Einstein's Special Relativity Fails?

[Mac]

False. Let me explain.

 

Here’s the general setup for relative motion. There are 3 observers: one, whose frame of reference we are considering things from originally, is at rest and the other two are in uniform motion relative to the first. We’ll use R, F, and S for the observers, indicating Rest, Faster, and Slower observers. We know the velocities for F and for S relative to R, but we don’t know the relative velocity between F and S: that’s what we need to find. When we obtain the answer for relative velocity, it will tell us how fast observer S would measure observer F to be moving: that is, the velocity of F from S's frame of reference.

 

You seem to be eluding to Veloicty Addition and you once again are diverting from the issue.

 

Here’s a quote from a college physics text (this is in the front portion of the book, before relativity’s effects are taken into consideration: but the relativistic version does the same thing).

 

Again, the setup is that we know the velocities of F and of S relative to R, but not the relative velocity between F and S. When we find it, the relative velocity between S and F tells us how fast S would measure F to be moving: that is, the velocity of F from S's frame of reference.

 

What a physics book says would be expected to say what you say; however, physics books talk in terms of status guo and not in terms of addressing the falicies of the physics they advocate. They are all based on mathematical extrapolations without physical under pinnings. We are addressing physic facts not mathematical extrapolations. If all you are going to do is recite physics books we need not have a discussion we can all read and then agree to agree and consequently there would be no futher advancement of phyics ever.

 

In the GPS example, we were given the velocities of a surface clock and a satellite clock and needed to determine the relative velocity between them. The answer - the relative velocity between the surface clock and the satellite clock in the GPS example - will tell us how fast an observer at the surface would measure the satellite clock to be moving: that is, the satellites velocity from the surface clock's frame of reference.

 

No so. GPS does not correlate relative velocity between surface and orbiting clocks. They use gamma of orbit and gamma of rotation. To make the point I will use exagerated velocities since actual velocites result in marginally useable numbers.

 

Surface v = 0.2c=gamma1; orbit = 0.866c=gamma2. The relative velocity would be 0.666c=gamma3.

 

Now

gamma1 = 1.020620726

gamma2 = 2.000000000

 

Effective gamma between them is 2/1.020620726 = 1.959597195 That would be the working number used by GPS.

 

gamma3 = 1.340569296

 

or only 68.4% as large as it actually is in terms of measured time dilation.

 

GPS does NOT compute, NOR use "Relative Veloicty" as advocated by SRT. SRT "Relative Velocity" does not work.

 

With that standard usage of the term relative velocity, your statements, Mac, that the relative velocity between the surface clock and the satellite clock would be the same no matter what angle the satellite’s path takes relative to the equator is wrong.

 

Now, if you used a different meaning for relative velocity, you should have explicitly stated what your non-standard usage of the term was.

 

Mine is not non-standard. It is simply the actual "Relative Velocity" and not as you claimed the line of sight velocity between the clocks (Which would oscillate). You sir are demonstrateably in error on this issue.

 

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

And let me point out again that if one wants to consider SPECIAL relativity then one should look at frames of reference that are moving in a straight line at constant speed relative to one another. This is NOT the case with the GPS system.

 

Please post any link to your "Straight line" notion regarding SR and Relative Velocity". The requirement is "Inertial". Your assumption that orbit is not inertial is in error. It is considered "Free-Fall". Free-Fall is an inertial frame. Orbit is considered inertial. Do some reading before posting again.

 

BTW what happened to your earlier post where you claimed SR and GR were both used and required in GPS? You can't seem to decide what applies and what doesn't.

 

ALSO: None of this addresses the issue of "Reciproicty" failure of SRT.

[Mac]

That question is irrelevant to any of the points I am making. That's why I am ignoring that question of yours.

 

See my last post just above to see two of the main points I am making.

 

It most certainly is not irrelevant. I think you (or at least others) can see that in the case of geosynchronous orbit there exists "No Relative Velocity" of the sort you wish to proclaim is at the heart of GPS. Yet it is most clear that time dilation will occur. That dilation is as a consequence of relative absolute perheperal velocites and not your "Relative Velocity".

