is never at rest so no such frame exists. I see you mention ghosts, angels etc...Do you believe in such mythical entities? And of course you are mistaking legitimate criticism and pointing out of errors in your thinking for this imaginary emotional hatred claim. So, playing the victim card I see, rather then accept the reasonings/explantions and pointing out of the errors you have made. And of course if you are certain that you have defended your claims and shown they are correct, then why not do the right and proper thing for humanity as a whole and write up a scientific paper for professional peer review. I believe as an amateur I have said enough and the mention of ghosts etc has now enlightened me to some probable cause and reason for the absurd incorrect and invalidated claims you have made.

<sigh> There's a Galileo born everyday.

The fact that the person on the spacecraft measures the speed of light in a vacuum relative to himself to be c. In other words, if you take a bunch of observers each with different velocities with respect to each other, they will all measure light as moving at c relative to themselves. This is completely different than the case with sound, where everyone would agree that the speed of sound is measured relative to the medium, to which each observer has his own velocity with respect to. Thus for light in a vacuum, if a flash of light is emitted at the same time as two observers meet moving relative to each other and from the spot where they meet, then each of these observers would measure the front edge of this light flash as expanding outward in a sphere from them at c and the other observer as moving away from the center of the expanding sphere. For sound, what each observer would measure would depend on what his own velocity with respect to the medium carrying the sound wave was. If observer A was stationary with respect to the medium, then he measure the sound expanding outward from him at S(the speed of sound for the medium) while observer B moves with respect to the center of the expanding sphere. Observer B will agree. He will also say that observer A stays at the center of the expanding sound wave and that he(B) is moving with respect to it. So we are assuming a 1000 hz signal emitted at Earth as measured by the Earth and a relative velocity of 0.6c. If we account for the effect caused by the changing distance between the spacecraft and Earth ( A factor of 0.4 when receding and 1.6 when approaching), Then we get 0.4/0.5 = 0.8 and 1.6/2 = 0.8 In other words, A time dilation of 0.8 for the Earth clock regardless of whether the ship is receding or approaching. And this is not an "illusion". No. Continually repeating the same falsehood over and over again does not make it true. Two light clocks maintaining a constant velocity with respect to each other, will both measure the other as running slow. As long as they maintain this constant velocity with respect to each other, there is no objective way to say which clock is really ticking slow. There is no absolute reference by which "motion" can be objectively be measured. The only objective way to compare how much total time two light clock tick off is to separate them and then bring them back together again. But that means that one or the other or both did not remain in a single inertial reference frame the whole time. And changing inertial frames has an effect on what a clock will measure. None of which changes the fact that during the outbound and inbound legs of the trip, the spaceship would say that the Earth clock ran slower than his own. Once again: You are conflating "time dilation" (the moment to moment comparison of tick rates) to "total accumulated time" Which is the end result of All the relativistic effects that occurred over the course of the trip. That's like saying that if two cars take two different routes to the same destination, one along a straight road and one along a curved path, that just because the car driving the straight route took less time, he drove faster. Depending on the curvature of the other route, the car on this route could have actually driven at a higher speed and still end up taking longer. Relativity can and does explain why in the twin paradox, the spaceship twin ends up younger upon his return without invoking or using the idea of absolute motion or claiming that his clock objectively ticked slower than the Earth clock at any given point of the trip. The fact that you will not, or can not, accept this does not constitute a refutation. At this point I see no reason to continue this discussion. You obviously have your own view on how the Universe "must" work that you doggedly adhere to no matter what the evidence to the contrary. The thing is that the universe has its rules by which it operates, and it doesn't care one wit as to whether they make sense to you personally. Just because doesn't appear to make sense to you, doesn't mean that it isn't true

