Einstein's Special Relativity Fails?

[TeleMad]

Post 146 Mac stuffs not one, but two statements into my mouth. Worse, they are self-contradictory.

 

Mac: Now for the record. You have taken several different positions here. Which is it now?

 

1 - SR is required and part of GPS or;

 

2 - SR does not apply in GPS?

 

And I point this out to Mac in post 160: I had not yet read his above post. This is in reply to another instance of him stuffing the words into my mouth.

 

Mac: You started your replies in this thread arguing that SR and GR were part of and required for GPS to function.

 

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

 

Then, in post 165 I made it all the more clear, after reading yet another of his posts that stuff words into my mouth.

 

Mac: Now for the record. You have taken several different positions here. Which is it now?

 

1 - SR is required and part of GPS or;

 

2 - SR does not apply in GPS?

 

 

 

TeleMad: Your "record" is wrong.

 

For the record, I have not stated your #1 at all in this thread.

 

For the record, I have not stated your #2. You must be confusing what I actually said with what you claim I said, overlooking the fine points that separate the two positions.

 

Despite my twice saying, quite clearly and explicitly, that Mac has stuffed words into my mouth concerning these, he continues to do so…

 

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.

 

In post 176 Mac responds by wrongly claiming my pointing out that he stuffed words into my mouth is false.

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

And I again (post #179) point out that Mac has stuffed words into my mouth.

 

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.

 

 

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

 

And so on.

 

Notice that at no time did Mac support his assertion that I said these things.

[TeleMad]

And then Mac started stuffing a new claim into my mouth. I pointed this out in post #181.

 

Mac: 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.

 

 

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]

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

 

 

 

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:

 

Don't think you can goad me into debating irrelevant issues. But for your information what this or that book says means jack ****. I have explained to you that you cannot prove a theory by quoting the theory. Now talk physics.

 

Explain physically how you propose to get multiple (3 or more) clocks to tick equally more slow maintaining reciprocity between such clocks when they have multiple relative velocities.

[TeleMad]

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

 

Off topic BS? LOL! So are you saying that the following is off topic BS?

 

 

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

 

Actually one should think more in terms of "Clock Dilation" and not "Time Dilation". That is there is no clock that actually measures something identified or called time. All clocks actually merely mark the time interval at some frequency by various energy processes.

 

A change in such clocks frequency no more alters time than having the battery in my timex getting low and my watch slowing down.

 

Take an atomic clock and a pendulum grandfathers clock and calibrate them and synchronize them in LA, at sea level. Now move them to Denver, Colorado. What happens?

 

The atomic clock speeds up, the GF clock slows down. Has gravity affected time or just affected clock processes?

 

So all those statements of yours in your thread-starting post are off topic BS! Ouch! Does it hurt when you shoot yourself in the foot! :-)

 

 

Mac: 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.

 

Well gee, Mac, what IS on topic? Apparently, it's NOT what you said in your thread-starting post!!!! LOL!!!!

[Mac]

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.

 

Here’s my second one, post #124.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

You know what, I won't waste my time back tracking to find where you have said orbit was an accelerated frame but you damn well said or implied it. Yes you have also said the contrary. Just as I have shown you flip flop all over the place. Whenever you get boxed in you switch positions and then argue about what you have said. I don't care to waste my time.

 

Now stop whinning and give straight answers. Explain how you propose to make multiple (3 or more) clocks dilate (slow down) equally so as to maintain reciprocity advocated by SRT when such clocks have multiple relative velocities.

[TeleMad]

Mac: You know what, I won't waswte my time back tracking to find where you have said orbit was an accelerated frame...

 

Translation: Damn, I'm busted. Better pretend like I could support my position.

 

Tell you what, Mac, I'll make it worth your time. Find anywhere in this thread where I actually stated that oribt is NOT inertial and I'll give you $100. "Verbal" contract. I'm serious.

 

Of course you CAN'T. You literally CAN'T.

 

Better yet, I'll make it worth ANYONE's time. The first person who shows where I actually stated in this thread that orbit is NOT inertial, I'll give $100. "Verbal" contract.

