Jump to content
Science Forums

Einstein's Special Relativity Fails?


Mac

Recommended Posts

Mac:

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.

 

I took a few minutes to check your math: you did pretty good.

 

T = Tp / [ (1 – (v/c)^2)^-2]

 

v = 3,410.7ms^-1

c = 299,792,458ms^-1

Tp = (60s/min)(60min/hr)(24hr/day) = 86,400s

 

T = 86,400s / [ (1 – (3,410.7ms^-1/299,792,458ms^-1)^2)^-2]

T = 86,400s / [ (1 – (1.137687059 x 10^-5)^2)^-2]

T = 86,400s / [ (1 – 1.29433 x 10^-10)^-2]

T = 86,400s / (0.999999999870567^-2)

T = 86,400s / 0.999999999935283

T = 86,400.0000055915s

 

So the difference due to relativistic time dilation is:

Tp – T = 86,400 - 86,400.0000055915s = -5.5915 x 10^-6s

 

That comes to -5.5915 microseconds per day: you were a bit short.

 

 

PS: It's 4am here...maybe I goofed somewhere because I'm so tired.

 

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

PPS: Now it's 3am on another night! Sleep...I need sleep.

 

It just dawned on me that the final answer should not have 5 sig figs. It should if all of the time measures are definitions, and when I did my calculations last time, at 4 am, I considered them to be. However, only two of the three are. Saying 1 day = 24 hours is just a normal, everyday, casual definition: it is not exact and so it can't be considered to be 24.0000000000000000000000000000000000.... Without looking up the actual value, I will assume that there are only 2 sig figs in "1 day = 24 hours" and so add one more step to my calculation to round it to 2 sig figs, giving a final value of -5.6 microseconds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To show SRT as correct doesn't the earth have to orbit the satelite?

 

What I mean by that comment is that for reciprical dilation to be a reality and not just a mathematical construct the earth would physically have to be orbiting the satelite, in other words the satelite and Earth would have to be the only objects in this universe.

 

 

Of course for the satelite to be the center of orbit it would require enourmous shifts in space time and only if those shifts where reciprical can SRT be a justifiable proposition. IMO

 

Maybe I'm wrong (it is now AFTER 4am) but isn't just the relative motion that matters, not that both orbit the other? Consider a point on the Earth's surface that the satellite is currently flying over. If from the frame of reference of the point on the Earth's surface the satellite is moving with an instantaneous relative velocity of X km/s towards the Sun, then from the satellites' perspective that spot on the Earth is moving past it at an instantaneous relative velocity of X km/s away from the Sun. In both cases the magnitude of the relative motion's velocity is identical: isn't that what really counts?

 

Man I've got to get some sleep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only valid issue that I managed to come up with doing a search was that in effect relativistic time dilation was preset or rather taken into account when all of the GPS system was set up. That information comes out of many places, one of which is NASA itself. A few reports in the many conferences have raised an issue that in theory if the clocks are all aligned on earth, taking relativity into account and other issues the clocks should not all stay as lined up as they do even given that. Part of the problem is the earth, this sun, etc while in motion all combined have a velocity far below C itself. In essence, there is not much of a difference as far as time dilation goes below .5C between Newton and Einstein. The slower a body is in motion the closer the two systems become. On earth, even given relative motion of the system as a whole one can use Newton and get almost exact answers. I say almost, since every testing to date of clocks on earth versus clocks in motion has detected the predicted difference which was taken into account when GPS was set up.

 

To date, the only data we have that tends to beg an answer when it comes to relativity is that on the Pioneer problem where there is a noted slow down, sunward centered. When all of the data was examined the initial possible answer of it being a probe created effect was eliminated. That leaves a solid question of why the slow down exists. Nothing in SR or GR manages to provide a solid answer at the present on this.

 

Some suggestions have been there is dark matter present in our system, extra dimensional forces, etc, etc. I myself suggested a bit back to friend at NASA that perhaps, given that all our models rely upon a flat spacetime curved by matter locally, that perhaps spacetime should be modeled as slightly curved to begin with and matter locally adding to that curvature. I based such an idea on the fact that all the WMAPP data suggests, that if you for a moment discount dark energy, all the rest yields a value for the universe being open to begin with. The Dark or exotic energy omega only increases that effect. So if we started with an open curved model, allowed local matter to curve spacetime one way or another you get slight different answers than those of GR to begin with as long as one is not directly near a strong local gravity field. But the general gist of GR where matter/energy curves spacetime remains. The only difference between the two, the one that would account for that Pioneer effect would be that spacetime is not actually flat to begin with.

 

On a note where no departure from GR is needed, if one used a PV model the slow down could be from vacuum pressure differences. That one I did put in a pre-print on the Cern doucment server. It was an outcrop of a friend of mine's discovery based upon brane theory and a certain Dutch equation. The other suggestion I made to my friend at Nasa has a few to many variables in it to get any current value on what the actual curvature of spacetime devoid of matter ought to be to even do a solid article on yet. The slowdown, while measurable, would translate to such a small difference between a flat spacetime case, at least locally, that using a flat model only encounters problems on larger scales.

 

I think what needs to be understood is that relativity, like Newton's theory before it, is a theory. It will always be subject to further testing. In fact, we keep on testing its limits all the time. At the present there is no solid evidence suggesting it should be thrown out. Even if evidence was found what one probably would have would be the same thing as far as Newton went. You get a modification, not a total throwing out of the old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This doesn't address my question: it appears you are saying that since AC is correct, that GPS will only give correct values at the Earth's axis. If anything, my reading of the source information indicates that indeed the adjustments are *stated* relative to the earth's axis but that the surface value is what is computed by GPS. This would indicate you are misrepresenting how GPS is using the computation.

 

Now you at least are beginning to recognize the truth. However, it is of utmost importance

as to how such surface velocity is computed. I have not once claimed relativity is false I am only claiming Einstein's view of relativity is false.