The "non stop" element of flying isn't so much a measure of stamina, as a reflection of feeding method. Birds like swifts can stay aloft for weeks, because their food and water is caught in the air, so they don't have to land to refuel. And they can sleep on the wing because they are so light that it takes hardly any energy to glide around in the dark. Arctic Terns are similar in some ways. Their food supply is in water, which covers 2/3 of the planet, and doesn't vary in character like land environments do. So they can travel vast distances, and snack as they go. I'm quite impressed by swans and geese. They are heavy birds, they don't get much help from gliding on thermals, they flap their wings practically the whole way, and they only get to refuel when they reach a suitable stop-off point. And yet they can fly at huge altitude in thin air that would kill a human. Even the common mallard duck can reach altitudes above 20,000 feet. Pretty special for that funny little thing waddling around your local pond.

Mass estimates for the 2015 BZ509 mission to bring samples back. An Atlas V 551, Ariane V, Ariane 64, H-IIB puts 18800kg on a naturally inclined 400km low-Earth orbit. The payload volume demands a bigger fairing, or an own stage, or the whole mass could be reduced. According to the escape script of Jul 27, 2014 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/76627-solar-thermal-rocket/?do=findComment&comment=818683 Eight D=4.57m sunheat engines bring 14503kg to 127Mm apogee with adequate tilt in about 17 months. Or add engines, 30 kg each. A small O2+H2 engine gives 4233m/s over Earth's gravity and speed to 11450kg. If accounting tank masses, the mass optimum would be over 4233m/s, and exceeding this new optimum would save volume. 890kg of O2 and shared H2 tanks and 301kg engine are dropped, leaving 10259kg. A 25kN engine with fuel cells and electric pumps would outperform the RL-10. The eight sunheat engines bring 5042kg to 13058m/s over Earth's gravity and speed in 33 days. The tank for 5.2t H2 is dropped, leaving 4108kg heading to Saturn in 2.3 years. The optional own stage can stop here or already after escape. I take 182kg per ton of H2 for insulated balloon tanks in trusses that carry a heavy load during launch. Dropping the trusses earlier, for instance with the O2+H2 engine, is uneasy but would save mass. Here I neglect the 2.5° inclination of Saturn's orbit, but it could cost up to 1.8km/s. The Saturn flyby is for free. Hohmann transit to BZ509 at 3.18AU perihelion takes lengthy 8.6 years. Tilting from 180° to 163° takes approximately 3856m/s. Eight sunheat engines optimized for about 6.7AU need 1.2 year to eject 1345kg. The chambers may differ from the ones used at 1AU, which adds few unaccounted kg, but then 100kg of 1AU chambers would have been dropped before. Four 30kg engines and 245kg tank are dropped, leaving 3332kg heading to BZ509. Four engines brake by 1331m/s in 190 days because dice limit the sunlight to the power available at 6.7AU. A shorter trip would need more fuel mainly here. 2993kg arrive at 2015 BZ509 full of nice tools and toys. I take Saturn at aphelion, BZ509 at perihelion when arriving and at aphelion when leaving. Lengthy orbits don't let choose, and I didn't check the consequences of BZ509 being far from its nodal points. ========== Of the 2993kg, 300kg are a return capsule, 100kg a bus for the return leg, 100kg are four sunheat engines kept for the return, 110kg the tank with 236kg H2 for the return and 339kg already used upon arrival. The other 2147kg comprise 400kg of bus and 1747kg to split among remote sensing and landers. Some robotics catch the landers and transfer the samples. As I suggested elsewhere, remote sensing could include a pulsed laser powered by the sunlight concentrators, hydrogen and xenon jets to erode the surface, a hydrogen gun for deeper sensing, maybe tethered hollow harpoons to take samples without landing. I'd prefer several landers of different construction for redundancy: landing, anchoring and sampling hardware... The size, shape, mass and composition of BZ509 are unknown. Reflection suggests D=2km, then iron-nickel would weigh 3*1013kg. Take-off would need 2.2m/s provided by springs, possibly hydraulic, and the ferry might orbit below R=3.5km but its sunheat engines couldn't levitate it. But if BZ509's mean density is 500kg/m3, the Lagrange point is at R=0.9km, so no orbit is possible. As with Chury, staying near BZ509 is difficult, until someone has an idea. Between the nodal points, the mission has 5.8 years to take probes, optionally more for remote sensing. ========== 858kg leave BZ509's vicinity. The four sunheat engines use 236kg in 148 days at 7.09AU to brake by 4000m/s within the retrograde orbital plane to join Earth directly. If I misunderstood and detilting by 17° is needed, the sunheat engines still achieve it, but the capsule must be half as heavy and the leaving aggregate twice as heavy. Not the hypothesis here. Not forgetting the fuel for fine-tune would be better. The bus, engines and tank separate from the 300kg capsule that re-enters Earth's atmosphere at 68km/s. A capsule has to decelerate by ~500g or it would exit the atmosphere, ouch. Some flat form for L/D=1, if feasible for that speed, would reduce it to 74g downwards and backwards, or total 105g. The 300kg capsule comprises: 146kg heat shield 24kg parachute 80kg bus 10kg sample boxes, as there http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85103-mission-to-bring-back-moon-samples/?do=findComment&comment=823276 40kg samples of extrasolar matter for the Earthlings' labs. Marc Schaefer, aka Enthalpy