 

 

PS: Note you have to find me saying that orbit is not inertial: period. My saying that orbit is inertial, but pointing out the technicality that it is not absolutely inertial, doesn't count, because there are issues with tidal forces, just as Mac himself stated.

 

Note also that you have to find me saying that orbit is not inertial in a way that is clearly in error. Otherwise, one hasn't shown that I actually said what Mac asserts I said.

 

Also, the quote must come from a post of mine in this thread that precedes this one.

 

Also, there is a difference between what is typed and what is meant; that is, between what is typed and what is being said. Context must be taken into account.

 

This is getting silly. Someone, like Mac, could completely twist things - taking things out of context, igoring relevant facts, considering what is typed without taking meaning into account, and so on. He could claim to have supported his position without actually having done so. Basically, there are so many restrictions and possible loopholes - even with something this simple! - that without a lawyer present, the whole thing becomes meaningless. So at this time I withdraw the monetary portion of it.

 

Mac: ... but yo damn well said or implied it.

 

Liar.

 

Mac: Yes you have also said the contrary.

 

Nope, I have ONLY said the contrary.

 

Mac: Now stop whinning and give straight answers.

 

I'll stop complaining about your telling lies, when stop telling lies.

 

You lied. You CONTINUE to lie.

[TeleMad]

Mac: Explain how you propose to make multiple (3 or more) clocks dilate (slow down) equally so as to maintain reciprocity advocated by SRT when such clocks have multiple relative velocities.

 

But Mac daddy, that's not the topic of this thread ... remember? I don't see GPS mentioned in there anywhere.

 

You keep flip-flopping on what allowed topics of discussion are.

 

I guess I'd better ask. Can I address what you spent many sentences discussion, in your thread-starting post, about general relativity? One would think that would be on topic, but gee, you claimed it was off topic.

 

Please make up your mind.

[Mac]

READERS:

 

Does anybody here give a **** about Telmads whinning and distortions. Lets get back to something that is worthwhile. He floods this board with horseshit and wastes time agrguing for arguments sake. I have better things to do.

[Smokinjoe9]

Mac, I have followed the link you gave and find it very interesting. This is what I have been talking about...what happens if the scientific world finds out they have been barking up the wrong tree...PLEASE, do not yell at me, I am just stating my opinion. 1 error builds exponentially. I think it has to be flawless 100% not sort of'...

[Mac]

Translation: Damn, I'm busted. Better pretend like I could support my position.

 

Tell you what, Mac, I'll make it worth your time. Find anywhere in this thread where I actually stated that oribt is NOT inertial and I'll give you $100. "Verbal" contract. I'm serious.

 

Of course you CAN'T. You literally CAN'T.

 

Better yet, I'll make it worth ANYONE's time. The first person who shows where I actually stated in this thread that orbit is NOT inertial, I'll give $100. "Verbal" contract.

 

 

PAY UP YOU LOUD MOUTH MF.

 

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

 

Here

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

For example you may wish to argue that the satelite clock should see the Earth clock run slow.

 

Which isn't special relativity because for each frame of reference, the other is not in uniform motion.

 

BUt it will be argued that they are no longer inertial frames...

 

Not argued, pointed out as fact.

[TeleMad]

Mac: Thanks for making my point.

 

You're weird. You think you've won? You don't have a clue, do you?

 

Mac: Adding or subtracting is certainly not the same "addition of velocities" as the relavistic "Velocity Addition" formula.

 

So? I didn't say it was.

 

ARE YOU TRYING TO STUFF YET MORE OF YOUR WORDS INTO MY MOUTH?

 

Mac: Your response to my above statement is shear assinine.

 

Actually, it's quite accurate. That you don't recognize that shows us how little you know.

 

Mac: I have not once used velocity addition ...

 

Yes you did, when you subtracted one clock's velocity from another velocity to calculate the relative velocity between the surface clock and the satellite clock. Remember?