 

The computations made are not SRT. They are based on local absolute rest frames and not relative velocity.

 

 

So are you saying that accelleration can only be induced by gravity and not by chemical, electrical or other power source? I was not refering to gravity at all, but rather the basic notion of SR that one accellerates from an reference point in order to create relative motion.

 

I made no such distinction as to the cause of acceleration. I merely pointed out that the issue at hand is that of time dilation due to inertial relative velocity; including SRT's inherent and claimed reciprocity.

 

"Dilation is an illusion" is a required postulate of your theory, for which you provide no proof.

 

It is not my theory. It is physical fact as to how GPS functions and it is not a matter of SRT. The fact that there is not ONE case of recorded reciprocity in 100 years is fact. The fact that ONE clock dilation which has been recorded numerous times disproves SRT's reciprocity is fact. So what is theoretical about this in your view.

 

You're certainly welcome to claim that there is not enough confirming data for it with multiple moving observers, but what you are disingenously doing is making the circular argument that assumes Dilation is an Illusion--without any supporting data to back up that claim--and then say SR is false because Dilation is an illusion.

 

This is hollow (shallow) and baseless.

 

Its clear to me at least that the data currently available does not disprove SR, unless it is misinterpreted, which you conveniently insist upon.

 

Now you are obligated to support your claim that I have misinterpreted data. Please elaborate. I have misinterpreted nothing.

 

You would find a much more receptive audience for your claims if you were to start with evidence that SR's prediction of dilation is false, beyond your statement that it is simply not consistent with "physical reality" because you think that's the only proper way to view it.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

 

The prediction of dilation by SRT is false 50% of the time. PERIOD. Reciprocity claimed BY SRT. Does not occur, it has not once ever been recorded. Every set of data showing time dilation in fact proves reciprocity did not occur and hence SRT is falsified.

 

Hence for every case of correct time dilation calculation there exists a false time dilation predictition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, they're not correct. Because it is false that all of the GPS satellites orbit (1) right above, and following the path of equator, and (2) in the direction of the Earth's rotation, and (3) in perfect circles.

 

Nice try but no cigar. I at no time have claimed perfect circles or all equitorial orbits. The issue is "are the calculations correct for the case presented". Of course they are and that is why you chose no not address the issue directly.

 

These correct calculations of SRT prove SRT false. Now deal with that and stop trying to flip flop your way out of the hole you have dug for yourself.

 

Perhaps you might like to explain just how it is you think the angle of orbit has any beariing on the issue. It seems you think relative velocity is in line of sight between clocks. That would be an interesting system considering that such veloicties would vary by the differential period of the motions.

 

The fact is the velocity used in such calculations are in referance to the center of the earths and hence an equitorial orbit is identical to a polar orbit (excluding the geodetics).

 

Now, about your claim that these are Ashby's calculations - or more precisely, "I posted Dr Ashby's GPS description" - please support that assertion.

 

I will no longer respond to outright distortions regarding my posts. I have made no such claims. Grow up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only valid issue that I managed to come up with doing a search was that in effect relativistic time dilation was preset or rather taken into account when all of the GPS system was set up. That information comes out of many places, one of which is NASA itself. A few reports in the many conferences have raised an issue that in theory if the clocks are all aligned on earth, taking relativity into account and other issues the clocks should not all stay as lined up as they do even given that. Part of the problem is the earth, this sun, etc while in motion all combined have a velocity far below C itself. In essence, there is not much of a difference as far as time dilation goes below .5C between Newton and Einstein. The slower a body is in motion the closer the two systems become. On earth, even given relative motion of the system as a whole one can use Newton and get almost exact answers. I say almost, since every testing to date of clocks on earth versus clocks in motion has detected the predicted difference which was taken into account when GPS was set up.

 

To date, the only data we have that tends to beg an answer when it comes to relativity is that on the Pioneer problem where there is a noted slow down, sunward centered. When all of the data was examined the initial possible answer of it being a probe created effect was eliminated. That leaves a solid question of why the slow down exists. Nothing in SR or GR manages to provide a solid answer at the present on this.

 

Some suggestions have been there is dark matter present in our system, extra dimensional forces, etc, etc. I myself suggested a bit back to friend at NASA that perhaps, given that all our models rely upon a flat spacetime curved by matter locally, that perhaps spacetime should be modeled as slightly curved to begin with and matter locally adding to that curvature. I based such an idea on the fact that all the WMAPP data suggests, that if you for a moment discount dark energy, all the rest yields a value for the universe being open to begin with. The Dark or exotic energy omega only increases that effect. So if we started with an open curved model, allowed local matter to curve spacetime one way or another you get slight different answers than those of GR to begin with as long as one is not directly near a strong local gravity field. But the general gist of GR where matter/energy curves spacetime remains. The only difference between the two, the one that would account for that Pioneer effect would be that spacetime is not actually flat to begin with.

 

On a note where no departure from GR is needed, if one used a PV model the slow down could be from vacuum pressure differences. That one I did put in a pre-print on the Cern doucment server. It was an outcrop of a friend of mine's discovery based upon brane theory and a certain Dutch equation. The other suggestion I made to my friend at Nasa has a few to many variables in it to get any current value on what the actual curvature of spacetime devoid of matter ought to be to even do a solid article on yet. The slowdown, while measurable, would translate to such a small difference between a flat spacetime case, at least locally, that using a flat model only encounters problems on larger scales.

 

I think what needs to be understood is that relativity, like Newton's theory before it, is a theory. It will always be subject to further testing. In fact, we keep on testing its limits all the time. At the present there is no solid evidence suggesting it should be thrown out. Even if evidence was found what one probably would have would be the same thing as far as Newton went. You get a modification, not a total throwing out of the old.

 

Your comment are most welcome. Finally somebody that knows what he is talking about and wants to talk serious about physics.

