Einstein's Special Relativity Fails?

[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". 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.

 

TeleMad: 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 [have it both ways].

 

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

 

Mac: 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 *************************

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.

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

 

I don't know, what the hell do YOU call that?

 

That statement of mine doesn’t contradict my other statement, nor does it validate your distortion of my original statement. Can you show us where I said we MUST – which is your word, and your capitalized emphasis - use straight ling constant motion? Nope, you can’t, because I didn’t say that.

 

But it does hold that if we want to examine problems dealing with SPECIAL relativity then we should switch to talking about standard uniform motion: where we perceive objects as moving in a straight line at constant speed. Even good old Albert Einstein would probably agree with me on this…

 

Albert Einstein: ”In order to attain the greatest possible clearness …

 

followed by his mentioning time and time again uniform translation of one reference frame to another.

 

GPS includes things like orbital motion and gravitational affects, which overly complicate the issues and muddy the waters. If someone wants to look at SPECIAL relativity, then they should look at a system that displays the simplest properties of special relativity, without all of the excess and extraneous baggage. Muddy waters or greatest possible clearness? GPS or reference frames in uniform motion to one another?

 

PS: More to follow....

[TeleMad]

Not a duplicate post ... new topic addressed for same exchanges.

 

I noticed that you selectively quoted from our exchanges to change context.

 

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". 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.

 

Note your logic. You are asserting, no, Reasserting - based on your inability to understand English - that I said orbit is non-inertial. I said no such thing.

 

In my original reply to you on this, I split your TWO sentences up and responded to each separately because they consist of TWO separate distortions of what I’ve said: but the two should also be taken together to get a fuller context.

 

Now, about your TWO distortions packed into TWO sentences.

 

In my last post, I addressed the main flaw in your first sentence’s distortion, which hinges on YOUR choice of the ABSOLUTE word MUST – as opposed to my actual word, SHOULD – and your emphasis on MUST, overdoing your distortion.

 

As far as you second distortion, I mentioned it above: you were stuffing into my mouth words that are DIRECTLY OPPOSITE to what I actually said.

[TeleMad]

Is this a civil debate or a flame war?

 

If you read through Mac's last couple dozen posts it looks like a flame war.

 

If you read through my last couple dozens posts I am complaining about how Mac has stuffed his words into my mouth, how he has also fabricated self-contradictory statements and shoved them into my mouth, how he has stuffed EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what I ACTUALLY said statements into my mouth, how he has CONTINUED to claim I said something I didn't, even after I explicitly told him otherwise, and so on.

 

Oh, and occassionally, something about the actual topics.

[C1ay]

If you read through Mac's last couple dozen posts it looks like a flame war.

 

If you read through my last couple dozens posts I am complaining about how Mac has stuffed his words into my mouth, how he has also fabricated self-contradictory statements and shoved them into my mouth, how he has stuffed EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what I ACTUALLY said statements into my mouth, how he has CONTINUED to claim I said something I didn't, even after I explicitly told him otherwise, and so on.

I've read through the posts and not pointed any fingers. I just thought I'd speak up before it turned into a usenet type discussion.

[C1ay]

For the sake of reference, Relativity: The Special and General Theory is available online in it's entirety at Bartleby's.

[Buffy]

Is this a civil debate or a flame war?

Well, its obviously heated, but Freethinker could pop more gaskets than we've seen in this thread. I'm enjoying watching it myself and as long as there's no physical damage, I'd let em play C1ay.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[TeleMad]

Found this a while back in the thread. My quotes about the Hafele and Keating flying atomic clocks experiment would seem to directly contradict Mac's claims.

 

Mac: In fact if you put two clocks in orbits which are equatorial, one ging east and one going west, each moving at 20Km/sec (excluding Velocity Addition) your method would claim they have a relative veloicty of 40Km/sec. The facts are for time dilation purposes they have the same velocity and each will stay synchronized with each other. HOW ABOUT THAT YOU ARE WRONG AFTER ALL.

