Einstein's Special Relativity Fails?

[Smokinjoe9]

Come on you guys, I have been following this thread for a while and find it very interesting don't ruin it now...I know there is some heat, but the majority of subject matter is quite good. Don't get off track now, PLEASE!

[TeleMad]

TeleMad: 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.

 

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

 

Why did you not clarify your position, and, why did you persiste in claiming that I was wrong? I made many, very explicit statements - even describing diagrams - of exactly what I was saying, yet you persisted in stating that I was wrong ... well, now you realize that what I was saying was right ... trivially so. If you would have paid attention to what I was actually saying, instead of stuffying your words into my mouth and telling lies and so on, you could have saved both of us a whole lot of time.

[TeleMad]

Come on you guys, I have been following this thread for a while and find it very interesting don't ruin it now...I know there is some heat, but the majority of subject matter is quite good. Don't get off track now, PLEASE!

 

YOU GUYS? Your comment should be directed to Mac. I can show that he has stuffed his words into my mouth, not once, but several different times. I can show that he has claimed I said something that is exactly opposite of what I actually said: further, when I informed him of this, he continued to state it as if it were fact, and never bothered to support his claim .. which he can't possibly do because he lied. He has stuffed multiple, self-contradictory statements into my mouth and then claimed my arguments were bogus because I was contradicting myself. And then he tries to blame for all of this?

 

Gee, I'm sorry, I'll stop ... uhm ... what? Pointing out the lowlife tactics that Mac is using? Nope, I won't stop that. The person at fault is the one doing all the wrong, not the person who points it out.

[Smokinjoe9]

I got you Telemad, I wasn't directing my statement at you, I was just enjoying the SRT argument..I here you..We will see what Mac says?

[TeleMad]

Mac: 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.

 

Let me try to make sure I have what you are saying straight. Are you saying that if a person sets two satellite clocks in identical orbits above the equator, except that one heads eastward and the other westward, then that person will find that the two orbiting clocks will have equal time dilations when measured from the frame of reference of a fixed surface clock at the equator?

 

That sure seems to naturally “fall out” of your statements. Moreover, that would directly contradict what I’ve been arguing for quite some time now (which would be that the two satellite clocks would experience different time dilations when measured from the frame of reference of the surface clock), which seems to make the current interpretation of your statements all the more valid.

 

Maybe before you answer you might want to consider the experimental evidence that supports my position on this.

 

"During October, 1971, four cesium atomic beam clocks were flown on regularly scheduled commercial jet flights around the world twice, once eastward and once westward, to test Einstein's theory of relativity with macroscopic clocks. From the actual flight paths of each trip, the theory predicted that the flying clocks, compared with reference clocks at the U.S. Naval Observatory, should have lost 40 +/- 23 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and should have gained 275 +/- 21 nanoseconds during the westward trip." (emphasis added, J. C. Hafele and R. E. Keating, Science 177, 166 (1972), as quoted at (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html)

Hmm, they predicted greatly different time dilations, roughly -40ns vs. +275ns, for an eastward trip around the world and a westward trip around the world.

 

Here's part of the logic involved in their predictions.

 

"Aircraft Time Dilation

For an aircraft flying over the equator, its clocks will show a time shift relative to a fixed surface clock which can be approximately modeled by the expression

 

Change of airborne clock compared to surface clock

 

Ta - Ts = -Ts[(2Rwv + v^2) / (2c^2)]

 

where the subscripts A and S refer to the aircraft and surface clocks. For travel eastward, v has a positive sign and the shift will be negative (aging more slowly). But for a westward flight the time shift is positive (aging faster) for the aircraft speeds involved. Hafele and Keating predicted time shifts of -184 ns for an eastward flight around the world and a shift of +96 for a westward flight."

(emphasis added, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html)

 

So now we see that Hafele and Keating made a prediction that planes flying eastward and westward would have different time shifts relative to a surface clock, and we see the general equation used to model this. But did their predictions pan out? Yes.

 

"Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59 +/- 10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273 +/- 7 nanoseconds during the westward trips, where the errors are the corresponding standard deviations. These results provide an unambiguous empirical resolution of the famous clock 'paradox' with macroscopic clocks." (emphasis added, J. C. Hafele and R. E. Keating, Science 177, 166 (1972), as quoted at (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html)

[Smokinjoe9]

Are you saying one plane flew in the direction of the rotation of the earth and one did not?