 

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a note to say, "Keep it civil". Debate is good, attacking the material of the debate is fine, attacking or flaming each or is is not.

 

I very much agree. Thanks. What some seem to miss is that (while I would think I am not) if I were a complete idiot and knew nothing, it would have no bearing on the facts of the issue as presented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TeleMad: No, they're not correct. Because it is false that all of the GPS satellites orbit (1) right above, and following the path of equator, and (2) in the direction of the Earth's rotation, ...

 

Mac: I at no time have claimed perfect circles or all equitorial orbits.

 

Excuse me, but your calculated relative velocity (between the orbiting clock and a surface clock at the equator) fails if the conditions I brought up don’t hold. Therefore, you DO implicitly rely upon the conditions I listed as being true … they’re in your calculation.

 

Let’s take a quick look at the first.

 

Mac: 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.

 

Your calculation can work ONLY IF the GPS satellites orbit (1) right above, and following the path of equator, and (2) in the direction of the Earth's rotation.

 

1) Consider what happens if the satellite were to be flying perpendicular to the direction of Earth’s rotation: orbiting from north pole to south pole and back. Now you can’t simply subtract the speed of the Earth’s East/West rotational speed from the speed of the satellite to determine the relative velocity: it just doesn’t work. And this holds true for an ‘infinite’ number of other non always-just-above-the-equator orbits for the satellite. Any ‘inclination’ of the orbit kills the method you used in your calculation.

 

2) Consider what happens if the satellite is flying directly over the equator, but in the opposite direction to that of the Earth’s rotation. Your calculation again fails: the relative velocity would be greater since the surface clock wouldn’t be “chasing” the satellite, but would instead be “running away” from it.

 

PS: I believe your calculation still fails based on orbital shape, but it fails for all orbital shpaes. Even if the satellite orbits directly above the equator in the direction of the Earth’s rotation and the satellite’s orbit is perfectly circular relative to the Earth’s center of mass, the satellite would still cyclically swing in closer to, and retreat farther away from, the surface clock, thereby changing the relative velocity.

 

 

So, are your calculations correct? Nope. Because it is false that the GPS satellites orbit (1) right above, and following the path of equator, and (2) in the direction of the Earth's rotation, and (3) in an orbit that would keep the satellite from swinging in towards and retreating away from the surface clock.

 

 

Oh, and also, you calculated -5.58 micro-seconds per day when the numbers actuall produce a value of -5.5915 microseconds per day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your comment are most welcome. Finally somebody that knows what he is talking about and wants to talk serious about physics.

 

Thank you.

 

You're welcome. However, I also in the same token did not agree with what you have mentioned, at least on the surface. I went as far as to scan read the PDF article out of one of those conferences. To be exact, the logic of why the clocks should be not in sync after a period of time was not presented very well in at least the paper I read. In general, as mentioned relitivistic effects are one of the things the programs for the GPS system take into account. Its rather an updating program that takes its own relative velocity, the solar system, etc into account. By the book the clocks should stay in sync if the program was designed properly.

 

GPS satellite range is determined from phase difference.

 

There are two types of observables. One is pseudorange, which is the offset between a pseudorandom noise (PRN) coded signal from the satellite and a replica code generated in the user’s receiver, multiplied by the speed of light. The other is accumulated delta range (ADR), which is a measure of carrier phase.

 

The determination of position may be described as the process of triangulation using the measured range between the user and four or more satellites. The ranges are inferred from the time of propagation of the satellite signals. Four satellites are required to determine the three coordinates of position and time.

 

Each satellite has two cesium clocks and two rubidium clocks, which maintain time with a precision of a few parts in 1013 or 1014 over a few hours, or better than 10 nanoseconds. In terms of the distance traversed by an electromagnetic signal at the speed of light, each nanosecond corresponds to about 30 centimeters. Thus the precision of GPS clocks permits a real time measurement of distance to within a few meters. With post-processed carrier phase measurements, a precision of a few centimeters can be achieved.

 

The orbital configuration approved in 1973 was a total of 24 satellites, consisting of 8 satellites plus one spare in each of three equally spaced orbital planes. The orbital radius was 26,562 km, corresponding to a period of revolution of 12 sidereal hours, with repeating ground traces. Each satellite arrived over a given point four minutes earlier each day. A common orbital inclination of 63 was selected to maximize the on-orbit payload mass with launches from the Western Test Range. This configuration ensured between 6 and 11 satellites in view at any time.

 

As envisioned ten years later, the inclination was reduced to 55 and the number of planes was increased to six. The constellation would consist of 18 primary satellites, which represents the absolute minimum number of satellites required to provide continuous global coverage with at least four satellites in view at any point on the earth. In addition, there would be 3 on-orbit spares.

 

The operational system, as presently deployed, consists of 21 primary satellites and 3 on-orbit spares, comprising four satellites in each of six orbital planes. Each orbital plane is inclined at 55. This constellation improves on the “18 plus 3” satellite constellation by more fully integrating the three active spares. In short they are not all in the equatorial plane at all.

 

The Master Control Station for GPS is located at Schriever Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, CO. The MCS maintains the satellite constellation and performs the stationkeeping and attitude control maneuvers. It also determines the orbit and clock parameters with a Kalman filter using measurements from five monitor stations distributed around the world. The orbit error is about 1.5 meters.

 

GPS orbits are derived independently by various scientific organizations using carrier phase and post-processing. The state of the art is exemplified by the work of the International GPS Service (IGS), which produces orbits with an accuracy of approximately 3 centimeters within two weeks.