 

So you are saying that their time dilations will be identical when measured from a fixed surface clock? You must be since you are claiming I am (supposedly) wrong. If you are saying anything else, then your example doesn't show me to be wrong. So take you pick: either your counter is rejected, or you are wrong. Which will it be?

[Mac]

Is this a civil debate or a flame war?

 

It was a discussion of SRT and GPS but unfortunately Telmad chooses to insert crap and to make personal attacks. I have resisted my normal response to such tactics but to summarize:

 

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.

 

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

Here is where he said it.

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.”

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

 

Yet he even continued to deny having said it even after I posted the link showing where he said it. It is outrageous.

 

And yet he chooses to repeatedly call me a liar (which I damn well do not appreciate) and it should be obvious to all that he has repeatedly flip-flopped, interjected surpurflous irrelevant crap, and lies. If he can't address the physics issue, I have nothing further to say to him.

[TeleMad]

Back to an issue from the very beginning of the thread.

 

Mac: In General Relativity it is claimed that gravity affects time and slows time in higher gravity fields.

 

TeleMad: Gravity does dilate time and this has been demonstrated experimentally.

 

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

”To an observer looking toward a region of strong gravity, the effect is to see time running slower in that region. This is called gravitational time dilation.

 

1. In a very sensitive experiment at Harvard in 1960, physicists used nuclear radiation to verify gravitational time dilation, effectively measuring differences in the rate of time over a distance of a mere 74 vertical feet.

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

 

The source goes on to list 3 other ways it’s been verified.

 

If you want a fuller explanation, buy the source (which I gave above in my first post in this thread) and watch lecture 14: Curved Spacetime.

 

No response from Mac.

[TeleMad]

Mac conveniently has nothing to say to me just after I posted...

 

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 conveniently has nothing to say to me just after I posted...

 

 

Back to an issue from the very beginning of the thread.

 

Mac: In General Relativity it is claimed that gravity affects time and slows time in higher gravity fields.

 

TeleMad: Gravity does dilate time and this has been demonstrated experimentally.

 

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

”To an observer looking toward a region of strong gravity, the effect is to see time running slower in that region. This is called gravitational time dilation.

 

1. In a very sensitive experiment at Harvard in 1960, physicists used nuclear radiation to verify gravitational time dilation, effectively measuring differences in the rate of time over a distance of a mere 74 vertical feet.

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

 

The source goes on to list 3 other ways it’s been verified.

 

If you want a fuller explanation, buy the source (which I gave above in my first post in this thread) and watch lecture 14: Curved Spacetime.

[TeleMad]

Mac conveniently has nothing to say to me just after I posted...

 

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.ed...tiv/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.ed...tiv/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.ed...tiv/airtim.html)

[C1ay]

Well, its obviously heated, but Freethinker could pop more gaskets than we've seen in this thread. I'm enjoying watching it myself and as long as there's no physical damage, I'd let em play C1ay.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

I am. I was only reminding them that others are watching. Sometimes it helps to keep loud rhetoric from turning into explosive rhetoric....

[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.

 

Thanks for making my point. Adding or subtracting is certainly not the same "addition of velocities" as the relavistic "Velocity Addition" formula. Your response to my above statement is shear assinine. I have not once used velocity addition and you even prejudge your post by suggesting I not be cute and try to deny it.

 

Well you can go stroke yourself and play all the word games you want. I take the failure of relativity seriously, if you don't that is your perogative (and mistake). But to assert adding and subtracting is "Velocity Addition" in a thread dedicated to the discussion of relativity is inexcusseable.

 

Or do you just not know any better.?

[Mac]

Back to an issue from the very beginning of the thread.

 

No response from Mac.

 

 

Is this comment supposed to have any meaning? Why should I comment.

 

1 - I see no issue to comment about. You seem to be suggeting that I reject GR. I merely stated what GR claims.

 

2 - This thread is about the failure of SRT as demonstrated by GPS and the absolute impossibility of reciproicty as advocated by SRT.