 

One does not need to calculate "How fast the observer sees the orbiting clock move". If he does and uses that figure he will calculate an incorrect time dilation. That has been my point. time dilation is not a functionof relative veloicty "between" clocks but relative absolute velocity.

[Mac]

Sure it does. It solves the APPARENT paradox you keep harping on. Did you forget about this?

 

I keep harping because it has nothing to do with it. You are merely reciting erroneous information and swearing for its validity without addressing the issue in physics terms.

 

But of course you just pretend that a solution doesn't exist.

 

No pretending required. It is not a solution. I full well recognize simultaneity but I also understand what it can and cannot do. It does not resolve the issue of accumulated time differentials between clocks and the lack of advocated reciprocity by SRT.

 

If you learned to read more carefully you would notice that they use words like "see" in their descriptions. "Seeing" is a "Perception" and "Observation" and "Illusion", not the physical reality of accumulated and displayed times on clocks.

 

My issue is the physical realities and not some illusion of motion.

 

Right, so, simply put, observer A sees observer B’s clock to run slow, and observer B sees observer A’s clock to run slow. A paradox? Nope, just an APPARENT one, resolved once one takes into account the fact that two events that are simultaneous in one frame of reference are not simultaneous in a second frame moving uniformly between the same two events. See the above quote from Professor Richard Wolfson.

 

False for reasons stated above.

 

So what human was inside of those atoms?

 

Did you not want two different observers to actually measure time dilation from within the two different frames of reference in a single experiment?

 

You are being silly now. Suppose you try and answer the questions put before you regarding multiple time dilations of a single clock due to multiple relative motion to other clocks.

 

You see the issue here is the arbitrary and false assumption by Einstien of an artifical universe having only two clocks as a referance. All these quirks exist because he has eliminated natural occuring and physically real and existing multiple enities from his analysis.

 

In his two object world either must conclude they are at rest and hence the other has all veloicty. HEnce one must see reciprocity in data. That does not occur because that is not a real description of the universe. In the real universe there are multiple objects haing a variety of relative velocities "Simultaneously" and such SRT conclusions are prohibited in the real world.

 

Actual physical data demonstrates the two object world is an invalid view.

 

There was no human observer in the atoms, there was no human observer in the muons used in the Mt. Washington experiment, and there are no human observers inside particles speeding through particle accelerators.

 

Nonsense and not required. The muon has veloicty to the center of the earth. The surface clock has v = 0 relative to the center of the earth. You have A, B & C referances points. It just happens to be a special case of real world physics where A and C have no relative veloicty and hence the gamma calculation works correctly in the two point view since you are ignoring only a "0" velocity.

 

But do not try to ignore other real world cases where such velocty > 0 to a referance point. SRT fails in such cases (GPS)

 

Now, do you have an actual way that we could directly measure time dilation from both of two different frames of reference moving in a straight line at constant speed with respect to one another, in a single experiment?

 

Certainly not difficult at all. Simply take two clocks and cause relative motion between them. Each (according to SRT) will slow by an equal amount and hence you should see no systemic measureable time dialtion. See we have done this test and found actual dialtion of one clock we can hence conclude SRT is false.

 

Before jump back on your claim of such physical relative velocity reciprocity, don't forget there are more than just two clocks being considered. I have added a third such that now for your stattement to be true you must show each clock slowing at two different rates "Simultaneously".

 

So the experiments show that the laws of physics are NOT the same in all uniformly moving frames of reference? And you’ve shown this? Please point it out again because, gee, I must have missed it! :-)

 

Haven't said that at all. Set two clocks in opposite but identical orbits and you will find that the two orbiting clocks will each have equal time dilation to a surface clock and that they care less that their relative velocity when approaching each other doubles. and when 180 degrees apart are at rest to each other.

[Smokinjoe9]

Haven't said that at all. Set two clocks in opposite but identical orbits and you will find that the two orbiting clocks will each have equal time dilation to a surface clock and that they care less that their relative velocity when approaching each other doubles. and when 180 degrees apart are at rest to each other.

 

This I agree with.....

[Mac]

Why are you pretending to answer my question? Why are you answering a different question than the one I asked?

 

I haven't.