No. in the case where you are measuring things from the frame in which the clock that is shown moving to the right here is at rest, and the other clock is moving to the right, our new "stationary" clock will measure events just like the "stationary" clock in the animation does. The light travels an equal distance along both "arms" of the clocks at c relative to this frame. For the other, clock, which would be measured as moving to the left, the horizontal arm would be length contracted, the light pulse would take less time on the out bound leg and more time on the inbound leg than the vertical pulse takes for each of its legs, but the total round trip times are the same. Our new "stationary" clock measures the "moving" clock as ticking slow. You seem to be struggling with the concept of the relativity of simultaneity. As far as either clock is concerned, the events of the vertical pulse and horizontal pulse of light reaching the far end of each arm is simultaneous for their clock, and not simultaneous for the other clock.

By saying this, you continue to reinforce your previously denied ignorance of science. The most famous people EVER are the ones that turned conventional understandings upside down. Those who show the flaws in previous understandings are the MOST celebrated, yet you persist in these suggestions that they’d be ostracized and would need to go into hiding for demonstrating flaws in existing theories. If you think that’s how it works, you’re badly mistaken.

No, you absolutely are trying to grade them. Let take a step back: I said Kings can provide the same social mechanisms as a god to which you said despots seldom have a grip in morality to which I responded neither do prophets. You then challenged for one to be named. One quickly was and since you've been redefining terms. David Koresh was a prophet to those who laid down their lives for him. It does not matter whether or not you think he led a cult. Likewise Brigham Young was a prophet to those who murdered in his name regardless of you opinions of Mormons. This conversation was done soon as Moontanman named Joseph Smith. At that point your challenge was met. Their is no reason this has continued for 2 more pages.

NFC has 4 cm range... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-field_communication "Near-field communication (NFC) is a set of communication protocols that enable two electronic devices, one of which is usually a portable device such as a smartphone, to establish communication by bringing them within 4 cm (1.6 in) of each other.[1]" (other sources say about <= 10 cm, and <= 20 cm) Buy remote controlled car toy or micro-drone-toy (the cheapest one you can get), remove everything unneeded, and you have essential stuff: button from remote controller, and circuit which can be on or off, on device. If batteries are enough for toy, after removing 95% of it (plastic body of toy), they will last longer.