 

You cannot goad me into responding to off topic BS and false innuendo.

 

You seem to have had a free reign around here to play word games and interject irrelevant crap into discussions and to repeatedly make attacks on persons. I don't get lead around like that. Either stay on topic or butt out.

[TeleMad]

Mac stuffing words into my mouth #1

This one is Mac stuffing, basically, “orbits aren’t inertial” into my mouth.

 

Here’s my first reference to orbit being free fall and inertial.

 

 

Mac [to someone else]: You are incorrect to assert that orbit is not an inertial frame.

 

 

TeleMad: From their own frames of reference, each of (1) a ground clock and (2) a satellite, is in uniform motion. BUT, they are not in uniform motion relative to each other. At each moment their relative velocity, one to the other, keeps changing.

 

Here’s my second one, post #124.

 

Mac: So far those here that defend Special Relativity have said:

 

1 - SR and GR are integral and necessary parts of the adjusment to make GPS work.

 

But when confronted with the issue of reciprocity;

 

2 - They now want to claim that orbit is non-inertial and SR and reciprocity do not apply.

 

 

 

TeleMad: I'll assume that your (2) is referencing what I've said. If so, you are wrong.

 

I have NOT said that orbital motion is non-inertial. A free falling (free floating) reference frame is inertial (well, it's about as close to being truly interial as possible) according to GENERAL RELATIVITY (that is, the equivalence principle that is the basis for much of general relativity).

 

What I have said is that the relative motion between (1) a ground based clock at the equator, and (2) an orbiting satellite with a period of 12 hrs, is not uniform, even though each one individually is interial. That is, from either reference frame the other reference frame is observed to be accelerating. Do you deny that? I hope not.

 

 

It’s not clear that Mac was referring to me initially. But in post 146 Mac does stuff words into my mouth saying that orbit is not inertial.

 

Mac: The GPS clocks are in uniform motion inspite of your statements to the contrary the orbits are considered "Inertial" (force free free-fall) and those clocks tick rate are slower due to their velocity, not due to forces of acceleration or GR.

 

This is exactly opposite of what I DID say. I said that orbits are inertial; Mac claims I said that orbits are not inertial.

 

Mac later restated his distortion of reality, in post 171.

 

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.

 

What he is stating about orbit and free-fall and being an inertial frame, is what I stated .. but he is saying I am wrong? He is claiming I said !X when I actually said X.

 

And finally, in post #178, I make it extra clear to Mac what he has been doing.

 

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

 

 

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: Do some reading before posting again.

 

 

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

 

And in post #188 Mac pathetically tries to justify his actions.

 

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". 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.

 

1) Failed logic

2) Ignores my explicit statements that I have not said orbit is not inertial

3) Ignores my several explicit statements that orbit is inertial.

 

Mac wrongly interpreted some of my statements – HIS fault – and then continued to claim I said something I didn’t even after I informed him of the fact.

[Mac]

Found this a while back in the thread. My quotes about the Hafele and Keating flying atomic clocks experiment would seem to directly contradict Mac's claims.

 

 

 

So you are saying that their time dilations will be identical when measured from a fixed surface clock? You must be since you are claiming I am (supposedly) wrong. If you are saying anything else, then your example doesn't show me to be wrong. So take you pick: either your counter is rejected, or you are wrong. Which will it be?

 

Perhaps you should broaden your reading material. If you do nothing but read books about relativity you certainly will know nothing about physics other than what they claim according to relativity.

 

 

***** Extract - Hafele Secret Memo to US Navy after the Atomic Clock Tests*******

 

http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/16133.htm

 

"Most people (myself included) would be reluctant to agree that the time

gained by any one of these clocks is indicative of anything .... the

difference between theory and experiment is disturbing."

 

- Hafele, Secret United States Naval Observatory internal report, 1971.

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

 

Obtained by A G Kelly two decades later under the Freedom of Information

Act.

 

http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/H&KPaper.htm

 

http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/quest.htm