Einstein's Special Relativity Fails?

[Mac]

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.

 

Funny. I state that you are eluding to "Velocity Addition". You reply "No" that you are talking about "Relative Velocity". Then you post the "Velocity Addition" formula. :o You do know that is what it is called do you not?

 

 

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.

 

My calculation is stated clearly. AND IT IS NOT THE RELATIVE VELOCITY BETWEEN THE SURFACE AND ORBIT. That has been the point. It is the differential gamma of local absolute velocity that yields the correct time dilation. Not the relative velocity of SRT which you continue to want to apply even though it is physical fact that it is not used in GPS and does not mathematically work.

 

Do you have a learning disability? e all know how to read physics books and understand what they say but you need to learn that you do not evaluate nor prove a theory by merely reciting the theory.

 

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!

 

How clear do you want it. I stated the orbit velocity. I stated the gamma and time dilation it produces. I stated the surface veloicty and stated the gamma and time dilation it produces. I stated what the "Relative Velocity" per SRT would be and stated that gamma and the time dilation it calculates.

 

I then stated which one matches the GPS method and emperical value and it IS NOT SRT.

 

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

 

So then according to you GPS is non-standard physics. :shrug:

 

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

 

I wrap key components of a discussion in "" to emphasize the distinction. i.e "Relative Velocity" (per SRT) or "Relative Absolute Velocity" (per GPS).

 

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.

 

But you clearly said "Stop using GPS, you MUST use straight line constant motion". You by that are infering that orbit is an accelerated frame and non-inertial, otherwise there is no reason to not use it. You can't have it both ways.

 

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

 

FYI I do not lie and do not make up lies. I do expose lies by clarifying what people say when they attempt to skirt an issues using innuendo, appeal to authority and/or rhetoric.

 

"Velocity Additon" is not used in GPS period.

[Mac]

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

 

If you want to back peddle I can understand. But the fact is you repeated several times that we should buy such and such a book on relativity because it explained how I was wrong about GPS and relativity (SRT) applied.

 

I have paraphrased your posts not quoted them but that doesn't alter the content.

[Mac]

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.

 

First you have not shown any such lack of contridiction.

 

Secondly you can now say "Whatever" becuse it becomes most clear that you cannot (nor can anybody) cause a clock to slow at two different rates to accomadate two different observer clocks with different relative veloicty.

 

That is the crux of the issue. SRT is based on a false and restricted view of the universe assuming only two objects exists. The real world is different multiple objects exist and SRT cannot be physical fact. It only appears correct in very limited "One Way" gamma calculations where the observer clock is at rest locally to the third common rest frame.

 

It does not work when considering reciproicty (advocated and inherent in the theory) nor when considering multiple objects in relative motion simultaneously; which is the case in the real world and not the fantasy world of Einstien.

 

Please don't mention "Relativity of Simulatenity". To be relative motion such motion MUST be concurrent. (Simultaneous).

[Mac]

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.

 

So then you have interjected irrelevant information into the discussion. For what purpose?

[Mac]

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

 

 

Try "That is not what GPS does nor should it do. No wonder you are lost."

 

Now if you like I'll begin to pick on your typo's and grammer as well.

[Mac]

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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.

 

Then why did you persist in claiming that was relative velocity and not the correct method which I presented being the perpheral velocities?

 

Seems you like to argue for the sake of arguing or perhaps thinking you are showing your stuff and know so much. Well the method I used is the method used in GPS and is the only method that works correctly which EXCLUDES SRT. So why are you arguing?

[Mac]

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.

 

If that is the case you have my opology but that has not been my interpretation of your arguements. You have clearly posted irrelevant information challenging my statements; which makes it appear to have the meanings I have paraphrased.

 

If you do not have points directly relevant to the discussion, I'd prefer you not raise them since they only confuse the issue.

[Mac]

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

 

 

 

 

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:

 

 

 

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.”

 

Funny I thought Einstien died before we had GPS. Your referance is moot since GPS is current and disproves Einstien's assumptions.

[Mac]

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

 

False

 

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.

 

False.

 

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.

 

Good recital of the dogma but not of the facts.

 

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.

 

 

False: See Einstein quotes just below the audio of Einstien's speech.

 

http://groups.msn.com/McCoinUniKEFTheory/einsteinswords.msnw

 

Why is it so many people lie about what M&M showed and Einstein said. It is obvious to anybody that chooses to think and not just fall in line and follow, that space has physical characteristics. Permittivity and Permeability. Virtual particles come into existance from it and it is known to posses extreme energy density. Further one cannot justify claiming "Nothingness" can be curved or contracted. It is sheer nonsense.

 

Free Space Permittivity o = 8.854 x 10-12 C/(Vm) F/m

Free Space Permeability o = 4 x 10-7 Vs2/(Cm) H/m

 

Lastly everbody should remember that "Absence of Evidence" does not equate to "Evidence of Absence".