Thanks. From how much distance : 1st floor, 2nd floor, 3rd floor ...etc in meters or feet ? What's the reference point i.e. Height / Altitude? Thanks & Regards, Prashant S Akerkar

Again this brings your honesty into question, as Sagan iterates. You can amuze yourself as much as you like, by imagining unscientific and unevidenced concepts, and yes as far as science is concerned, a great majority of that is ridiculous. You sit there all pretentious and claim you find it hard to fathom spacetime, and instead put forth some sort of imaginary omnipotent creature? You fail to recognise that most of which at one time long ago, was unexplainable, unless we invoke some silly omnipotent being, is now explainable by science. No need for your imaginary friend. While science still has a way to go to explain everything, you chose to short circuit that debate by "a god of the gaps" myth. Meaningless indeed. In the meantime science continues on with the task at hand.

It seems to me that nearly everything is tied to identity. Perhaps it’s time to start identifying ourselves as willing to change our minds based on what available evidence shows, to loosen our confidence in things unsupported by anything more than hope or wish thinking, and to identify ourselves as critical thinkers instead. Let’s make THAT the tribe to which we choose to belong. “It is sometimes said that scientists are unromantic, that their passion to figure out robs the world of beauty and mystery. But is it not stirring to understand how the world actually works — that white light is made of colors, that color is the way we perceive the wavelengths of light, that transparent air reflects light, that in so doing it discriminates among the waves, and that the sky is blue for the same reason that the sunset is red? It does no harm to the romance of the sunset to know a little bit about it.” ~C.Sagan

Try being honest with yourself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4a7F6dOdlc

I see, cool. Yeah it does. Also probably too floody for this application. 433MHz modules are definitely worth a look. You can pretty much control the range with antenna length too.

wwlad has been banned as a sockpuppet of wlad Taingorz has been suspended a week for massive trolling

Well, that's the flippant answer, but it's not very useful.

Really? Oh my goodness. You sound like an alcoholic or someone who wants nothing but to tear others down. This shows u have inadequatecy feeling about yourself. I am already Quite proud of things I have done. I don't think I've done anything noteworthy in physics though. Math maybe; that's my field.

Off topic, but since this seems to be a point people are stuck on I will say thats likely going to be the case until some one comes up with an idea of just what is happening, and how/if we can affect that. Or the person who can provide that evidence. Though I wonder what the future might hold for any who could. Personally, that alone would be incentive to hide deep.

If you take a magnet, you know, like magnetism, it can move stuff, metal stuff, yes? You charge a magnet with electricity, so , this motion is supplied by the combined forces, logically.

The strength of the message to the atoms is greater pushing you forwards as you have more mass.

The point is to explain time dilation in a scenario, where all velocities are constant. Acceleration breaks the symmetry of relative motion and induces a g-force on accelerating body. Try to focus on the ticks of a light clock, which is moving with a constant speed...

[1] Already founded. [2] Ebola is 'a disease of dirt.' This means it is where your cells excrete the filthy virus from them excessively leading to the known symptoms. This can be remedied by cleaning your system, via menthol smokes, peppermint chocolate, and, therefore breath mints too. Breathing this in will convert the mass to gas, and, this will have a rapid effect, as gases travel in the body much faster than food and drink. [3] You must be joking? [4] H.I.V. is a disease that infects the hormones of the body, where the cells are 'hormonally pollinated.' This means they need to be cleaned by observing Viagra will promote the cellular reproduction, and, this will flush the system if used in excessive amounts. Yes, all hormones are stimulated with these drugs. It will at least be better than antiretrovirals, and, try some fragrances too, the stimulating kind? Arousal will lead to excessive cellular reproduction, where the system will be flushed as old cells are replaced, the thing is the virus will infect the new cells in relays, so you need to use some minty stuff too, to poison the hormones. [5] Growth hormones. The pancreas is not dead, it is still there. Reviving it will be possible via eating eggs, lots of them, raw preferred. This will work for many organ failures. The eggs will have some basic growth things stored in them, for the chicken to grow with, use free range ones. [6] Asthma is a breathing disorder. This is treated by mints, and, cured by body building, where you reshape your lungs as you crack open your chest, I think that is the term usually used? [7] Mints. [8] This is where the brain loses charge, as memories are based on electrochemical charges in the brain, circulating and being kept kinetic, yes? This can be cured by making your brain a better conductor, and, that is possible by inhaling enough tiger balm. This will also cure turberculosis, where the lungs will be coated with moisture and phlegm type stuff. This, if it gets to your brain, will insulate it better, if you will.

