Einstein's Special Relativity Fails?

[Mac]

Hello, this is my first post here. I am very interested in the facts regarding the many failures of Special Relativity which seem to be generally ignored.

 

*****************************************************************

 

Relativity is touted as being the most highly tested and proven theory in history. The facts are that all data todate, after 100 years of the theory only demonstrates a Lorentz Gamma Function and not Special Relativity.

 

The "Gamma function not only works in Relativity but in the "Absolute" space view as well; hence it does not distinguish itself between the two views.

 

But most importantly is the fact that data regarding time dilation shows a failure of Special Relativity (SRT) most clearly and it is merely ignored. That is SRT stipulates that all motion is relative and hence each of two observers always see themselves at rest and that it is the other that has motion.

 

This causes paradox's such as "Both" clocks must run slower than each other (called Reciprocity). That is more than merely "Counter Intiutive" (the escape goat phrase used by Relativists to avoid the issue) it is physically impossible.

 

The actual recording of time dilation of ONE clock is direct proof of the failure of Einstein's Relativity, not proof of it. GPS proves that the proper relativistic view is to use three, not two referances.

 

By using three referances it is established if one observer actually has a higher absolute velocity and it eliminates the "Reciprocity" problem or reversability claims of SRT.

 

GPS PROVES SPECIAL RELATIVITY INVALID

 

Proof: GPS satellites have a velocity (V1) of 3,874.5 m/s. A surface clock (at the equator) has an absolute velocity (V2) of 463.8 m/s and "0" m/s at the poles or Earth Center Frame.

 

The "Relative Velocity" between the orbiting clock and a clock at the equator is V3 = (V1 - V2) = (3,874.5m/s - 463.8m/s) = 3,410.7m/s.

 

Using Special Relativity in GPS one gets: 3,410.7/c = 1.1369E-5, squared = 1.2925E-10. Divided by 2 = 6.4627E-11.

 

Time loss would be 6.4627E-11 * 24 * 3,600 = 5.58378E-6 or - 5.58 micro-seconds per day.

 

HOWEVER: Using the absolute velocity of orbit of 3,874.5 m/s and NOT "Relative Velocity" per SRT one gets 1.2915E-5c, squared = 1.66797E-10. Divided by 2 = 8.33986E-11.

 

8.33986E-11 * 24 * 3,600 = 7.205E-6 or 7.2 micro-seconds per day due to orbit velocity.

 

For the earth surface clock I calculate V2 = 463.8 m/s = 1.546E-6c. Squared = 3.29E-12. Divided by 2 = 1.195058E-12 * 24 * 3,600 = 1.0325E-7 or -0.10325 Micro-seconds per day being only about 1% in the daily time loss may be disregarded.

 

Since it is known that GPS clocks are preadjusted for a collective decrease by -38.5776 microseconds/day due to the collective affects of an increase in tick rate due to General Relativity (Gravity affect) of +45.7776 microseconds/day and for -7.2 microseconds loss per day (which matches absolute velocity of orbit and not Special Relativity's "Relative Velocity between clocks" as Relativists would have you believe), GPS does not use Special Relativity. It uses the Lorentz Relativity's gamma function concept of absolute velocities and not Special Realtivity relative velocity.

 

Further since the velocites and calculations are based on absolute velocities relative to a common preferred rest frame the two components are not reversable as they are in Special Relativity where each can claim to be at rest. In this format the orbiting clock always has higher velocity and always is the clock which shows dilation.

 

This is what we physically observe and it is Lorentz Relativity's Gamma function but is not Einstein's Special Relativity; which inherently includes reciprocity.

 

And lastly while relavistic type affects are known facts, it is the details that make or break a theory. The details and claims of Einstien's Relativity is what makes it invalid.

 

In General Relativity it is claimed that gravity affects time and slows time in higher gravity fields.

 

Actually one should think more in terms of "Clock Dilation" and not "Time Dilation". That is there is no clock that actually measures something identified or called time. All clocks actually merely mark the time interval at some frequency by various energy processes.

 

A change in such clocks frequency no more alters time than having the battery in my timex getting low and my watch slowing down.

