Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Einstein's Special Relativity Fails?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
264 replies to this topic

#18 Mac

Mac

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 109 posts

Posted 11 May 2005 - 10:09 PM

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


Since I am new here I will bite my tounge just a bit and merely point out your condensending tone and false innuendo shows your actual lack of any physics understanding.

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!!!


Now twit. I happen to have had mechanical, electrical and nuclear engineering; plus other specialized training and experince; inlcuding having done NASA contracts.

Suppose you tell us all about your qualifications.

I hope this site has more mature participants that can actually talk physics and not resort to bullshit when the subject matter is above their comprehension level.

#19 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8946 posts

Posted 11 May 2005 - 10:09 PM

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.

So what's your theory as to why the entire scientific community insists on deluding itself about what the data proves?

Cheers,
Buffy

#20 Mac

Mac

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 109 posts

Posted 11 May 2005 - 10:17 PM

So what's your theory as to why the entire scientific community insists on deluding itself about what the data proves?

Cheers,
Buffy


I don't have one. But it is fact that for a professional to attack relativity is asking for trouble. Many cases of actual firing, cutting funds, blackballing publications, etc, is recorded.

Their is a lot at stake in the status quo. Further more it is somewhat a case of peer pressure. Highly qualified people make claims and if you don't at least pretend to agree you make yourself appear to be inept.

These are guesses but logical ones. Further they don't care if Special Relativity is false as long as they can run experiments and do calculations with precision using the gamma function. It is more fun to run with the ball and claim you are doing "Einstien's" work than to correct the record.

#21 Mac

Mac

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 109 posts

Posted 11 May 2005 - 10:27 PM

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]



Not a problem QQ. Simultaneity is very much part of the issue here. Just note that according to Special Relativity each observer is at rest and it is the other that has the velocity.

One must wonder just how it is that such observer (at rest according to SR) can also see distance having contracted.? The fact is all such calculations are done by an observer claiming what the other observer sees and not by the observer himself.

It is also quite obvious that an observer does not and cannot alter the physics of the one he is observing.

SR claims that if we have relative velocity that I will feel at rest and see you in motion and that your clock will run slow but mine runs normal. SR also claims that you will consider yourself at rest and that my clock runs slower than yours and yours runs normal.

Well the facts are that in every experiment over 100 years of SR only ONE clock records time dilation and if my clock is dilated and I assume my clock is the valid time then the time recorded on your clock is not dilated but is accelerated. I do not see your clock as running slow as they claim. It ran fast just as recorded. If both clocks run slow by an equal amount then there is no systemic net time dilation between clocks.

It is all rather obvious for those that chose to actually think and not just talk like they know something.

#22 Mac

Mac

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 109 posts

Posted 11 May 2005 - 10:36 PM

Hey Mac...


Was this post meant to have some meaning? Perhaps you should read the link I posted regarding how GPS works and not rely on such layman's descriptions. I see the issue of Sagnac emboldened. Are you of the opinion I don't know about Sagnac? It is part of the compensations in GPS as well.

Do you know what the ECI, ECEF and IRCF frames are? Learn something before you begin to pretend you know the subject. They are "Local Common Preferred Frames of Rest", a third point of referance prohibited by SRT.

#23 Mac

Mac

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 109 posts

Posted 11 May 2005 - 10:44 PM

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.


I can only suggest that you read the link I provided. GR accounts for just over 45us/day time rate increase and "Velocity" relative to the earth's center accounts for 7.2us/day time dilation, such that the orbiting clocks are subjected to prelaunch adjustment of -38.8us/day so as to remain synchronized with surface bound clocks.

Over a dozen adjustments are made to keep GPS working all over the surface but NONE are relative veloicty between clocks.

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


Unfortunately your statement is false and your appeal to authority fails to address the issues raised.

I would also expect that you must have a ready answer for the fact that it appears gravity is not based on the center of mass!.

http://www.unikef-gr...Gravtesting.htm

Now please support your absolute statements about the validity and proofs of Special Relativity by posting just ONE case of the reciprocity dictated by Special Relativity. That is right show at least ONE case where Special Relativity have been validated.