 

The relative velocity between the ground clock and the satellite tells us what an observer at the ground clock would measure the velocity of the satellite to be: it's the velocity of the satellite from the ground clock's frame of reference. The relative velocity between the ground clock and the satellite differs depending upon the path and direction the orbit takes.

 

That is our limited and invalid view of relative velocity. That is not what GPS does not should it do. No wonder you are lost.

 

If you used a different definition of relative velocity in your original calculation you should have explicitly stated what your non-standard usage was.

 

It is not mine that is non-standard. Mine is consitant with the workings of GPS which is the issue. Yours is non-standard. In fact it is shear nonsense. Any grade schooler would know that such relative velocity would be an oscillation.

[Mac]

Now you're stooping to stuffing words into my mouth. Tsk tsk, for shame Mac.

 

I have paraphrased your positions that you have supported in this thread. That is not putting words in your mouth.

[Damo2600]

Is that Michelson/Morley experiment proof that light is a constant? i.e the half-silvered mirrors. Einstein quoted this as proof. I am not sure how this proves that the speed of light is the same for all frames of reference? Doesn't this just prove that SoL is a constant for a stationary reference frame?

 

If one of them pasted by the experiment at 1000 miles an hour and obtained the same result as the stationary observer then that would be proof, no?

 

I'm curious as to what other proof there is that this is even true.

[TeleMad]

Mac: You seem to be eluding to Veloicty Addition and you once again are diverting from the issue.

 

No, I am alluding to RELATIVE VELOCITY, just as the college physics text I quoted from explicitly stated.

 

The quote didn't take relativistic effects into account, but to find the relative velocity between two relativistic objects when we know both of their velocities relative to us, we use the same general method.

 

For example, the frame from which the motion is being considered is the rest frame, R. One object is traveling at only 0.6c as measured by us, which is the S or slower object; the other, faster object is traveling at 0.8c relative to us. What is the relative velocity between S and F? That is, what is the velocity of F from S's frame of reference?

 

Vsf = (Vrf - Vrs) / [1 - ( [Vrf * Vrs] / c^2 )]

 

Vsf = (0.8c - 0.6c) / [1 - ( [0.8c * .06c] / c^2 )]

Vsf = (0.8c - 0.6c) / [1 - ( [0.48c^2] / c^2 )]

Vsf = (0.8c - 0.6c) / [1 - 0.48 ]

Vsf = (0.8c - 0.6c) / 0.52

Vsf = 0.2c / 0.52

Vsf ~ 0.385c

 

So from S's frame of reference, F has a velocity of about 0.385c: that is the relative velocity between S and F.

 

 

 

Mac: No so. GPS does not correlate relative velocity between surface and orbiting clocks. They use gamma of orbit and gamma of rotation.

 

Can you show me where you stated that in your original calculation, before you calculated the relative velocity between the ground clock and satellite? I don't think so.

 

If you had clearly stated what you mean by relative velocity in that calculation, I wouldn't have even responded. We've been talking past each other for the past week!

 

Mac: Mine is not non-standard.

 

You usage of relative velocity is different from that used in my college physics text. I consider that non-standard.

 

Further, you seem to consider non-standard too since you wrap the term in double quotes: "relative velocity" instead of just relative velocity.

 

Mac: Your assumption that orbit is not inertial is in error.

 

Back up there Mac daddy.

 

I have NOT said, nor have I implied, that orbit is not inertial. In fact, in at least one of my posts in this thread I have said that being in free fall (free float) is inertial.

 

Mac: Do some reading before posting again.

 

Why, because you are making up lies about what I've said? How is my reading going to stop you from telling lies?

[TeleMad]

Mac: BTW what happened to your earlier post where you claimed SR and GR were both used and required in GPS? You can't seem to decide what applies and what doesn't.

 

You're hallucinating. There is no such post by me.

[TeleMad]

Mac: Before jump back on your claim of such physical relative velocity reciprocity, don't forget there are more than just two clocks being considered. I have added a third such that now for your stattement to be true you must show each clock slowing at two different rates "Simultaneously".

 

Okay, so now that I spent a good bit of time and effort to try to show how there is no contradiction with two clocks, you've added a third clock!?!?! Whatever.