 

Take an atomic clock and a pendulum grandfathers clock and calibrate them and synchronize them in LA, at sea level. Now move them to Denver, Colorado. What happens?

 

The atomic clock speeds up, the GF clock slows down. Has gravity affected time or just affected clock processes?

****************************************************************

[TeleMad]

Hello, this is my first post here. I am very interested in the facts regarding the many failures of Special Relativity which seem to be generally ignored.

 

They're probably ignored because they're rubbish. I didn't get past even the very first 'failure' of special relativity before finding the counter argument busted.

 

Mac: But most importantly is the fact that data regarding time dilation shows a failure of Special Relativity (SRT) most clearly and it is merely ignored. That is SRT stipulates that all motion is relative and hence each of two observers always see themselves at rest and that it is the other that has motion.

 

This causes paradox's such as "Both" clocks must run slower than each other (called Reciprocity). That is more than merely "Counter Intiutive" (the escape goat phrase used by Relativists to avoid the issue) it is physically impossible.

 

Wrong. Why this is wrong hinges on the nonsimultaneity...

 

"There seems to be a big problem with time dilation: "Moving clocks run slow", but who's to say which clock is moving? If clock B sees clock A move by and concludes that clock A is "running slow", why can't clock A claim to see clock B go by and conclude that B is "running slow"? It can! There's no contradiction, because of another remarkable implication of the principle of relativity: Two events that are simultaneous (i.e., that occur at the same time) in one frame of reference are not simultaneous in another frame moving relative to the first. It is this relativity of simultaneity that allows two observers in relative motion to see each other's clocks "run slow", without contradiction." (Einstein's Relativity and the Quantum Revolution: Modern Physics for Non-Scientists: 2nd Edition

 

If you want a fuller explanation, buy the source: a video lecture series by Professor Richard Wolfson of Middlebury College available at http://www.teach12.com, and watch lecture 10: Escaping Contradiction: Simultaneity is Relative.

[TeleMad]

Actually one should think more in terms of "Clock Dilation" and not "Time Dilation". That is there is no clock that actually measures something identified or called time. All clocks actually merely mark the time interval at some frequency by various energy processes.

 

A change in such clocks frequency no more alters time than having the battery in my timex getting low and my watch slowing down.

 

You make it sound as if time proceeds absolutely normally but an altered watch or wallclock creates the illusion of time being dilated. That's not the case. All processes of biology, chemistry, and physics are affected by relative motion - it is TIME itself that is dilated.

 

That time dilation is not limited to just human-made mechanical time-keeping devices can be seen in experiments involving muons: their 'internal, natural clocks' run at different speeds relative to ours when (1) they are descending from the skies at near the speed of light, and (2) when they are 'at rest' in a lab. This difference in the passage of time due to relative motion affects the muons' half-life as observed by us, and wouldn't you know it, the difference fits in precisely with the predictions of special relativity.

[TeleMad]

Take an atomic clock and a pendulum grandfathers clock and calibrate them and synchronize them in LA, at sea level. Now move them to Denver, Colorado. What happens?

 

The atomic clock speeds up, the GF clock slows down. Has gravity affected time or just affected clock processes?

 

That seems pretty silly to me.

 

1) If taken to be a literal experiment, it can't be done. The grandfather clock is driven by a very massive (relative to the cesium atoms of an atomic clock) pendulum and during the winding trip of hundreds of miles it will experience forces applied to it as the vehicles rounds turns, stops and starts, etc. This alone will throw the synchronization of the two clocks off, invalidating the experiment.

 

2) If taken as a thought experiment, you’ve provided nothing. What underlying principles are you claiming demonstrate your point? You’ve given none.

 

And in fact, you argument is wrong. Gravity does dilate time and this has been demonstrated experimentally.

 

”To an observer looking toward a region of strong gravity, the effect is to see time running slower in that region. This is called gravitational time dilation.

 

1. In a very sensitive experiment at Harvard in 1960, physicists used nuclear radiation to verify gravitational time dilation, effectively measuring differences in the rate of time over a distance of a mere 74 vertical feet.

 

The source goes on to list 3 other ways it’s been verified.

