Einstein's Special Relativity Fails?

[Buffy]

The issue has nothing to do with simultaneity. It has to do with the failure of experiments and observation to ever validate the reciproicty required by SRT. That is a false view based on the arbitrary and unnatural selection of there being only two observers in the universe hence no ability to tell who has motion.

I'm not sure why having a third observer solves the ability to "tell who has motion". SR theory says that a third observer sees non-simultenaeity and does not provide any "objective" or "absolute" measurement except in his own reference frame. If the first two observers are in motion and return to the third observer, the one of the first two who have accellerated and travelled further will have the largest dilation relative to the third observer. While the two are moving, the third observer will see dilation on their clocks.

 

Now its obvious that reciprocity is hard to measure, but according to the scientific method, you need to, um, provide data that contradicts the prediction, not just say there's no data at all and therefore its false. That's illogical. Which brings us to the proof you're providing which is the GPS experiment:

The correct calculation is not "Relative Velocity" between clocks but is an "Effective" gamma based on respective gammas to a local preferred common rest frame. (A third point of referance). This is how and why GPS works. I have shown that a calculation using SRT is in error is such a case.

But you also state in your original post in this thread that:

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.

And this is fundamental to your argument of inconsistency in results, because you claim that the earth axis measurement is absolute which its not, which means you're misapplying the formulas. You are also, by saying in this quote that there is a notion of "absolute time", that simultenaity is a requirement. It would be useful to understand your theoretical underpinings as well as any proof you have that there is an absolute reference frame for time.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Mac]

Yes. You came in here as a know-it-all expert on the subject of relativity (and other complex mathematics) and claimed that Einstein and other Ph.D. physicists are wrong. Yet you can't even do calculus. Poser.

 

BULLSHIT. I came here as a person with certain knowledge and experience to discuss physics. And for your information I am not a know it all, nor have I ever claimed to be that or an expert.

 

The fact that apparently I have raised some issue for which you lack the capacity to actually address makes you feel inferior, I can't help that. But the simple fact is what is being discussed has nothing to do with calculus (BTW which I took 40 years ago).

 

Now trying sticking with the issue. If you do not have an answer then just admit it but knock off your failing effort to attack me personally. Such attacks are not substitutes for a physics rebuttal.

 

I am only interested in the physics not the personalities.

[TeleMad]

TeleMad: You came in here as a know-it-all expert on the subject of relativity (and other complex mathematics) and claimed that Einstein and other Ph.D. physicists are wrong. Yet you can't even do calculus. Poser.

 

Mac: BULLSHIT. I came here as a person with certain knowledge and experience to discuss physics. And for your information I am not a know it all, nor have I ever claimed to be that or an expert.

 

Um, excuse me, but ...

 

Mac: I have also been party to actual gravity testing which demonstrates that General Relativity is false as well.

 

And a few others in general...

 

Mac: My understanding of Relativity is what permits me to see what you do not see, since you merely seem to read and memorize.

 

Mac: I am very much aware of all such data.

 

Mac: I'll not waste time argueing with anybody that must rely upon what they have been told and can't talk physics from their own knowledge.

[TeleMad]

By the way Dan McCoin, what ever DID happen to your UniKEF theory that was going to replace Einstein's general relativity? Gee, didn't anyone accept your arguments?

[Mac]

I'm not sure why having a third observer solves the ability to "tell who has motion".

 

A is a clock at the Earth's Surface

B is a clock in orbit

C is the center of the earth

 

The following is an exagerated GPS case to illustrate the problem and solution. (Note I am ignoring Velocity Addition since it does not alter the conclusion and only serves to cloud the issue).

 

AC = 0.2c; Gamma1 = 1.0206

BC = 0.5c; Gamma2 = 1.1547

 

AB = 0.3c; Gamma3 = 1.0483

 

Gamma Effective = Gamma2/Gamma1 = 1.1314

 

The problem is that Gamma3 is the SRT view and is an incorrect time dilation factor.