[TeleMad]

It most certainly is not irrelevant. I think you (or at least others) can see that in the case of geosynchronous orbit there exists "No Relative Velocity" of the sort you wish to proclaim is at the heart of GPS.

 

How many of my statements are you going to distort? I haven't claimed that relative velocity (according to its usage in college physics texts, as I have been using the term, but you haven't) is at the heart of GPS.

[TeleMad]

Mac: That is not what GPS does not should it do. No wonder you are lost.

 

I'll say! Who could follow such an unintelligible statement as your first one! :-)

[TeleMad]

Mac: It is not mine that is non-standard. Mine is consitant with the workings of GPS which is the issue. Yours is non-standard.

 

Tell that to the physicists who authored my college physics text :-)

 

Mac: In fact [your usage of the term relative velocity] is shear nonsense.

 

Tell that to the physicists who authored my college physics text :-)

 

Mac: Any grade schooler would know that such relative velocity would be an oscillation.

 

Right, just as I've been saying all along!

 

When employing the standard (college physics text) usage of the term relative velocity, you were making statements that a grade schooler should know to be wrong.

[TeleMad]

Mac: I have paraphrased your positions that you have supported in this thread.

 

No you haven't. You've asserted that I've said things - now, multiple things - that I definitely did not. Some of the claims you stuffed into my mouth are exactly opposite of what I have said. What you did IS stuffing words into my mouth.

[TeleMad]

Damo2600: Is that Michelson/Morley experiment proof that light is a constant?

 

It's more of a proof that there is no luminiferous ether, but this took physicists a while to realize.

 

Maxwell's equations indicate that light is an electromagnetic wave and travels at speed c. But speed c relative to what? Since all other waves - water waves, sound waves, mechanical waves traveling along a railroad rail, etc. - all required a medium, it was reasoned that light too must have a medium. Physicists assumed this medium to be the so called luminiferous ether: a medium that would quite unusual and contradictory properties (stiff and tenuous, for example). Scientists then began to try to confirm their hypothesis that light travels are speed c relative to the ether.

 

They first ruled out that Earth was at rest with respect to the ether: that would make the Earth EXTREMELY special: every moon, planet, and star moving in the sky would me moving through the ether, only we would be at rest. They next considered what would happen if the Earth weren't at rest with respect to the ether everywhere in the universe, but just locally: if the Earth drug a blob of ether around with it. Experiments using the abberation of starlight demonstrated that idea to be wrong.

 

Since Earth is not at rest (either universally or locally) with respect to the ether, Earth must be moving relative to it, so scientists began trying to measure that speed. They failed, but the experiments were not rock solid. Then came Michelson and Morley, whose experiment was easily able to detect the predicted differences. They expected to find a difference in the speed of light as measured in a lab because by orienting their interferometer in different directions, it would be moving through the luminiferous ether at different velocities. Since light was assumed to move at speed c with respect to the ether, the interference patterns would change depending upon which arm was at a 90 degree angle to the "ether wind". But they found no fringe shift.

 

This is one of the most famous null results ever obtained. The Earth is not at rest with respect to the ether, yet the Earth is not in motion with respect to the ether either? How can that be?

 

Lorentz and Fitgerald hypothesized that the interferometer was physically "squished" along its direction of motion relative to the ether, and the equation they developed to account for this is still used for Lorentz (or relativistic) length contraction. But their theory was wrong: the device is not "squished" because it is plowing through the a physical medium known as the ether.

 

Einsten then came along, in 1905, and declared the ether a myth. Light doesn't need a medium. And he answered the question, "What does light move at speed c relative to?" ... any frame of reference in uniform motion.

[TeleMad]

TeleMad: And let me point out again that if one wants to consider SPECIAL relativity then one should look at frames of reference that are moving in a straight line at constant speed relative to one another. This is NOT the case with the GPS system.

 

Mac: Please post any link to your "Straight line" notion regarding SR and Relative Velocity".

 

Here’s something, by the man himself, that fits what I said.