 

If you want a fuller explanation, buy the source (which I gave above in my first post in this thread) and watch lecture 14: Curved Spacetime.

[UncleAl]

Hello, this is my first post here. I am very interested in the facts regarding the many failures of Special Relativity which seem to be generally ignored.

There are no - not a single one - experimental failures of Special Relativity. Internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning inconsistencies of a purely mathematical logical nature) automatically lead to contradictions in number theory, itself, and arithmetic, since the mathematics of Minkowski geometry is equiconsistent with the theory of real numbers and with arithmetic.

 

Your "examples" are General Relativity. There are no - not a single one - expeirmental failures of General Relativity. SR is GR with Newton's G set to zero.

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html

http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/flying_clock_math.pdf

http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012

Hafele-Keating Experiment

 

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html

Mathematics of gravitation

 

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html

http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039

http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html

Experimental constraints on General Relativity

 

http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf

http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html

Relativity in the GPS system (weak field)

 

Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)

http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html

http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp

Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries (strong field)

 

More GPS,

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076.pdf

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm

http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html

http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/

http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html

http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm

http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1

http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html

http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

 

There was only one published error in

 

Annalen der Physik 4 XVII 891-921 (1905)

 

http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ae_1905_error.htm

http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/finkelstein/relativity.pdf

Longitudinal and transverse mass

[Mac]

They're probably ignored because they're rubbish. I didn't get past even the very first 'failure' of special relativity before finding the counter argument busted.

 

Hardly. You might try to be specific since your post is unsupported rhetoric.

 

Wrong. Why this is wrong hinges on the nonsimultaneity...

 

Hardly once again. You clearly only mimic what you have read and assume is valid. You aren't talking physics here. To be "Relative Motion" REQUIRES that the two prospective views are concurrent within the same time intervals.

 

Further when you get jpast you tendancy to speak rhetorically and actually address the physics issues you will find that the accumulated time on a clock (which may be shifted by "Relativity of Simultaneity" isn't even the issue.

 

To accumulate different amounts of time in a given test period requires that the clocks physically tick at a different rates. These rates are concurrent in the same time intervals. So your "arguement bust" is without merit.

 

Making statements is easy now support them. Post ONE case of recorded "Reciprocity" which is inherent and required by Special Relativity. There is none. Special Relativity has not once been supported. What is supported is merely the Gamma Function. Relativity is valid but not Einstien's Relativity but a form of Lorentz is.

 

GPS proves this fact. If you are unfamiliar with how GPS actually works I'm posting a good referance.

 

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/

 

Instead of making the same old appeals to authority and innuendo suppose you explain why relative veloicty between clocks in GPS would yield an incorrect time dilation correcton factor.

 

Like I said I'm here to talk physics, not argue dogmatic statements.

 

If you want a fuller explanation, buy the source: a video lecture series by Professor Richard Wolfson of Middlebury College available at http://www.teach12.com, and watch lecture 10: Escaping Contradiction: Simultaneity is Relative.

 

It would appear that I am not the one that needs to do a bit of reading. My understanding of Relativity is what permits me to see what you do not see, since you merely seem to read and memorize.

 

Before you start calling another's post rubbish you should at least have a viable counter arguement. You have provided none.

[quantum quack]

I wonder how non-simultaneity can be proven as a physical pheno?

 

Is there any way that non-simultaneity can be proven apart from mathematical abstractions?

[TeleMad]

Mac: You clearly only mimic what you have read and assume is valid.

 

Nope, I accept what has been explained to me by a Ph.D. - in fact, numerous, well known, Ph.D.s - and makes sense.

 

But while you bring it up...I guess we could accept the word of a nobody like you over the multiple trained physcists who actually work in the field, but that would be foolish. Let's see, YOU are right and ALL contemporary physicists, and those for the past 100 years, are all wrong! Yep, that's just GOT to be what's going on here! ROTFLMAO!!!

 

Tell me, are you a Young Earth Creationist too? Your arguments have a certain YECish quality about them.

 

 

 

Mac: You aren't talking physics here.

 

Sure I am. Sorry if physics is so unfamiliar to you that you don't even recognize it when you see it.