 

The system time reference is managed by the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington, DC. GPS time is measured from Saturday/Sunday midnight at the beginning of the week. The GPS time scale is a composite “paper clock” that is synchronized to keep step with Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) and International Atomic Time (TAI). However, UTC differs from TAI by an integral number of leap seconds to maintain correspondence with the rotation of the earth, whereas GPS time does not include leap seconds. The origin of GPS time is midnight on January 5/6, 1980 (UTC). At present, TAI is ahead of UTC by 32 seconds, TAI is ahead of GPS by 19 seconds, and GPS is ahead of UTC by 13 seconds. Some of this difference goes itself back to programing that takes relativity into account.

 

Professor Carroll Alley of the University of Maryland once spoke about the significance of the application of Albert Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity for the reduction of its measurements. According to relativity theory, a moving clock appears to run slow with respect to a similar clock that is at rest. This effect is called “time dilation.” In addition, a clock in a weaker gravitational potential appears to run fast in comparison to one that is in a stronger gravitational potential. This gravitational effect is known in general as the “red shift” (only in this case it is actually a “blue shift”).

 

GPS satellites revolve around the earth with a velocity of 3.874 km/s at an altitude of 20,184 km. Thus on account of the its velocity, a satellite clock appears to run slow by 7 microseconds per day when compared to a clock on the earth’s surface. But on account of the difference in gravitational potential, the satellite clock appears to run fast by 45 microseconds per day. The net effect is that the clock appears to run fast by 38 microseconds per day. This is an enormous rate difference for an atomic clock with a precision of a few nanoseconds. Thus to compensate for this large secular rate, the clocks are given a rate offset prior to satellite launch of - 4.465 parts in 1010 from their nominal frequency of 10.23 MHz so that on average they appear to run at the same rate as a clock on the ground. The actual frequency of the satellite clocks before launch is thus 10.22999999543 MHz. the GPS satellite orbits are nominally circular, there is always some residual eccentricity. The eccentricity causes the orbit to be slightly elliptical, and the velocity and altitude vary over one revolution. Thus, although the principal velocity and gravitational effects have been compensated by a rate offset, there remains a slight residual variation that is proportional to the eccentricity. For example, with an orbital eccentricity of 0.02 there is a relativistic sinusoidal variation in the apparent clock time having an amplitude of 46 nanoseconds. This correction must be calculated and taken into account in the GPS receiver.

 

There is built in compensation based upon relativity. As such, the argument is rather unsound that any of these clocks should be out of sync.

 

All of the data above can be gained out of many sources including NASA, the US government, etc. The whole system and the programs involved take relativity into account. Personally I see no refutal of relativity at all in all this. If anything the whole GPS system has become a lab experiment on large scales supporting relativity.

 

On a special note: "Relativity Theory Isn't Working In The Global Positioning System (GPS)." Tom Van Flandern is quoted in this article by Tom Bethell, a columnist for Spectator (a magazine), as stating that "the [GPS] system manages to work, even though they [the ground controllers] use no relativistic corrections after launch", adding "they have basically blown off Einstein". In fact, GPS simply wouldn't work if str and gtr did not give the correct magnitude of about a dozen distinct effects which affect the system critical clock synchronization. The above out of NASA and several organizations compiled together rather dispells both Tom and anyone else who believes that SR & GR are somehow gotten around by the GPS system. Its only because of programed in corrections from both that this whole system works in the first place.

 

My own take on the few who raise objections in general to SR and even GR is it is in both cases the most tested and varified theories we have out there. I may be a member of those researchers who are in the VSL camp. But I also strongly hold to lorentz invariance period which is one of the major tenents of relativity in general unlike a lot of VSL supporters out there. I hold to such because of many reasons. The most important being its been so well tested within the framework we can test at present. In fact, its far more tested than any other theory we have in science to date. My suggestion to everyone who comes across ideas like this is search out the truth yourself and never take the word of anyone else, even if it turns out to be some guy with a Phd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuse me, but your calculated relative velocity (between the orbiting clock and a surface clock at the equator) fails if the conditions I brought up don’t hold. Therefore, you DO implicitly rely upon the conditions I listed as being true … they’re in your calculation.

 

AND your point would be? GPS actually computes the ellipitical orbit, it computes the oblate spheroid geometerics of the planet, it computes the Bary Center of 500 celestial nearby objects. But what does that have to do with the calculation. Assuming a circular orbit gives a simple test of the mathematics of SRT and SRT fails. End of arguement.

 

Let’s take a quick look at the first.

 

Your calculation can work ONLY IF the GPS satellites orbit (1) right above, and following the path of equator, and (2) in the direction of the Earth's rotation.

 

False. I guess you don't understand ECI and EDEF frames. Further if that were the case (and it is not) how would that in any manner alter the conclusion that SRT mathematically fails to compute the correct time dilation for the case stipulated. Why do you suppose GPS uses locally preferred referance rest frames? Because that is what works and relative velocity between clocks does not.

 

1) Consider what happens if the satellite were to be flying perpendicular to the direction of Earth’s rotation: orbiting from north pole to south pole and back.

 

We have. Nothing is the answer. The referance point is to the center of the earth remember?

 

Now you can’t simply subtract the speed of the Earth’s East/West rotational speed from the speed of the satellite to determine the relative velocity: it just doesn’t work. And this holds true for an ‘infinite’ number of other non always-just-above-the-equator orbits for the satellite. Any ‘inclination’ of the orbit kills the method you used in your calculation.

 

False. You have just shown you do not understand GPS nor local preferred rest frames.

 

The ECI and ECEF frames are to the center of the earth and orbit velocity and surface velocity to that referance do not change with angle of orbit.

 

2) Consider what happens if the satellite is flying directly over the equator, but in the opposite direction to that of the Earth’s rotation. Your calculation again fails: the relative velocity would be greater since the surface clock wouldn’t be “chasing” the satellite, but would instead be “running away” from it.

 

So do another calculation if you want to get an answer. Altering the scenario does not in any manner alter the failure of SRT to compute a correct time dilation based merely on a two clocks relative velocity. The data computed by GPS is in excetional detail and the issues you raise are minor and do not mask the failure of SRT.