 

The solution is Gamma Effective (although GPS doesn't take the ratio Gamma3 but uses Gamma2 because Gamma1 is negligable in the real case).

 

SR theory says that a third observer sees non-simultenaeity and does not provide any "objective" or "absolute" measurement except in his own reference frame. If the first two observers are in motion and return to the third observer, the one of the first two who have accellerated and travelled further will have the largest dilation relative to the third observer.

 

You are mixing issues. Acceleration is a GR affect. We are only considering SR at this time.

 

While the two are moving, the third observer will see dilation on their clocks.

 

Now you are moving from physics to "Illusion" or "Perception". While I disagree with some claimed illusions, I prefer to stay with physical reality and not illusions of motion at this time.

 

Clock tick rate is based strickly on their local proper time. Observbers DO NOT alter that tick rate, which accounts for the fact that reciprocity has never been recorded and all such experiments result in only ONE clock being dilated.

 

Now its obvious that reciprocity is hard to measure, but according to the scientific method, you need to, um, provide data that contradicts the prediction, not just say there's no data at all and therefore its false.

 

Not so. The mere fact that one records time dilation between two clocks - i.e. ONE clock is dilated proves the failure of reciprocity. If reciprocity were fact then the two clocks could have run slow but would each display the same accumulated time.

 

That's illogical. Which brings us to the proof you're providing which is the GPS experiment:

 

But you also state in your original post in this thread that: And this is fundamental to your argument of inconsistency in results, because you claim that the earth axis measurement is absolute which its not, which means you're misapplying the formulas. You are also, by saying in this quote that there is a notion of "absolute time", that simultenaity is a requirement. It would be useful to understand your theoretical underpinings as well as any proof you have that there is an absolute reference frame for time.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

 

Not so. "Relative Absolute Velocity" is not an "Absolute Velocity" value in any universal sense. It only means "Absolute" relative to a common local preferred rest frame. That rest frame may have an unknown velocity component but it is taken to be at rest for the purpose of camparative velocities between the two clocks.

 

This precludes SRT's reciprocity since in that view the orbiting clock cannot be viewed as having lesser velocity than the surface clocks and it is correctly anticipated that the orbiting clock will show the velocity dilation.

[TeleMad]

Mac:

GPS PROVES SPECIAL RELATIVITY INVALID

 

...

 

Using Special Relativity in GPS one gets: 3,410.7/c = 1.1369E-5, squared = 1.2925E-10. Divided by 2 = 6.4627E-11.

 

Time loss would be 6.4627E-11 * 24 * 3,600 = 5.58378E-6 or - 5.58 micro-seconds per day.

 

...

 

Since it is known that GPS clocks are preadjusted for a collective decrease by -38.5776 microseconds/day due to the collective affects of an increase in tick rate due to General Relativity (Gravity affect) of +45.7776 microseconds/day and for 7.2 microseconds loss per day (which matches absolute velocity of orbit and not Special Relativity's "Relative Velocity between clocks" as Relativists would have you believe), GPS does not use Special Relativity. It uses the Lorentz Relativity's gamma function concept of absolute velocities and not Special Realtivity relative velocity.

 

Well, that's not what this gentleman states...

 

”For GPS satellites, GR predicts that the atomic clocks at GPS orbital altitudes will tick faster by about 45,900 ns/day because they are in a weaker gravitational field than atomic clocks on Earth's surface. Special Relativity (SR) predicts that atomic clocks moving at GPS orbital speeds will tick slower by about 7,200 ns/day than stationary ground clocks.

(http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp)

[Mac]

Um, excuse me, but ...

 

 

 

And a few others in general...

 

 

And.???? I do not see you giving an opinion regarding the gravity test data. And it does seem I have a better grasp of reality, physics and perhaps relativity than yourself since you seem to want to avoid such discussion and substitute rhetoric or personalities.

[Mac]

By the way Dan McCoin, what ever DID happen to your UniKEF theory that was going to replace Einstein's general relativity? Gee, didn't anyone accept your arguments?