 

”In order to attain the greatest possible clearness, let us return to out example of the railway carriage supposed to be traveling uniformly. We call its motion uniform translation (“uniform” because it is of constant velocity and direction, and “translation” because although the carriage changes its position relative to the embankment yet it does not rotate in so doing). Let us imagine a raven flying through the air in such a manner that its motion, as observed from the embankment, is uniform and in a straight line. If we were to observe the flying raven from the moving carriage, we should find that the motion of the raven would be on of different velocity and direction, but it would still be uniform and in a straight line. Expressed in an abstract manner we say: If a mass m is moving uniformly in a straight line with respect to a co-ordinate system K, then it will also be moving uniformly and in a straight line relative to a second co-ordinate system K’, provided that the latter is executing a uniform translatory motion with respect to K.

 

In accordance with the discussion contained in the preceding section, it follows that:

 

If K is a Galileian co-ordinate system, then every other co-ordinate system K’ is a Galileian one, when, in relation to K, it is in a condition of uniform motion of translation. Relative to K’ the mechanical laws of Galilei-Newton hold good exactly as they do with respect to K.

 

We advance a step farther in our generalization when we express the tenet thus: If, relative to K, K’ is a uniformly moving co-ordinate system devoid of rotation, then natural phenomena run their course with respect to K’ according to exactly the same general laws as with respect to K. This statement is called the principle of relativity (in the restricted sense).”

(emphasis added, Albert Einstein, Relativity: The Special and the General Theory, Three Rivers Press, 1961, p15-16)

 

 

Now, Einstein’s special relativity is just an extension of Galileian relativity: it was long known that the principles of relativity holds for Newtonian mechanics, but Einstein added that it also hold for electromagnetism.

 

And later we find Einstein discussing the consequences of his special theory of relativity, where he says:

 

”The most important result of a general character to which the special theory of relativity has led is concerned with the conception of mass. Before the advent of relativity, physics recognised two conservation laws of fundamental importance, namely the law of the conservation of energy and the law of the conservation of mass; these two fundamental laws appeared to be quite independent of each other. By means of the theory of relativity they have been united into one law. We shall now briefly consider how this unification came about, and what meaning its to be attached to it.

 

The principle of relativity requires that the law of conservation of energy should hold not only with reference to a co-ordinate system K, but also with respect to every co-ordinate system K’ which is in a state of uniform motion of translation relative to K, or, briefly, relative to every “Galileian” system of co-ordinates. In contract to classical mechanics, the Lorentz transformation is the deciding factor in the transition from one such system to another.” (emphasis added, (Albert Einstein, Relativity: The Special and the General Theory, Three Rivers Press, 1961, p51)

 

So again, “ … if one wants to consider SPECIAL relativity then one should look at frames of reference that are moving in a straight line at constant speed relative to one another. This is NOT the case with the GPS system.”

[Mac]

Is that Michelson/Morley experiment proof that light is a constant? i.e the half-silvered mirrors. Einstein quoted this as proof. I am not sure how this proves that the speed of light is the same for all frames of reference? Doesn't this just prove that SoL is a constant for a stationary reference frame?

 

If one of them pasted by the experiment at 1000 miles an hour and obtained the same result as the stationary observer then that would be proof, no?

 

I'm curious as to what other proof there is that this is even true.

 

Just to set the record straight. The M&M Experiment WAS NOT Null. Relativists claim it was but it wasn't. The truth is that it showed a definite dinural cycle consistant with space being some sort of medium. The problem was it was only a fraction of the magnitude mathematically consistant with a static or rest frame ether.

 

Miller spent a couple of decades doing a simular test at different elevations, different times of the year and collected over 200,000 data samples. They all showed the same dinural cycle but still not of a static ether.

 

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

 

This is what prompted the idea that the ether may be entrapped by a gravity field and locally travels with the planet. Millers data did show an affect with elevation. But Einstien simply claimed Miller data was due to temperature and everybody took the geniuses word for it.

 

It seems that temperature would show up in a different form than a consistant dinural cycle. Granted temperature varies dinurally but it also varies from day to day and radically over the course of a year. Millers data does not show such a temperature affect.

 

Miller specifically refuted Einstiens claim but to no avail.

 

There have been other more recent test which have shown a simular dinural cycle. All suggest if space is an ether it must be entrained by gravity and locally tends to be dragged by the planet.

 

It deserves specific testing but it won't happen since relativists are basically in charge of our scientific resources.