 

PS: I believe your calculation still fails based on orbital shape, but it fails for all orbital shpaes. Even if the satellite orbits directly above the equator in the direction of the Earth’s rotation and the satellite’s orbit is perfectly circular relative to the Earth’s center of mass, the satellite would still cyclically swing in closer to, and retreat farther away from, the surface clock, thereby changing the relative velocity.

 

You are merely adding alterations and details to the calculation. None of which in any manner alter the failure of SRT to compute a correct time dilation based on the case as stipulated. Adding elliptical orbits and other variables does not fix SRT, it only complicates the proof that SRT is false.

 

So, are your calculations correct? Nope. Because it is false that the GPS satellites orbit (1) right above, and following the path of equator, and (2) in the direction of the Earth's rotation, and (3) in an orbit that would keep the satellite from swinging in towards and retreating away from the surface clock.

 

Orbit angle and ellipicity, etc have absolutely nothing to do with the failure of SRT to compute a correct timne dilation. You should actually read and understand the system before you comment any further. You are embarrassing yourself.

 

Oh, and also, you calculated -5.58 micro-seconds per day when the numbers actuall produce a value of -5.5915 microseconds per day.

 

Sorry but your figures are inconsistant not only with my calculations but several physicists that have concurred with my work.

 

But that doesn't matter either since the correct figure is -7.2us/day based on local absolute velocities and not relative velocity. That is why there is no reciprocity.

 

Relativity actually works on an absolute velocity even though we cannot detect that value. We can however detect the "Relative Absolute Velocity" between two objects and by doing so correctly compute time dilation and also eliminate the assinine concept of reciprocity introduced by Einstein.

 

Now if you believe it isn't assinine I suggest you post in clear detail just how you propose that when clock "A" stipulates clock "B" is running slower than itself, that SRT claims clock "A" is also concurrently running slower than it.

 

That is not merely "Counter Intuitive", it is physically impossible and nonsense. For a clock that has been recovered and found dilated it is most obvious to any of us that actually think that that clock did not run faster than the other clock (the other clock running slow by SRT) but that the other clock would be running fast.

 

That is what ALL evidence in 100 years dictates and which is also logical. There is no basis what-so-ever to buy into the Einstien charade.

 

You do a lot of talking but seem to say little of value. Before we continue the following is a test:

 

 

What is the relative velocity between a geosynchronous orbiting satellite and a surface clock?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're welcome. However, I also in the same token did not agree with what you have mentioned, at least on the surface. I went as far as to scan read the PDF article out of one of those conferences. To be exact, the logic of why the clocks should be not in sync after a period of time was not presented very well in at least the paper I read. In general, as mentioned relitivistic effects are one of the things the programs for the GPS system take into account. Its rather an updating program that takes its own relative velocity, the solar system, etc into account. By the book the clocks should stay in sync if the program was designed properly.

 

Not a problem. If we all agreed on every point there wouldn't be much to discuss. However, as you seem to do the correct discussion should be based on actual information relevant to the issue.

 

In the event you missed it above here is an excellent detailed description of the system:

 

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

 

It is true that there are many resources which claim Special Relativity is both used and proven by GPS; however what one must realize is that the actual process is not based on SRT since it uses local preferred common rest frames and uses locally relative absolute velocity comparisions and not direct SRT Relative Velocities between clocks. So they are being to casual and are calling the Gamma function SRT and it is only a component within SRT but SRT does not apply the Gamma function to the same velocities that GPS uses.

 

 

SRT requires that the two clocks can have reversed views where the satellite clock will record the surface clock as running slower than itself. THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN.

 

GPS satellite range is determined from phase difference.

 

There are two types of observables. One is pseudorange, which is the offset between a pseudorandom noise (PRN) coded signal from the satellite and a replica code generated in the user’s receiver, multiplied by the speed of light. The other is accumulated delta range (ADR), which is a measure of carrier phase.

 

The determination of position may be described as the process of triangulation using the measured range between the user and four or more satellites. The ranges are inferred from the time of propagation of the satellite signals. Four satellites are required to determine the three coordinates of position and time.

 

Each satellite has two cesium clocks and two rubidium clocks, which maintain time with a precision of a few parts in 1013 or 1014 over a few hours, or better than 10 nanoseconds. In terms of the distance traversed by an electromagnetic signal at the speed of light, each nanosecond corresponds to about 30 centimeters. Thus the precision of GPS clocks permits a real time measurement of distance to within a few meters. With post-processed carrier phase measurements, a precision of a few centimeters can be achieved.

 

The orbital configuration approved in 1973 was a total of 24 satellites, consisting of 8 satellites plus one spare in each of three equally spaced orbital planes. The orbital radius was 26,562 km, corresponding to a period of revolution of 12 sidereal hours,

 

Not being picky but I think you will find the actual period is 11 hours and 58 minutes.

 

with repeating ground traces. Each satellite arrived over a given point four minutes earlier each day. A common orbital inclination of 63 was selected to maximize the on-orbit payload mass with launches from the Western Test Range. This configuration ensured between 6 and 11 satellites in view at any time.

 

As envisioned ten years later, the inclination was reduced to 55 and the number of planes was increased to six. The constellation would consist of 18 primary satellites, which represents the absolute minimum number of satellites required to provide continuous global coverage with at least four satellites in view at any point on the earth. In addition, there would be 3 on-orbit spares.

 

The operational system, as presently deployed, consists of 21 primary satellites and 3 on-orbit spares, comprising four satellites in each of six orbital planes. Each orbital plane is inclined at 55. This constellation improves on the “18 plus 3” satellite constellation by more fully integrating the three active spares. In short they are not all in the equatorial plane at all.

 

Since this seems to go along the thinking made by Tel..., let me point out that the inclination angle does not alter the velocity gamma calculation. It is based on the ECI and

ECEF frame.