 

With all your posturing, and vacuous, loud mouth, in your face, attitude - all the while your posts are completely lacking in science and details - it's difficult for me to pinpoint exactly where your ignorance lies, but it's clear it's there somewhere. I'm guessing from the exchanges that you don't think there is no such thing as a classical addition of velocities. If so, you're wrong. The general processes and equations are the same in both classical and relativistic physics, the only difference being that addition of a relativistic “correction factor” in the relativistic form.

 

”Addition of Velocities

 

…

 

Figure 5.4 shows the world line of a moving object from the point of view of two different reference frames, with the primed frame (left panel) moving to the right at speed relative to the unprimed frame (right panel). The goal is to calculate the velocity of the object relative to the unprimed frame, assuming its velocity in the primed frame, is known. The classical result is simply:

 

v = U + v’ (classical result)

 

However, this is inconsistent with the speed of light being constant in all reference frames…

 

…

 

Substituting equations (5.19), (5.20), and (5.21) into equation (5.17) and simplifying yields the relativistic velocity addition formula:

 

v = [u + v’] / (1 + Uv’/c^2) (special relativity)

(http://www.physics.nmt.edu/~raymond/classes/ph13xbook/node54.html)

 

We even have none other than the world's greatest physicist who ever lived – Einstein, who gave us one of the most well verified theories in all of science, the theory of special relativity! – mentioning a classical addition of velocities.

 

”In Section VI we derived the theorem of the addition of velocities in one direction in the form which also results from the hypotheses of classical mechanics. This theorem can also be deduced readily from the Galilei transformation (Section XI). “ (http://www.bartleby.com/173/13.html)

 

And more…

 

If I walk from the back to the front of a train at 3 m.p.h., and the train is traveling at 60 m.p.h., then my speed relative to the ground is 63 m.p.h. As we have seen, this obvious truth, the addition of velocities, follows from the Galilean transformations. (http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/adding_vels.html)

 

And so on.

 

Maybe you’d learn more physics if you put down your conspiracy theory, anarchist pamphlets and started reading some physics material! :-)

[TeleMad]

Mac: READERS:

 

Does anybody here give a **** about Telmads whinning and distortions.

 

What a lowlife act. You lie, you distort, you stuff words into my mouth, and I am somehow the bad guy?

 

Grow up Mac, you pathetic liar.

[Mac]

Telmad,

 

You have repeatedly said orbit is not uniform motion relative to the surface and that SRT doesn't apply.

 

What this actually shows is that you have no actual understanding of physics since you confuse angular velocity (period) with true velocity which is perpheral and is uniform and is the velocity which produces time dilation.

 

You have demonstrated only that you have read some books and can recite what others say but you are unable to apply those statements to real physical situations and seem totally confused about physics.

 

You want to avoid commenting about what Einstien actually said about "Aether" and merely mimic modern day physicist's dogma; which is false and refer to books advocating relativity theory. Before continuing to pretend to being knowledgable on the subject let me suggest you actually learn some physics so that you can converse from first hand understanding.

 

You want to spend your time claiming others lie and that you haven't said things you have said. I have just pointed out two specific posts where you in fact said what I said you said.

 

I'll not waste further time chasing you around arguing with you about issues that are irrelevant. If you don't want your words to come back an haunt you let me suggest you post a bit more slowly after having given some consideration to what you are saying.

 

You seem to think relativity is absolutely correct in all respects and therefore you have ready answers to any issues rasied against it. It is wrong and that makes you wrong. Be prepared to be called to the carpet at a physics level if you continue to make such outrageous claims.

 

Now explain to us by more than your "Whatever" response to the issue of having multiple clocks (3 or more) run equally slow so as to maintain reciprocity according to SRT when such clocks have multiple relative velocities.

 

You will not be allowed to side step this issue by whinning you didn't say this or that or that you meant somethingelse. Just answer the damn question. It is clearly stated.

 

Give a clear answer or admit you have none.

 

 

My comments about GR in the opening was a foot note which existed in the original writeup. The issue underdiscussion is and has been SRT, Reciprocity and GPS. I'll be more than glad to discuss GR in another thread.