As a man of few encounters, I have observed that there is some misunderstanding between men and woman, and, am fully prepared to explain myself, with evidence based on, well, observations that nobody can argue with, as they are that abundant, if you will. Serenading the woman is the job of 'the seeker.' The man seeks to woo the woman, [woo] + [man], and the woman seeks the security the man affords her. This is because the female is full of estrogen and seeks to be comforted and protect her babies from harm so seeks the embrace of a strong man, yes? This is the flower to be pollinated, of course. The man needs to accept that nothing bad will happen to him if he is denied this nectar, and, move quickly. He is driven to pollinate, and, it is a social peer pressure to stop pollinating for too long. This makes him, well, sometimes force himself onto women, which could be called rape, but most rapes are date rapes where the man picks a soft target or one he is comfortable with, or, thinks is seduced by himself. He is the seeker, and, with more than a billion lives, as a term that all men will relate to, will succeed if he keeps trying, as the women will observe a busy little bee that reminds them of caring about their children, the eggs they are fostering, as they will observe a positive attitude, of course. Now, if the man wants to get the girl, he needs to try, this is the basis of faith, he cannot try anything he has no faith in realising, unless he understands that it is just a ceremony that will eventually either see him lose interest, or, get the girl. The right way to court is with good intentions and openly baring all, as then you will relax and give off good energy with your perspiration that affects all things with your aura, and the woman will feel it, and, be goaded into curiosity. If the woman makes it obvious that she is not interested, then that is that, yes? ~ Personally, I know woman are sick of men making eye contact after eye contact and wasting their time. Ask, realise, rejoice or progress, yes ladies?

that is a meaningless statement....and not even wrong when addressing the topic.