[TeleMad]

Smokinjoe9: Are you saying one plane flew in the direction of the rotation of the earth and one did not?

 

Yes.

[Smokinjoe9]

I am learning, yeah....

Aren't the clocks based on the rotation of the earth?

[Mac]

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.

 

What the hell are you blabbing about. I have made no claim. I posted the Miller information in response to your false assertion regarding "No Ether" having been proven by M&M null results.

 

You have done nothing but make referances to books on the theory as part of your support of the theory. It is you that thinks dogma and rhetoric support your view.

 

I have posed physics problems which you have failed to answer.

 

Now show us how multiple clocks moving at different relative velocities all slow equally.

[Mac]

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.

 

 

I posted this thread and it is about SRT failures. I described how GPS computes the veloicty gamma functions and even pointed out the falicy of "Relative Veloicty" per SRT.

 

You asserted I was wrong and then you began your diatribe about computing relative velocity. To now claim you did not mean your version was correct for GPS and to say you were discussing somethingelse is a flip-flop attempt to hide your embarassement of being so wrong.

[TeleMad]

Smokinjoe9: I am learning, yeah....

Aren't the clocks based on the rotation of the earth?

 

Not these. They are basically just a set of atomic clocks that were 'syncrhonized' and then split up: one stayed behind while two traveled around the world in opposite directions. When they were all brought back together again, the 'moving' atomic clocks were "out of sync" with the "stationary" one, and, the time shifts were dependent upon the direction of the planes' trips: opposite directions produced opposite effects.

 

 

Maybe I should emphasize that I am not, and have not been, discussing actual GPS, except on rare occassion. I have been talking about special relativity and what would happen between a surface clock and a satellite clock moving relative to one another. The reason I've been discussing that is Mac's original calculations are flawed, when the term relative velocity is considered to mean the velocity of one object from the other object's frame of reference, as it usually means in special relativity and in classical physics as well. The basics come before the more advanced discussion. For example, if someone wants to talk about computers' internal operations but says that 1 + 1 in binary = 110, then trying to discuss the technical aspects is premature. First, the fundamentals have to be agreed upon. With Mac (apparently) having said something analogous to 1 + 1 = 110 in binary, I was still focussing on clearing up that problem. About all I've said about GPS itself is that we really should stop talking about it if we want to discuss finer points of SPECIAL relativity (and my motion was seconded).

[Mac]

Excuse me, but here it is again.

 

 

 

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.

 

You should address the issues and stop trying to pretend there is anything wrong with the presentation. I frequently ignore minor issues which do not affect the conclusion but merely confuse the issue. Using velocity addition is a case where the velocity is under 500m/s is ludricrus.

 

But then so have been all your rebuttals.

[TeleMad]

Mac: Thank you for admitting that relative velocity did not and cannot produce differential aging of twins and that you must rely upon GR to produce the proclaimed result.

 

1) Relative velocity CAN produce differential aging, depending upon exactly what the term means. When they are in uniform motion relative to one another, either twin measures the other twin's clock to be ticking more slowly than his/her own. That's aging at different rates: that's differential aging - at least in that usage.

 

2) If you claim that general relativity - an accelerating frame of reference - is the sole cause of the twin paradox, consider this:

 

"The space-traveling twin B experiences periods of acceleration (including deceleration) in her travels, but acceleration itself cannot be the cause of the asymmetric aging of the twins. If B takes a second, longer journey at the same speed as the first journey, with similar periods of acceleration as previously, the difference in the ages of A and B is greater. Twin B ages less because of travel near the lightcones [of a spacetime diagram]; and the greater the distance traveled [in a spacetime diagrm], the greater the age difference on her return." (Cosmology: The Science of the Universe: Second Edition, Edward Harrison, Cambridge University Press, 2000, p213)

[TeleMad]

Mac: You asserted I was wrong ...

 

Because of your non-standard, and undefined, usage of the term relative velocity. Not about GPS.

 

Mac: ... and then you began your diatribe about computing relative velocity.