 

You refused to answer the geosynchronous orbit question. That question was designed to point out to you that the term you were calling relative velocity was not the operative velocity. In a geosynchronous orbit the orbit clock will indeed dilate due to velocity of orbit relative to velocity of the surface rotation even though in your view there would be no relative velocity.

 

But more importantly the time dilation will not be Gamma of V3 = V2 - V1. It will be (basically) based on Gamma Effective = Gamma1/Gamma2 and not relative velocity of the surface vs velocity of orbit.

 

Now hopefully you can begin to stick to the issue and discuss physics.

[Mac]

You're weird. You think you've won? You don't have a clue, do you?

 

So? I didn't say it was.

 

ARE YOU TRYING TO STUFF YET MORE OF YOUR WORDS INTO MY MOUTH?

 

Actually, it's quite accurate. That you don't recognize that shows us how little you know.

 

Yes you did, when you subtracted one clock's velocity from another velocity to calculate the relative velocity between the surface clock and the satellite clock. Remember?

 

With all your posturing, and vacuous, loud mouth, in your face, attitude - all the while your posts are completely lacking in science and details - it's difficult for me to pinpoint exactly where your ignorance lies, but it's clear it's there somewhere. I'm guessing from the exchanges that you don't think there is no such thing as a classical addition of velocities. If so, you're wrong. The general processes and equations are the same in both classical and relativistic physics, the only difference being that addition of a relativistic “correction factor” in the relativistic form.

 

We even have none other than the world's greatest physicist who ever lived – Einstein, who gave us one of the most well verified theories in all of science, the theory of special relativity! – mentioning a classical addition of velocities.

 

And more…

 

And so on.

 

Maybe you’d learn more physics if you put down your conspiracy theory, anarchist pamphlets and started reading some physics material! :-)

 

Enough of your petty BS crap. Others here I believe are interested in the issue.

 

Just answer the question. Explain how you cause multiple clocks (3 or more) to dilate equally while maintaing reciprocity according to SRT when they have multiple relative velocities.

 

Your post makes it clear what the problem is here. You see this as a contest. It isn't. It is supposed to be a discussion.

[Mac]

What a lowlife act. You lie, you distort, you stuff words into my mouth, and I am somehow the bad guy?

 

Grow up Mac, you pathetic liar.

 

To moderators of this forum. I formally protest this loud mouth SOB's repeated false allegations that I have lied and continue to lie. I have in fact gone back and posted links showing exactly where he made certain statements twice. It is not I that am lying and distorting.

 

He is and if he continues his assaults this will escalate. He seems incapable of acknowledging his errors and is frustrated that he can't answer my challenge but that is no excuse for his conduct.

 

He seems to be nothing more than a smart mouth troll.

[TeleMad]

TeleMad: Tell you what, Mac, I'll make it worth your time. Find anywhere in this thread where I actually stated that oribt is NOT inertial and I'll give you $100. "Verbal" contract. I'm serious.

 

Of course you CAN'T. You literally CAN'T.

 

Better yet, I'll make it worth ANYONE's time. The first person who shows where I actually stated in this thread that orbit is NOT inertial, I'll give $100. "Verbal" contract.

 

 

PS: Note you have to find me saying that orbit is not inertial: period. My saying that orbit is inertial, but pointing out the technicality that it is not absolutely inertial, doesn't count, because there are issues with tidal forces, just as Mac himself stated.

 

Mac: PAY UP YOU LOUD MOUTH MF.

 

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

 

 

quantum quack: For example you may wish to argue that the satelite clock should see the Earth clock run slow.

 

TeleMad: Which isn't special relativity because for each frame of reference, the other is not in uniform motion.

 

quantum quack: BUt it will be argued that they are no longer inertial frames...

 

TeleMad: Not argued, pointed out as fact.

 

Pointed out as fact because, as I had just said in the preceding statement, “for each frame of reference, the other is not in uniform motion”. Pick one frame and from within it, observe the other: the second will be accelerating, and in a non-orbital way (in other words, the satellite isn’t orbiting around the surface clock).