I am not asking for proof of the gamma function. You have just posted ample examples of that, I am asking that you post data that proves the claims of Special Relativity. If you do not know or understand the differance between the mere gamma function and what Special Relativity says then I suggest you do some reading before posting.

#24 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8946 posts

Posted 11 May 2005 - 10:51 PM

Well I must admit I'm a bit confused. It seems that your conclusion that GPS shows that SR is wrong depends on an assumption that non-simultenaity in SR is false. If non-simultenaity is true, then there is no inconsistency shown by GPS. Do you have any data to show that non-simultenaity is false other than it is "intuitive" and your claim that the experimental data that does show lorentzian gamma to be valid is "just a coincidence"? It would seem that if you did have proof of this, that all of the institutional intrasigence would melt away instantly....

Cheers,
Buffy

#25 TeleMad

TeleMad

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1249 posts

Posted 11 May 2005 - 11:01 PM

Buffy: So what's your theory as to why the entire scientific community insists on deluding itself about what the data proves?


Mac: I don't have one.


Dan, Dan, Dan, what happend to your UniKEF theory?

#26 Mac

Mac

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 109 posts

Posted 11 May 2005 - 11:08 PM

Well I must admit I'm a bit confused. It seems that your conclusion that GPS shows that SR is wrong depends on an assumption that non-simultenaity in SR is false.


This is a false assertion. The issue has nothing to do with simultaneity. It has to do with the failure of experiments and observation to ever validate the reciproicty required by SRT.

You simply allow yourself to become confused by letting others claim some lack of simultaneity is the answer. It does not resolve the fact that ONE clock will record a dialted time.

That means without question that such a clock must see the other clock as accelerated, not dilated as claimed by SR. That is what is observed and recorded in ALL data, not what is predicted by SRT where reciprocity has each running slow relative to itself.

That is a false view based on the arbitrary and unnatural selection of there being only two observers in the universe hence no ability to tell who has motion.

If non-simultenaity is true, then there is no inconsistency shown by GPS. Do you have any data to show that non-simultenaity is false other than it is "intuitive" and your claim that the experimental data that does show lorentzian gamma to be valid is "just a coincidence"? It would seem that if you did have proof of this, that all of the institutional intrasigence would melt away instantly....

Cheers,
Buffy


Once again simultaneity has no bearingon the issue. No gamma is not a coincidence. Gamma IS relativity and is supported both logically and by data. But gamma is not the whole of SRT and it is the furthers claims jof SRT that are false, not relativity at its basic level.

That level however is not based on "Relative Velocity" alone but "Relative Absolute Velocity".

RAV is nothing more that being able to show that each clock has some component part velocity forming the total relative velocity and in such case one cannot assume either as being at rest and the one having greater motion cannot be reversed as claimed by SRT which creates the paradox.

The correct calculation is not "Relative Velocity" between clocks but is an "Effective" gamma based on respective gammas to a local preferred common rest frame. (A third point of referance).

This is how and why GPS works. I have shown that a calculation using SRT is in error is such a case.

#27 Mac

Mac

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 109 posts

Posted 11 May 2005 - 11:10 PM

Dan, Dan, Dan, what happend to your UniKEF theory?


I am afraid this post eludes me?

Now to address something you said earlier. You implied that GPS was merely a GR problem not an SR problem. You are wrong on that point.

When you are in free-fall you accelerate but you are in an inertial frame of referance. An orbit is a free-fall frame and is treated as inertial. I another forum I have argued at length that technically it is not a true free fall frame because there always exists "Tidal Forces". But tidal forces are so minor that it is a technicality and pragmatically orbits are justifiably treated as inertial.

Tital forces exist in that there is only one infitesimal zone of "Zero Gravity". Every other point includes "Micro-gravity" and the object having length is being pulled toward a central point causing a "Compressional Tidal Force" on the object.

But GPS treats orbit as inertial and velocity is very much part of the calculations. It just isn't "Relative Veloicty" between clcoks but "Absolute Velocity" relative to a local rest frame of referance.

#28 TeleMad

TeleMad

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1249 posts

Posted 11 May 2005 - 11:15 PM

TeleMad: Dan, Dan, Dan, what happend to your UniKEF theory?


Mac: I am afraid this post eludes me?


Are you sure you want to stick to that story?