 

Right, because if the standard meaning is used, then your original calculation was flawed. Little sense trying to discuss the complexities of GPS if you (apparently) can't even get relative velocity right ... that was the point of sticking to that subject.

 

Ironically, I was typing out this reasoning as you were formulating your above response: both of our posts are timestamped to the same minute.

 

Mac: To now claim you did not mean your version was correct for GPS and to say you were discussing somethingelse is a flip-flop attempt to hide your embarassement of being so wrong.

 

Nope, it is as I explained just above, before I read any of your latest complaints...

 

TeleMad: Maybe I should emphasize that I am not, and have not been, discussing actual GPS, except on rare occassion. I have been talking about special relativity and what would happen between a surface clock and a satellite clock moving relative to one another. The reason I've been discussing that is Mac's original calculations are flawed, when the term relative velocity is considered to mean the velocity of one object from the other object's frame of reference, as it usually means in special relativity and in classical physics as well. The basics come before the more advanced discussion. For example, if someone wants to talk about computers' internal operations but says that 1 + 1 in binary = 110, then trying to discuss the technical aspects is premature. First, the fundamentals have to be agreed upon. With Mac (apparently) having said something analogous to 1 + 1 = 110 in binary, I was still focussing on clearing up that problem. About all I've said about GPS itself is that we really should stop talking about it if we want to discuss finer points of SPECIAL relativity (and my motion was seconded).

[TeleMad]

Mac: Using velocity addition is a case where the velocity is under 500m/s is ludricrus.

 

No it's not. In fact, YOU YOURSELF USED IT!!!! Remember, when you subtracted one velocity from another to figure out the 'relative velocity' between the two! That is addition of velocities.

 

And don't get cute and try to say that what you did wasn't addition of velocities because it used subtraction. You already said that my calculation of relative velocity that used subtraction was an example of addition of velocities, so you'd just be contradicting yourself if you do try for such 'cuteness'.

 

Also, your argument will fail if you try to say that your use of addition of velocities was okay but mine wasn't because I used relativistic addition of velocities to calculate a relative velocity. First, I originally used NON-relativistic addition of velocities to make my point about how one caluculates RELATIVE VELOCITY and what the term RELATIVE VELOCITY between two objects MEANS - the velocity of one object when measured from the other object's frame of reference. I then added a relativistic calculation to show that the method of calculating a RELATIVE VELOCITY is, in general, the same. So whether dealing with classical physics or relativistic physics, a RELATIVE VELOCITY is calculated the same general way, and the RELATIVE VELOCITY between two objects has the same meaning: the velocity of one object as measured from the other object's frame of reference.

[Mac]

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.

 

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.

 

Well, well, well. Now it becomes most clear to all. The tatic is employed by you. You interject BS and pretend it has some bearing on the issue, then later object claiming you have said no such thing.

 

 

WHAT THE HELL DO YOU CALL THIS?

 

*****************************Extracts *************************

Here

 

However, in examining possible problems of reciprocity in SPECIAL relativity, we should really STOP discussing GPS and orbits and instead switch to talking about standard uniform motion: where we perceive objects as moving in a straight line at constant speed.

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

Here

 

Stop looking at GPS for SPECIAL relativity.

 

Special relativity pertains only to reference frames in uniform motion. And when comparing two different frames in relative motion to one another, they must both be in uniform motion from both points of view. THIS DOES NOT HOLD FOR GPS.

 

Consider a clock on the Earth's surface at the equator. In its reference frame it is in uniform motion. But when it looks up at the satellite, that satellite's motion relative to the ground clock is constantly changing velocity: the ground observer sees the satellite's speed and/or direction of motion changing all the time. For example, as the satellite dips down over the horizon in its curved trajectory, both its direction and speed relative to the ground clock changes.

 

The same things happens from the perspective of the satellite clock. In it's frame of reference it is at rest, moving uniformly (free fall). But when it looks to the ground clock, the satellite sees the other clock accelerating ... NOT in uniform motion.

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

Here

 

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.”

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

 

Now answer the physics question of how you have multiple clocks (3 or more) slow equally so as to maintain reciprocity advocated by and inherent in Special Relativity. That requires each clock to tick at multiple rates. NONSENSE.

[C1ay]

Is this a civil debate or a flame war?