 

Mac: To be "Relative Motion" REQUIRES that the two prospective views are concurrent within the same time intervals.

 

No it doesn't. Have you ever read anything on physics??? Here, let me take the time to type this out for you so that you might get to see it: if nothing else, pay attention to the last highlighted part.

 

"A basic premise of Newtonian mechanics is that there is a univeral time scale that is the same for all observers. In fact, Newton wrote, "Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external." In his special theory of relativity, Einstein abandoned this assumption. According to Einstein, time interval measurements depend on the reference frame in which they are made.

 

Einstein devised the following thought experiment to illustrate this point. A boxcar moves with uniform velocity [from left to right], and two lightning bolts strike its ends, as in Figure 26.7a, leaving marks on the boxcar and the ground. The marks are left on the boxcar are labeled A' [at the back, left end] and B' [at the front, right end], and those on the ground are labeled A and B. The events recorded by the observers are the light signals from the lightning bolts.

 

Let us assume that the two light signals reach the observer at O [who is on the ground half way between the two strikes] at the same time, as indicated in Figure 26.7b. This observer realizes that the light signals have traveled at the same speed over distances of equal length. Thus, the observer at O concludes that the events at A and B occurred simultaneously. Now consider the same events as viewed by the observer on the boxcar at O' [who is located in the middle of the boxcar]. By the time the light has reached the observer at O, the observer at O' has moved [to the right], as indicated in Figure 26.7b. Thus, the light signal from B' has already swept past O', whereas the light from A' has not yet reached O'. According to Einstein's second postulate [which states that the speed of light is the same, c, for all observers in uniform motion], the observer at O' must find that light travels at the same speed as that measured by the observer at O. Therefore, the observer at O' concludes that the lightning struck the front of the boxcar before it struck the back. This thought experiment clearly demonstrates that the two events that appear to be simultaneous to the observer at O do not appear to be simultaneous to the observer at O'. In other words:

 

Two events that are simultaneous in one reference frame are in general not simultaneous in a second frame moving with respect to the first. That is, simultaneity is not an absolute concept.

(College Physics: Fifth Edition, Raymond A. Serway & Jerry S. Faughn, Harcourt College Publishers, 1999, p862-863)

 

If you need help understanding that, just let me know.

[Mac]

You make it sound as if time proceeds absolutely normally but an altered watch or wallclock creates the illusion of time being dilated. That's not the case. All processes of biology, chemistry, and physics are affected by relative motion - it is TIME itself that is dilated.

 

In theory only. There is simply no solid evidence that is the case. Don't raise the issue of cosmic muons because particle decay is random statistically and is subject to external enfluence - i.e. changes in energy etc. Not to mention they too "disprove" Special Relativity because just as with all clock experiments ONE side dilates and "Reciprocity" does not occur. "Reciprocity" is a requirement of the TWO observer view artifically created by Einstein.

 

If there were onl two objects in the universe then one could not determine respective component veloicties in the relative veloicty between the two but the facts are that there are just a few more than two referance points from which we can asscertain such issues.

 

Just as GPS uses the obrit velocity to the center of the earth and does not use relative velicty directly to surface clocks, it can be seen that the orbiting clock has a higher "Relative Absolute Velocity" vs "Relative Velocity" in respect to any surface clock and can never be viewed as at rest and the surface clock having all the motion.

 

That time dilation is not limited to just human-made mechanical time-keeping devices can be seen in experiments involving muons: their 'internal, natural clocks' run at different speeds relative to ours when (1) they are descending from the skies at near the speed of light, and (2) when they are 'at rest' in a lab. This difference in the passage of time due to relative motion affects the muons' half-life as observed by us, and wouldn't you know it, the difference fits in precisely with the predictions of special relativity.

 

I am very much aware of all such data. But unfortunately you simnply chose to see it as supporting Relativity when if you actually try to apply such data to Special Relaivity in its full content (including reciprocity), it clearly disproves it and only proves "Gamma".

 

It is just that cosmic muons and particle accelerators are special cases where a two point calculation is right.

 

The muon has a velocity relative to the center of the earth and the earth clock has no veloccy to the center of the earth. Just as particles in accelerators have velocity relative to the magnets and the observers clocks have no velocity to such magnets.