Physics is for me just a kind of unusual hobby. Although I don't have any formal education in this field, I've spent last couple years on researching the most important aspects of theoretical and practical physics, beginning from QM, through EM, MHD and plasma physics, to heliophysics, astrophysics, and finishing on GR and SR (which I've started to research only couple months ago). And after such amazing journey through science, I can say without any doubts, that Special Relativity is the most crippled and trashy model, which I saw until now. Comparing to SR, GR seems to work, like a german car - 100 years after it was created, I found only one thing, which bothers me in the mechanics of gravitational fields (I think, that volume of mass/energy distribution is just as important, as it's mass). But the deeper I go into the mechanics of SR, the more issues I notice. More, than 100 years has passed, since Einstein created the theory of SR and up until today, no one from the scientific society didn't try to search for some alternative explanation. 100 years ago, Einstein came to the conclusion, that it is wrong to describe the speed of light in relation to any other velocity, just as it is wrong, to use photons as a frame of reference - and since that time, no one didn't even think about finding any solution to this problem. I'm not a genius - I can't solve sophisticated equations or create a formula for higher dimensions of multi-verse - all I do, is to use simple logic and search for rational solutions to some obvious problems - but somehow I know, that if according to a theory, things make no sense at all, we should try to fix the model, instead accepting the fact, that things don't work, as they should. I'm not a professional scientist, but it doesn't stop me from thinking about things, which according to mainstream science are wrong. If using the SR, to define the perspective of a photon, leads us to a pile of crap, then maybe we should try to look for a solution, which would at least appear to work... I've spent literally 30 minutes, to think, how things might look like for a photon and how to make the model work for all observers (even those, who move at 100% of c). I know, that there's no chance for a human to reach the speed of light, but this is a THEORETICAL science and theoretically everything is possible (until it won't be disproved). Theoretically I can tell, that since ghosts, demons or angels don't have any rest mass, they can freely move with the speed of light - because why not? There's nothing, what wouldn't allow me to think about a theoretical scenario, which can be further modified, according to my needs. However since I started to research SR, it is the first time, when my attempts of going beyond mainstream theories, were not bombarded with hatred, rejected as heresy, or labelled as BS pseudo-science by the majority of professional scientists - and I'm really thankful for it. Until now, each of my guess or claim, which didn't fit in generally approved narrative, turned the thread into a real battlefield: everyone vs me. Funny, that in most of the cases I was still able to defend my claims.... Anyway, after spending some 30 minutes on thinking about the (incorrect and invalid) perspective of a photon I figured out 5 (yes, five) different solutions. I have no idea, if any of them is the right one, but it's not a sin, to search for the answers - I would even say, that this is what theoretical science is all about. First I came to a basic conclusion, that IF FOR ANYTHING, WHAT IS NOT A PHOTON, LIGHT MOVES WITH CONSTANT VELOCITY, EQUAL TO C, THEN FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A STATIONARY PHOTON, EVERYTHING, WHAT MOVES SLOWER THAN THE LIGHT, WILL APPEAR TO MOVE AT 100% OF C IN THE DIRECTION, OPPOSITE TO THE DIRECTION OF LIGHT PROPAGATION (according to the basic rules of relative motion). It would mean, that at 100% of c, velocities lower, than c don't exist at all. Problems start to appear, if we will try to describe the motion of a photon in relation to other photons. Those are the solutions, which I figured out, just by using my biological brain: - from the perspective of a photon other photons won't be visible or even won't exist at all - what would make sense, since photons don't interact with eachother - from the perspective of a photon, other photons would appear to move at 100% of c in all directions - this could make some serious problems with the correct order of events in space - and in the difference to Einstein, I treat the order of timeline, as the most important aspect of relativity. The only way, in which 2 events can appear to take place at a different order, is because of different distances between observer and the events: event which took place closer to the observer, will appear to take place as the first one - even if both events were in fact simultaneus. - from the perspective of a photon other photons will appear to be stationary - however this solution causes so many errors, that it simply has to be wrong - from the perspective of a photon other photons, which move in the same direction, will appear to be stationary, while all other photons will appear to move at c - it doesn't sound so bad... The only problem is, that paths of photons might appear to be parallel to eachother, but at a longer distance, they might separate from eachother. Besides, there is also gravitational lensing, changes in the density of medium and hundreds of other ways, in which the path of a photon might change in time... So, I think, that this won't work... - from the perspective of a photon other photons will appear to move at velocities relative to the direction, in which photons are moving in respect to eachother - and this is the solution, which appears to be the valid one (except the first one, which also makes sense). For a photon, everything, what moves slower, than c, will appear to move at 100% of c in the direction opposite to the direction of photon's emiission. In this solution, photons are moving only in relation to eachother... I think, that if we would assume, that at 100% of c, relative motion of photons can appear to be faster than the c itself, this solution would be indeed correct for all frames... Those are the solutions, which I've figured out, using simple logic, but of course, since we cant accelerate to the speed of light, we have no chance of knowing, if any of them is even close to an objective truth - what doesn't mean, that we have to treat them as a total pseudo-scientific pile of crap. I'm sure, that if some of you would spend couple minutes, thinking about the perspective of a photon, you might also figure out something, what could be taken into consideration, during the creation of a relativity model, which would ACTUALLY WORK...

As I said in the very beginning - I TREAT PHYSICS AS A HOBBY AND EVERYTHING I DO, I DO IT FOR FUN - NOTHING MORE. I'M INTERESTED IN THEORIES, WHICH STILL DIDN'T BECOME MAINSTREAM - BECAUSE I LIKE TO LEARN NEW THINGS, ESPECIALLY WHEN 95% OF SO CALLED SCIENTISTS TREAT THEM AS A PSEUDO-SCIENCE. If you REALLY want to, I can give you dozens links to official sources, which will show, that 90% of my claims is based on recent scientific theories or ongoing researches...