Give me a few minutes to pull together some circumstantial evidence that indicates otherwise.

#29 TeleMad

TeleMad

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1249 posts

Posted 11 May 2005 - 11:31 PM

TeleMad: Dan, Dan, Dan, what happend to your UniKEF theory?


Mac: I am afraid this post eludes me?


TeleMad: Are you sure you want to stick to that story?

Give me a few minutes to pull together some circumstantial evidence that indicates otherwise.


And here we go.

Here is your first post in this thread.

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?
************************************************** **************


Notice that you gave no reference, which indicates that these are your own thoughts.

Now let’s see what a Mac – that is, McCoin – said at another site.

McCoin:
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.

*************** Issue Close *********************

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.

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?
(http://groups.msn.co...veninvalid.msnw)


Recognize that? Gee, it’s the very same material – typo for typo – you posted here as being your own thoughts.

Also,the person who posted at that other site was McCoin…. Mac….McCoin…hmmm.

Also, that other person apparently went by the name … get this … Mac at the other site! Check out this page where he mentions the UniKEF theory: http://groups.msn.co...420447296623637

And here we have, apparently, Mac spelling out his UniKEF theory.
http://www.unikef-gr...niKV2/page1.htm

So you may not be Mac (Dan McCoin), but if not, you sure left a great deal of misleading clues that indicate you are ... as well as being guilty of plagiarism.

So which (losing) position do you wish to take?

#30 Mac

Mac

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 109 posts

Posted 11 May 2005 - 11:35 PM

And here we go.

Here is your first post in this thread.



Notice that you gave no reference, which indicates that these are your own thoughts.

Now let’s see what a Mac – that is, McCoin – said at another site.



Recognize that? Gee, it’s the very same – typo for typo – you made here.


Is all this supposed to have some meaning? Of course it is my calculations. Now address those please. Do you claim my calculations are in error? If not then you are just waving your arms and contributing nothing.

Are my calculations correct? If so it proves SRT false. Now deal with that not your apparent attempt to divert the issue.

Are my calculation correct? Yes or No.

If "No" then show the error. If "Yes" then SRT is false. Post your best shot.

#31 TeleMad

TeleMad

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1249 posts

Posted 11 May 2005 - 11:39 PM

Of course it is my calculations.


Of course it is? Yet we had this exchange...

TeleMad: Dan, Dan, Dan, what happend to your UniKEF theory?


Mac: I am afraid this post eludes me?


Did you momentarily forget about your UniKEF theory and how it supposedly replaces Einstein's "invalid" relativity?

#32 TeleMad

TeleMad

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1249 posts

Posted 11 May 2005 - 11:42 PM

By the way, Mac/MacM, we have reason to doubt your ability to judge general relativity...

MacM: Members
As you know I have my own, very loosely formed theory entitled UniKEF. I am currently interested to find if any members are qualified to write a calculus presentation of the gravity concept it offers.
(http://groups.msn.co...479471934256438)



#33 Mac

Mac

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 109 posts

Posted 11 May 2005 - 11:48 PM

By the way, Mac/MacM, we have reason to doubt your ability to judge general relativity...


I don't see how judging me in any way eliminates the fact that you are unable to show any error in my calculations, do you?

Nor does it assist you in presenting even ONE case of data that truely supports the whole of Special Relativity in all its claims.

Perhaps you might enlighten us on exactly how seeking professional assistance in a highly complex calculus problem has any bearing on understanding the gamma functions, etc (algebra) used in relavistic calculations.

You do seem to be reaching in an effort to somehow deminish work via innuendo and not rebuttal. Perhaps that is because you are incapable of showing any actual flaw in my work. Hmmmm.

BTW. You have failed to list your qualifications by which we should think your opinion merits any considertion. I stand on my credentials and achievments. What are yours.

#34 TeleMad

TeleMad

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1249 posts

Posted 11 May 2005 - 11:53 PM

I don't see how judging me in any way eliminates the fact that you are unable to show any error in my calculations, do you?


Yes. You came in here as a know-it-all expert on the subject of relativity (and other complex mathematics) and claimed that Einstein and other Ph.D. physicists are wrong. Yet you can't even do calculus. Poser.