DimaMazin

Yes and observation with measurement is an event.

Relativity of one event to different times of different frames is issue of simultaneity. Don't make axiom without math.

And so you approve that the flash is simultaneous in two frames and every observation of every of the observers is simultaneous in two frames.Let's check your math. to =0 - time of start of flash in two frames t1 - time of collision of O2 with light in O1 frame t2 - time of observation of O2 S - distance between observers and flash in O1 frame S' - distance between observers and flash in O2 frame t1=S/(c+v) t2=S/gamma(c+v) t2=S'/c t2=S/(gamma*c) S/gamma(c+v) doesn't equal S/(gamma*c)

One event of radiation and two events of reception.Three events.They can't be simultaneous in two frames because then math of indication of clock will be wrong.

I see more events.

The distance has less meters in O2 frame.The distance has more meters in O1 frame.

Lorentz factor has no thing to do with quantity of mass.

Gravitational field runs only with own master.

We can see light or shadow of past object.

Then lightning is motion of electrical charges with turning of their potential energy into kinetic energy ,which transforms atmosphere into plasma and creates sound wave.

Moving electric charges in ionized plasma are lightning.

and v2=c(velocity of light) is relative to the car.And Vt is velocity of the light relative to the initial reference frame Vt=(v1+c)/(1+v1c/c2) Vt=(v1+c)/(1+v1/c) Vt=(v1+c)/[(c+v1)/c] Vt=(v1+c)c/(v1+c) Vt=c

If photon has time of life then photon of very far object should have decay in vacuum.You can ensnare them and they after a while should die.

Try to use relative simultaneity and relative length contraction.

Then we should see products of decay of photons from very far objects .

Photon has no energetically inertial frame,but it can have particular inertial frame. Our clocks have some own kinematic slowing of time, it doesn't mean we have no particular inertial frame.

I would like to see the wrong equation of OP. You have forgotten contracted distances in light frame.The fastest spaceship motion has insignificant change of distance between the fastest spaceship and the Earth in light frame,though changes exist.

We discuss question about speed.We don't discuss energy question. I meant our speed is half of speed of light relative to light.

We are moving at c/2 relative to light.

No.Mathematically wrong thing can't be experimentally right in the same case.

Mathematical exploring in two frames is exacter thing than unilateral experiment. Relativity is mathematically wrong in two frames of observings with own measurements.

Scientists with relativity have sufficient financing therefore they don't need right theory.

For example.Traveler travels (only in our galaxy) at 200,000,000 m/s relative to us(we measure it).Then he measures our speed relative to him as 119,966,779 m/s

Scientists don't disprove my equations.I think because they can't. My equations make predictions(Einstein and Minkowski didn't make the same predictions). Financed experiments can check the predictions.

I do make math of indication of clock in two frames.Einstein and Minkowski can't make any math of indication of clock in two frames.Your advertising of their nonsense is inappropriate here.