 

The Master Control Station for GPS is located at Schriever Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, CO. The MCS maintains the satellite constellation and performs the stationkeeping and attitude control maneuvers. It also determines the orbit and clock parameters with a Kalman filter using measurements from five monitor stations distributed around the world. The orbit error is about 1.5 meters.

 

GPS orbits are derived independently by various scientific organizations using carrier phase and post-processing. The state of the art is exemplified by the work of the International GPS Service (IGS), which produces orbits with an accuracy of approximately 3 centimeters within two weeks.

 

The system time reference is managed by the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington, DC. GPS time is measured from Saturday/Sunday midnight at the beginning of the week. The GPS time scale is a composite “paper clock” that is synchronized to keep step with Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) and International Atomic Time (TAI). However, UTC differs from TAI by an integral number of leap seconds to maintain correspondence with the rotation of the earth, whereas GPS time does not include leap seconds. The origin of GPS time is midnight on January 5/6, 1980 (UTC). At present, TAI is ahead of UTC by 32 seconds, TAI is ahead of GPS by 19 seconds, and GPS is ahead of UTC by 13 seconds. Some of this difference goes itself back to programing that takes relativity into account.

 

Just to clarify once more that I agree relativity must be considered. It isn't however SRT but merely a velocity gamma calculation. There is signifigant differance in the two.

 

Professor Carroll Alley of the University of Maryland once spoke about the significance of the application of Albert Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity for the reduction of its measurements.

 

As mentioned above many many people; including highly educated ones make the mistake of calling a gamma calculation Special Relativity. Special Relativity includes a gamma calculation but how it is calculated is stipulated as being between the two clock with relative motion and that each clock considers itself as at rest and that it is the other clock that suffers time dilation. Hence the inherent reciprocity. This criteria does not meet the description as applied by GPS. So velocity gamma is used but not SRT. And there is (and can be) no reciprocity as dictated by SRT.

 

According to relativity theory, a moving clock appears to run slow with respect to a similar clock that is at rest.

 

You make a slight error here. The "rest" is assumed" it is further dictated by SRT that each makes the same assumption in that they can not sense their own motion if it is inertial. That has the observer calculating a "Perception" and not as in GPS calculating a physical measured velocity against a common rest referance where reciproicty cannot be asserted.

 

This effect is called “time dilation.” In addition, a clock in a weaker gravitational potential appears to run fast in comparison to one that is in a stronger gravitational potential. This gravitational effect is known in general as the “red shift” (only in this case it is actually a “blue shift”).

 

GPS satellites revolve around the earth with a velocity of 3.874 km/s at an altitude of 20,184 km. Thus on account of the its velocity, a satellite clock appears to run slow by 7 microseconds per day when compared to a clock on the earth’s surface. But on account of the difference in gravitational potential, the satellite clock appears to run fast by 45 microseconds per day. The net effect is that the clock appears to run fast by 38 microseconds per day. This is an enormous rate difference for an atomic clock with a precision of a few nanoseconds. Thus to compensate for this large secular rate, the clocks are given a rate offset prior to satellite launch of - 4.465 parts in 1010 from their nominal frequency of 10.23 MHz so that on average they appear to run at the same rate as a clock on the ground. The actual frequency of the satellite clocks before launch is thus 10.22999999543 MHz. the GPS satellite orbits are nominally circular, there is always some residual eccentricity. The eccentricity causes the orbit to be slightly elliptical, and the velocity and altitude vary over one revolution. Thus, although the principal velocity and gravitational effects have been compensated by a rate offset, there remains a slight residual variation that is proportional to the eccentricity. For example, with an orbital eccentricity of 0.02 there is a relativistic sinusoidal variation in the apparent clock time having an amplitude of 46 nanoseconds. This correction must be calculated and taken into account in the GPS receiver.

 

You are generally correct but these are rounded times and not the actual times.

 

There is built in compensation based upon relativity. As such, the argument is rather unsound that any of these clocks should be out of sync.

 

You lost me here.

 

All of the data above can be gained out of many sources including NASA, the US government, etc. The whole system and the programs involved take relativity into account. Personally I see no refutal of relativity at all in all this. If anything the whole GPS system has become a lab experiment on large scales supporting relativity.

 

Again "Relativity" but not Einstien's Relativity". Einstien requires that you can view the orbiting clock as being at rest and that the earth surface clocks are rotating under it and that "THEY" will hence run slow. THAT IS PHYSICALLY SIMPLY FALSE. So GPS does not prove SPecial Relativity but it does prove the Gamma function which is basic Relativity.

 

On a special note: "Relativity Theory Isn't Working In The Global Positioning System (GPS)." Tom Van Flandern is quoted in this article by Tom Bethell, a columnist for Spectator (a magazine), as stating that "the [GPS] system manages to work, even though they [the ground controllers] use no relativistic corrections after launch", adding "they have basically blown off Einstein". In fact, GPS simply wouldn't work if str and gtr did not give the correct magnitude of about a dozen distinct effects which affect the system critical clock synchronization. The above out of NASA and several organizations compiled together rather dispells both Tom and anyone else who believes that SR & GR are somehow gotten around by the GPS system. Its only because of programed in corrections from both that this whole system works in the first place.

 

Simply false as pointed out above. Those that adhere to the "GPS Proves Special Relativity" are being dishonest since "Gamma" alone is not the whole of Special Relativity. You cannot simply disregard what Special Relativity dictates and because there is a gamma calculation then claim the theory proven. IT WILL NOT BE PROVEN UNTIL YOU SUPPLY EXAMPLE DATA SHOWING THAT IT IS THE EARTH CLOCKS THAT RUN SLOW DUE TO VEOLOCITY FROM THE SATELLITE VIEW.