 

The Postulates of Relativity are based on "Absence of Evidence" combined with unsupported assumptions regarding the apparent invariance of the SOL. The RCM (and UniKEF) view radically alter the universal conclusions by reinterpreting the invariance paradox.

 

RCM Theory:

 

http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/german1/german1.doc

 

Antimated illustrations of functions of Relativity and RCM along with test proposals.

 

http://renshaw.teleinc.com/

 

UniKEF view:

 

UniKEF exists in the form of an RCM field and the creation or observation of a photon is a quantum energy phenomena wherein the motion of the observer relative to the excitation source of the field alters the time and place that the photon appears.

 

It is simular to Cerenkov Radiation which is light caused by particles exceeding the speed of light in a medium. Conventional light then would be an energy phenomena associated with transmission of an energy wave in excess of 'c' in a vacuum. Where photon generation is either delayed or expedited depending on the observers velocity +/- relative to the excitation source.

 

In this view light is simular to a dimensional binding energy release as objects cease to exist in this dimension by Lorentz Contraction when relative velocity = > c.

 

The illusion of invariance of photon velocity does not carry with it the physical consequences of actual invariance of velocity by a photon. If you are not seeing the same photon all physical consequences assumed are null and void. Relativity is then based on a flawed interpretation of the SOL.

[TeleMad]

Mac: 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

 

What in God's name are you doing? Are you actually referencing someone else to support your claim? You aren't doing physics!

 

Interesting double standard you use Mac.

[TeleMad]

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

 

…

 

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: Funny. I state that you are eluding to "Velocity Addition". You reply "No" that you are talking about "Relative Velocity". Then you post the "Velocity Addition" formula.

 

Yeah, so? What I was discussing was RELATIVE VELOCITY, just as I said. I used a version of relativistic addition of velocity to solve for the RELATIVE VELOCITY between two frames. Get it? What I was discussing is different from what I used to make my point. Get it? What you said I was discussing, I was not.

[TeleMad]

TeleMad: 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.

 

Mac: My calculation is stated clearly. AND IT IS NOT THE RELATIVE VELOCITY BETWEEN THE SURFACE AND ORBIT.

 

Excuse me, but here it is again.

 

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.

 

Using the standard meaning of relative velocity, your statements indicate that a clock at the equator would measure a velocity of 3,410.7 m/s for the orbiting clock; that the orbiting clock’s velocity is 3,410.7 m/s from the surface clock’s frame of reference.

 

If you meant some other usage for relative velocity you should have explicitly stated so, explaining what you meant.

[TeleMad]

TeleMad: 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: But you clearly said "Stop using GPS, you MUST use straight line constant motion".

 

ANOTHER distortion! Damned boy, will you ever stop stuffing your words into my mouth?

 

Now, show us where I clearly said that. You can't, because I didn't.

 

 

Mac: You can't have it both ways.

 

And I don't claim to.

 

It's a 'great' tactic you keep using Mac. You stuff words into my mouth and then claim that I am contradicting myself.

[TeleMad]

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

 

Mac: FYI I do not lie and do not make up lies.

 

Yes you do. The evidence is here for all to see.

 

You've said, on more than one occassion, that I said X, when in fact I did not say X. In fact, you went further to say that I said X and !X, using underhanded tactics - like telling lies - to fabricate a supposed contradiction in my statements.

 

You lie.

[TeleMad]

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

 

Mac: If you want to back peddle I can understand.

 

I haven't backpeddled a bit. And even if I had, you could show us that I did. But you didn't, and you can't, becuase I haven't backpeddled.

 

What HAS happened is that you lied. I pointed it out. You're cold busted. You lose.

 

Mac: If you want to continue telling lies ...

 

You are the one who has told lies, not me. I've pointed them out: I've supported my charges against you, but you are just fabricating more BS against me.

 

 

Mac: But the fact is you repeated several times that we should buy such and such a book on relativity because it explained how I was wrong about GPS and relativity (SRT) applied.

 

FALSE!!!! YOU ARE ONCE AGAIN TRYING TO STUFF YOUR WORDS INTO MY MOUTH!!!

 

What is that, like a dozen times?

 

Are you a habitual liar? The evidence if piling up in support of such.

 

Mac: I have paraphrased your posts not quoted them but that doesn't alter the content.

 

FALSE! I wouldn't complain if all you did was paraphrase me while maintaining my content. But that is ABSOLUTELY NOT what you have done. Your versions of my statements are very different from what I actually said, and you manipulate them at will to create the illusion of self-contradiction in what I say.

 

You lie.

[TeleMad]

Mac: Please don't mention "Relativity of Simulatenity". To be relative motion such motion MUST be concurrent. (Simultaneous).

 

The term is quite appropriate, and is not something I made up. A Google search on it returns 5,520 hits.

[TeleMad]

TeleMad: 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.

 

Mac: So then you have interjected irrelevant information into the discussion. For what purpose?

 

Let me get this straight. You lie, distort, and stuff your words into my mouth, and then it is somehow my fault? Wow, you're messed up in the head dude. Time for you to seek professional help.