 

That should be enough, but I’ll go into it some more. Each of the two frames of reference can itself be considered inertial (the surface clock’s less so than an orbiting clock’s), but when we look at one of the frames from the other, they are no longer inertial frames.

 

Take the surface clock’s frame, for example. A surface clock at the equator does NOT see a satellite with an orbital period of 12 hours as being in uniform motion. From the surface clock’s frame of reference, the satellite’s frame rises up from one horizon at one point in time, travels in an arched path across the sky, and then falls below the opposite horizon at a later point in time: sometimes the two frames (their velocity vectors) are headed in the same direction and some times the two frames (their velocity vectors) are headed in opposite directions. So relative to the surface clock’s frame, the motion of the satellite frame continually changes: that’s not uniform motion – it’s not a uniform translation of one frame relative to another – that’s acceleration. And because the satellite frame is accelerating with respect to the surface frame, from the surface clocks’ frame of reference, the law of inertia does not hold for the satellite’s. Imagine a person in the satellite who holds a ball out at arm’s length and then simply releases it. What happens? In the satellite’s own frame of reference the ball hovers at rest, obeying the law of inertia: the satellite is an inertial frame itself. But from the surface clock’s frame of reference, the ball in the satellite does not remain at rest, nor does it travel in a straight line at constant speed: it does NOT follow the law of inertia, but accelerates instead. Therefore, from the surface clocks’ frame of reference the satellite’s frame of reference does not obey the law of inertia and is not inertial.

 

Oh, and to try to head a potential counter, let me point out again that the satellite is not in orbit around the surface clock. So one can’t simply say “It’s got to be inertial, because it’s orbital motion”: the satellite is in orbit around the center of mass of the Earth, not around the surface clock, which is quite distant from the center and also rotates along with Earth’s surface.

 

And in case you have forgotten, I gave the following lengthy explanation of the general idea.

 

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.

 

This should be easy to see intuitively, but let me give a "technical" explanation.

 

Draw a large circle, S. Within that circle draw a smaller concentric circle, G. Put a dot, C, at the center of the two circles. The outer circle S represents the satellite's path, the smaller circle G represents the path of the ground clock, and point C represents the center of mass of the Earth. Our view is looking down from above Earth, so it rotates counterclockwise.

 

At the 12 O'clock position on both circles S and G draw a point: these represent the satellite and the ground clock, both of which are traveling counterclockwise. What is the direction of their velocity vectors? Simple. To determine a velocity vector's direction just draw a radius line from C to that point; the velocity vector is at a 90 degree angle to that radius, in the direction of travel. So label the diagram with the velocity vectors for both the satellite and the ground clock. As you can see, both vectors are horizontal lines pointing directly to the left on the sheet of paper.

 

The satellites make an orbit in just ~12 hours while the Earth takes 24 hours to rotate. So after the ground clock has made it 1/4 of the way around the circle the satellite will have made it 1/2 way around. Let's draw these new points and vectors.

 

For the ground clock, draw a point at the 9 O'clock position on circle G. Adding the velocity vector shows it to be a vertical line pointing straight down on your paper.

 

For the satellite clock, draw a point at the 6 'clock position on circle S. Adding the velocity vector shows it to be a horizontal line pointing directly to the right on the sheet of paper.

 

So we can see that although their velocity vectors started off pointing in the same direction they slowly drift away from each other and after 6 hours of travel time are at 90 degree angles to each other. If you continue this to see what happens after 12 hours (6 more hours) you will see that the velocity vectors are pointing is exactly opposite directions.

 

These two frames of reference - though each is in itself inertial - are not moving uniformly relative to each other; from either frame of reference, the other frame of reference is accelerating.

 

When considering SPECIAL relativity the two frames of reference in relative motion to each other should be moving uniformly: that is, from each frame of reference the other frame should be seen to be in uniform motion. This does not hold in the GPS example for the ground and satellite clocks.

 

Sorry, you failed. You don’t get the money.

[TeleMad]

Mac: Enough of your petty BS crap.

 

Translation: Damn, I have no comeback. TeleMad was right and I was wrong ... again.