 

My own take on the few who raise objections in general to SR and even GR is it is in both cases the most tested and varified theories we have out there. I may be a member of those researchers who are in the VSL camp. But I also strongly hold to lorentz invariance period which is one of the major tenents of relativity in general unlike a lot of VSL supporters out there. I hold to such because of many reasons. The most important being its been so well tested within the framework we can test at present. In fact, its far more tested than any other theory we have in science to date. My suggestion to everyone who comes across ideas like this is search out the truth yourself and never take the word of anyone else, even if it turns out to be some guy with a Phd.

 

Each to their own but I must remind readers that to simply assert SRT has been proven does not make it so. SRT is not proven until "BOTH" clocks run slower than each other. Which would be a pretty neat trick in any case.

 

The problem has been and remains with the Einstein adaption of the abnormal circumstance of assuming ONLY two points. That does not describe the real universe. Using such an arbitrary and false assumption creates the unrealistic circumstance that creates reciprocity.

 

It is time to stop going in circles and claiming things that have never been shown to exist and can never be shown to exist simply because it is fun. It is time to look logically at all data in comparison to the theory and amend the theory to be realistic.

 

Just remember when sombody says "Relavistic Effects" they are saying it correctly but when they specify "Special Relativity", that is when they show they are confused, being to casual or are unknowledgable about what Special Relativity claims and what GPS shows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key is to realize that different observers will measure the same clock to tick at different rates. According to all measurements and experiments to date made in a given frame, a moving clock runs slower than a stationary clock. But whether a clock is "moving" or not depends on what frame is observing the clock. Time measurements are frame dependent to begin with. The nominal GPS Operational Constellation consists of 24 satellites that orbit the earth in 12 hours. A "solar" day is defined as the average time from high noon to high noon, that is, the interval between the times when the Sun is highest in the sky. Because the Earth orbits the Sun, by the time it completes one revolution, the location on the earth closest to the sun has shifted a bit. The Earth then needs to rotate a little more to make it line up again. The time for one true rotation is the interval between the times that a distant star is highest in the sky, "fixed star to fixed star." This interval is known as a "siderial" day, which is 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4.06 seconds. As such, the GPS clocks are the faster moving clocks in the first place. Both the earth and those clocks may be in motion. But its the faster moving clock that runs slower.

 

There is no requirement of reversal. In any given frame to frame comparison it is the faster moving clock that appears slower. I mentioned above that its also frame dependent. To someone say moving at near C the earth frame appears at rest would be one example. Yet, the real case is both frames are in motion. At rest is a relative term in itself since everything in this universe is in motion one way or another.

 

The Global Positioning System (GPS) showed the remarkable fact that all atomic clocks on board orbiting satellites moving at high speeds in different directions could be simultaneously and continuously synchronized with each other and with all ground clocks. On the surface someone would think this would falsify SR. But on further inspection, continually changing synchronization corrections for each clock exist such that the predictions of SR are fulfilled for any local co-moving frame. GPS analysis is now done exclusively in the Earth-centered inertial frame (the local gravity field). And the pre-launch adjustment of clock rates to compensate for relativistic effects then hides the fact that all orbiting satellite clocks would be seen to tick slower than ground clocks if not rate-compensated for their orbital motion, and that no reciprocity would exist when satellites view ground clocks.

 

What they have done in all this is inforce an at rest frame which is something that can be done. In fact, on certain modeling we do it all the time. Some people may have not noticed but there has been over the last few years a surge of articles on perfered frames written by people who support relativity. From a certain perspective one can invoke a perfered frame into a model and still maintain relativity. In some modeling the CMB itself is considered such a frame. Higher dimensional modeling itself, especially when it comes to certain properties of hyperspace could be considered as having hyperspace as a perfered frame of reference. Yet, most of these modern higher dimensional models for the cosmos all incoporate relativity. The earth centered caculations, which already pre-took in the orbital velocity of the GPS system is just a such a prefered frame system to begin with. Once you do that no reciprocity would exist. GPS was not designed as a test of SRT. But it does take such into account. The perfered frame invoked rather tends to distroy one's ability to test all aspects of relativity to begin with.

 

You might want too look up "General relativity in the global positioning system", a short paper by Neil Ashby (Physics, University of Colorado).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key is to realize that different observers will measure the same clock to tick at different rates. According to all measurements and experiments to date made in a given frame, a moving clock runs slower than a stationary clock.

 

I don't think I would call this key. First you understand that sayi8ng a clock is stationary isn't an arbitrary choice as it is in SRT. That is the key problem with SRT. It eliminates all possible referances which determine which clock can rightfully be considered as at rest.

 

SRT allows either clock to be considered at rest and that is where SRT fails. Three points of referance establishes which clock has the higher absolute veloicty and thereby dictates which clock will actually dilate. That is why you do not find and will never find a case which agrees with SRT claiming that the dilated clock depends on the frame of referance.

 

SRT allows switching frames and claims both clocks are both at rest and in motion simultaneously since to have relative motion both views must run concurrent in the same time interval.

 

The physical facts are that in any given case only one clock will become dilated and it will be the clock with the highest absolute velocity, even though yo have no idea what that velocity is.

 

Using a clock at the equator establishes the greates surface veloicty and hence should prodluce the greatest possible dilation for a surface clock. At the equator the dilation is only about 1% of the dilation computed for the orbiting clock.

 

Using SRT the time dilation is less than is physically measured. What is physically measured agrees with the absolute view and not the relative view. These are facts and cannot be ignored.

 

So in GPS both clocks are dilated proportinately to their respective absolute velocities. The orbiting clock haviiing the greatest dilation produces the systemic measured dilation differance between the clocks.

 

Calculated dilation based on relative veloicty between the clocks is in error and the SRT view further requires that from the orbit clocks view the surface clock runs slow. That does not happen and cannot be ignored.

 

But whether a clock is "moving" or not depends on what frame is observing the clock.