 

This becomes clear in a case such as GPS where both components have velocity to some third point - Earths Center. The gamma of orbit divided by the gamma of the surface velocity produces an "Effective" gamma which is physically correct and emperically proven.

 

Velocity between any surface clock and an orbiting clock (except for on at the earth's axis or center) will not compute the proper time dialtion using simple minded relative veloicty.

 

So lets deal with some facts and forget the rhetoric.

[TeleMad]

I wonder how non-simultaneity can be proven as a physical pheno?

 

Is there any way that non-simultaneity can be proven apart from mathematical abstractions?

 

 

Sure, see the quote I posted above.

[Mac]

Nope, I accept what has been explained to me by a Ph.D. - in fact, numerous, well known, Ph.D.s - and makes sense.

 

If you need help understanding that, just let me know.

 

I'll not waste time argueing with anybody that must rely upon what they have been told and can't talk physics from their own knowledge. It matters not how many Phd's claim something, that does not produce the reqired evidence of recorded rediprocity nor does it alter the fact that any highschool student can compute time dilation according to Special Relativity and see that GPS proves Special Relativity invalid.

 

 

Now address some facts with facts please and forget hiding under the coat tails of others.

 

If you fail to post specific valid information showing reciprocity and/or correctly demonstrate how one gets ONE clock to record time dialtion and still be consistant with Special Relativity then you have failed to support your view.

 

PS: I have also been party to actual gravity testing which demonstrates that General Relativity is false as well. So don't make the mistake of thinking you are dealing with a dumbcoff.

 

Get off your self appointed high horse and you might actually learn something useful.

[quantum quack]

I wonder how non-simultaneity can be proven as a physical pheno?

 

Is there any way that non-simultaneity can be proven apart from mathematical abstractions?

 

Let me explain a little:

The issue of simultaneity seems to goes much deeper than just this helpful explanation:

 

Einstein devised the following thought experiment to illustrate this point. A boxcar moves with uniform velocity [from left to right], and two lightning bolts strike its ends, as in Figure 26.7a, leaving marks on the boxcar and the ground. The marks are left on the boxcar are labeled A' [at the back, left end] and B' [at the front, right end], and those on the ground are labeled A and B. The events recorded by the observers are the light signals from the lightning bolts.

 

Let us assume that the two light signals reach the observer at O [who is on the ground half way between the two strikes] at the same time, as indicated in Figure 26.7b. This observer realizes that the light signals have traveled at the same speed over distances of equal length. Thus, the observer at O concludes that the events at A and B occurred simultaneously. Now consider the same events as viewed by the observer on the boxcar at O' [who is located in the middle of the boxcar]. By the time the light has reached the observer at O, the observer at O' has moved [to the right], as indicated in Figure 26.7b. Thus, the light signal from B' has already swept past O', whereas the light from A' has not yet reached O'. According to Einstein's second postulate [which states that the speed of light is the same, c, for all observers in uniform motion], the observer at O' must find that light travels at the same speed as that measured by the observer at O. Therefore, the observer at O' concludes that the lightning struck the front of the boxcar before it struck the back. This thought experiment clearly demonstrates that the two events that appear to be simultaneous to the observer at O do not appear to be simultaneous to the observer at O'. In other words:

 

Two events that are simultaneous in one reference frame are in general not simultaneous in a second frame moving with respect to the first. That is, simultaneity is not an absolute concept.

 

If it were just a matter of relative information delays due to the relative velocity of the moving observers it wouldn't be a problem for me.

 

However it seems that nonsimultaneity acquires a somewhat 'magical " quality to it once dilation and length contractions are accomodated.

 

If it is simple velocity the events may not appear simultaneous but are in fact simulataneous and only witnessed due to relative velocity as non-simultaneous. When dilation is applied however actual non-simultaneousness is claimed in that the event in the velocity observers frame dimension is no longer subject just to delays in information but time as well.......this is the issue of non-simultaneousness that I question the validity of.

 

in summation:

there are two forms of non-simultaneousness:

1] caused by simple information delays

and

2] caused by relative time dimensions itself.