 

Here is the failure. The reality is motion IS absolute even though you cannot detect what that motion is because you have no known absolute rest referance. The assumption that motion is arbitrary and dependant on the observer is erroneous. You are substituting "Perception" (Illusion) for physics. The reality is that both are most likely in motion but to different magnitudes and hence the amount of dilation for each clock depends on their absolute motions because dilation is not a linear function. What you see as relative velocity doesn't always result in a correct dilation because A+B does not equal C.

 

Time measurements are frame dependent to begin with. The nominal GPS Operational Constellation consists of 24 satellites that orbit the earth in 12 hours. A "solar" day is defined as the average time from high noon to high noon, that is, the interval between the times when the Sun is highest in the sky. Because the Earth orbits the Sun, by the time it completes one revolution, the location on the earth closest to the sun has shifted a bit. The Earth then needs to rotate a little more to make it line up again. The time for one true rotation is the interval between the times that a distant star is highest in the sky, "fixed star to fixed star." This interval is known as a "siderial" day, which is 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4.06 seconds.

 

GPS uses a more comprehensive system of 500 celestial bodies as a quasi rest referance also.

 

As such, the GPS clocks are the faster moving clocks in the first place. Both the earth and those clocks may be in motion. But its the faster moving clock that runs slower.

 

That is the correct view. SRT (based only on the "Relative Veloicty" doesn't recognize one clock has a higher velocity but claims each has the same relative velocity to each other and that this velocity creates recipocal time dilation. That is wrong.

 

Both clocks actually dilate as a function of their absolute motion and what we measure as time dilation is the differance in their tick rates based on respective absolute velocities. GPS proves this and it is logical whereas SRT fails and is not only not logical it is physically impossible.

 

There is no requirement of reversal.

 

Sorry but in SRT there is and that is why SRT is flawed.

 

************************ Extract ************************

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath307/kmath307.htm

 

Given this definition of inertial reference frames, the principle of relativity asserts that for any material particle in any state of motion there exists an inertial reference frame - called the rest frame of the particle - with respect to which the particle is instantaneously at rest (i.e., the change of the spatial coordinates with respect to the time coordinate is zero). This principle is usually extended to include reciprocity, meaning that for any two systems S1 and S2 of inertial coordinates, if the spatial origin of S1 has velocity v with respect to S2, then the spatial origin of S2 has velocity -v with respect to S1. The existence of this class of reference frames, and the viability of the principles of relativity and reciprocity, are inferred from experience. Once these principles have been established, the relationship between relatively moving inertial coordinate systems can then be considered.

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

 

Reciprocity is an inherent property of SRT, once you eliminate it by creating a common (third) rest frame you are no longer dealing with direct relative veloicty and you are no longer talking about Special Relativity. You are computing gamma functions and actual relativity, not Einstien's relativity.

 

In any given frame to frame comparison it is the faster moving clock that appears slower. I mentioned above that its also frame dependent. To someone say moving at near C the earth frame appears at rest would be one example. Yet, the real case is both frames are in motion. At rest is a relative term in itself since everything in this universe is in motion one way or another.

 

The Global Positioning System (GPS) showed the remarkable fact that all atomic clocks on board orbiting satellites moving at high speeds in different directions could be simultaneously and continuously synchronized with each other and with all ground clocks. On the surface someone would think this would falsify SR. But on further inspection, continually changing synchronization corrections for each clock exist such that the predictions of SR are fulfilled for any local co-moving frame.

 

This is simply incorrect.

 

GPS analysis is now done exclusively in the Earth-centered inertial frame (the local gravity field). And the pre-launch adjustment of clock rates to compensate for relativistic effects then hides the fact that all orbiting satellite clocks would be seen to tick slower than ground clocks if not rate-compensated for their orbital motion, and that no reciprocity would exist when satellites view ground clocks.

 

As you shall see reciproicty is mandated by the "Relative Velocity" view. You are mixing some correct physics with SRT in a manner that is inconsistant with the theory.

 

What they have done in all this is inforce an at rest frame which is something that can be done. In fact, on certain modeling we do it all the time. Some people may have not noticed but there has been over the last few years a surge of articles on perfered frames written by people who support relativity.

 

Relativity Yes but not Special Relativity as written and advocated by Einstein.

 

From a certain perspective one can invoke a perfered frame into a model and still maintain relativity. In some modeling the CMB itself is considered such a frame. Higher dimensional modeling itself, especially when it comes to certain properties of hyperspace could be considered as having hyperspace as a perfered frame of reference. Yet, most of these modern higher dimensional models for the cosmos all incoporate relativity. The earth centered caculations, which already pre-took in the orbital velocity of the GPS system is just a such a prefered frame system to begin with. Once you do that no reciprocity would exist. GPS was not designed as a test of SRT. But it does take such into account. The perfered frame invoked rather tends to distroy one's ability to test all aspects of relativity to begin with.

 

Again you are partially correct. The primary error being that you think ALL relativity is SRT it isn't. SRT stands alone with specific claims, invoking preferred frames violates Special Relativity and begins to use actual relativity. So you error seems to be failure to recognize that the relativity that works using preferred frames (which we now seem to be in agreement about) is not Special Relativity.

 

You might want too look up "General relativity in the global positioning system", a short paper by Neil Ashby (Physics, University of Colorado).

 

I have posted Dr Ashby's URL twice in this thread. I have read it cover to cover, including GR aspects. However, this thread is not about GR but SRT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mac: AND your point would be?

 

Just that your calculations are wrong! They are wrong because (1) of the method you used to calculate the relative velocity, which fails to model reality, and (2) your erroneous numerical values produced.

 

Mac: GPS actually computes the ellipitical orbit, it computes the oblate spheroid geometerics of the planet, it computes the Bary Center of 500 celestial nearby objects. But what does that have to do with the calculation.

 

GPS does. You didn't.

 

You asked me - no, you practically begged me - to look over YOUR calculations. They are flawed. End of story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...