 

The gendanken described about observers O and O' are not demonstrative of a loss of simultaneousness IMO and is just merely a description of the effects of velocity on information delays. Which is purely a mechanistic outcome.

 

However non-simultaneousness due to Lorenzian computations is another less mechanistic view.

 

It is the physical proof of this form of non-simultanouesness that I am questing.

[Buffy]

I'll not waste time argueing with anybody that must rely upon what they have been told and can't talk physics from their own knowledge. It matters not how many Phd's claim something, that does not produce the reqired evidence of recorded rediprocity nor does it alter the fact that any highschool student can compute time dilation according to Special Relativity and see that GPS proves Special Relativity invalid.

Heya Mac! What I don't quite understand is why someone who has incontrovertable proof that SR and GR are false that no one in the scientific community is aware of is hanging out in a small time forum like this one when a Nobel prize clearly awaits you?

 

Good luck with that,

 

Cheerily,

Buffy

<ducks/>

[TeleMad]

Hey Mac...

 

”The procedures for synchronizing clocks all over the globe using radio signals must take the rotation of Earth into account. For example, if a number of stations, situated on the equator, relay timing signals one to another,(or via satellite relay), will the time-keeping still match after the relay has circumnavigated the globe? One condition for handling the relay correctly is that the time it takes the signal to travel from one station to the next is taken into account each time. On a non-rotating planet that ensures fidelity: two time-disseminating relays, going full circle in opposite directions around the globe, will still match when they are compared at the end. However, on a rotating planet, it must also be taken into account that the receiver moves during the transit time of the signal, shortening or lengthening the transit time compared to what it would be in the situation of a non-rotating planet. It is recognized that the synchronisation of clocks and ring interferometry are related in a fundamental way. Therefore the necessity to take the rotation of Earth into account in sychronisation procedures is also called the Sagnac effect.

 

…

 

As seen from the perspective of a frame of reference that is co-rotating with the platform the light beams do travel the same distance. The result of the Sagnac experiment has been cited by many as a disproof of the theory of relativity, starting with Ives in 1938. The reasoning is that if the speed of light is a constant for the observer, then for the observer on the rotating ring light should take the same time to travel each way and no effect should occur. This argument does not hold because the rotating ring is an accelerated frame of reference, while the constancy of the speed of light © applies only in inertial frames of reference.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect)

[TeleMad]

I'll not waste time argueing with anybody that must rely upon what they have been told and can't talk physics from their own knowledge.

 

Oh, so you learned all of your modern physics by doing the experiments yourself!!! Wow!!!! <snicker>

 

 

Mac: PS: I have also been party to actual gravity testing which demonstrates that General Relativity is false as well. So don't make the mistake of thinking you are dealing with a dumbcoff.

 

Don't worry, I don't think you're a dumbcoff. You haven't provided any evidence that you've managed to make up to that level. LOL!!!

[Mac]

Heya Mac! What I don't quite understand is why someone who has incontrovertable proof that SR and GR are false that no one in the scientific community is aware of is hanging out in a small time forum like this one when a Nobel prize clearly awaits you?

 

Good luck with that,

 

Cheerily,

Buffy

<ducks/>

 

Typical non-response to the issue. It is not "I" that have such proof, it is anybody that cares or dares to point it out. The GPS issue is historical fact. The physics presented are facts. No Phd will dispute these "Facts". What is disputed is that they invalidate not prove Special Relativity.

 

What is completely disregarded by almost ALL physicists (fortunately not all) is that such data showing a gamma function is not the whole of the theory of Special Relativity. It is very specific and makes specific claims. It is these claims that are invalid and unsupported, not the gamma function and "Relativity" it represents.

 

The whole point is Relativity is valid but it is not Einstien's Relativity.

[quantum quack]

BTW, I am not attempting to hijack Mac's thread. I just noticed the claim of non-simultaniety as a way of proving Mac wrong in the first couple of posts. And just wonder how lorenzian non-simultaneity can be proven.

 

I would tend to think that it is impossible to prove this form of non-simultaniety thus SRT is unfalsifiable.......[an observer can't be at two relative velocities simultaneouly type problem]