 

BTW when are you going to knock off the bullshit and discuss physics?

 

You want to attack me and UniKEF and make false statements and cast innuendos. Fine. Just for the record and then I will not continue this dialog with you further;

 

From the Introduction of the UniKEF Theory:

 

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

Introduction

The UniKEF Theory

By Dan K. McCoin (Mac)

 

Email: [email protected]

 

The UniKEF Theory is an alternative view of reality which is offered to stimulate a search for a better understanding and physical description of our universe where Relativity and Strings (TOE) theories venture off into complex mathematical projections creating unreconcilable conflicts and are devoid of any physical underpinnings.

 

Neither the mathematics nor the assumptions in UniKEF are based on any research or discoveries. They are offered as "By-Way-Of-Example" and are not to be taken as final arguments for UniKEF. UniKEF Gravity is supported by a calculus analysis and may be viewed in the PICTURE (PHOTO) or DOCUMENTS sections. While that lends credence to the overall concept it doesn't make it valid in any detailed way. It merely opens up many possibilities which should be explored.

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

 

Now I hardly think this introduction implies, infers or suggests, that I think I am some expert or that I will replace General Relativity, etc. You are running off at the mouth and are contributing nothing. I will only acknowledge your post of this kind in the future labeling their content for what they are.

[TeleMad]

What Mac is using is "LR", or "Lorentzian relativity"... but Mac goes farther than suggesting that LR can be used where SR (Einstein's special theory of relativity) can: Mac asserts that Einstein's special theory of relativity is invalid...there's his error.

 

“What the Global Positioning System Tells Us about Relativity

…

 

Does the behavior of GPS clocks confirm Einstein SR?

 

To answer this, we must make a distinction between Einstein SR and Lorentzian Relativity (LR). Both Lorentz in 1904 and Einstein in 1905 chose to adopt the principle of relativity discussed by Poincare in 1899, which apparently originated some years earlier in the 19th century. Lorentz also popularized the famous transformations that bear his name, later used by Einstein. However, Lorentz’s relativity theory assumed an aether, a preferred frame, and a universal time. Einstein did away with the need for these. But it is important to realize that none of the 11 independent experiments said to confirm the validity of SR experimentally distinguish it from LR -- at least not in Einstein's favor.

 

…

 

Several of the experiments bearing on various aspects of SR (see Table 1) gave results consistent with both SR and LR. But Sagnac in 1913, Michelson following the Michelson-Gale confirmation of the Sagnac effect for the rotating Earth in 1925 (not an independent experiment, so not listed in Table 1), and Ives in 1941, all claimed at the time they published that their results were experimental contradictions of Einstein SR because they implied a preferred frame. In hindsight, it can be argued that most of the experiments contain some aspect that makes their interpretation simpler in a preferred frame, consistent with LR. In modern discussions of LR, the preferred frame is not universal, but rather coincides with the local gravity field. Yet, none of these experiments is impossible for SR to explain.”

(http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp)

[TeleMad]

My my Mac, you've quickly turned into a nasty little grump. Sorry if your inability to defend your position irritates you.

[Mac]

What Mac is using is "LR", or "Lorentzian relativity"... but Mac goes farther that suggesting that LR can be used where SR (Einstein's special theory of relativity) can: Mac asserts that Einstein's special theory of relativity if invalid...there's his error.

 

 

Amazing. Don't be telling others what I think. LR is not totally valid either and I haven't said a damn thing about aether. Try answering the questions raised. Are my calculations using SR correct? Yes or No.

 

If "No" show the error. If "Yes" then SR is invalid. It is that simple. No matter how hard you try to divert the issue from this failure of SRT to my persona you are failing to respond to the issue.

[Mac]

My my Mac, you've quickly turned into a nasty little grump. Sorry if your inability to defend your position irritates you.

 

Now thats a joke. You are the one incapable of defending your postion. My position stands and you have done nothing to rebut it.

 

Calling a flake a flake is not being a grump.

[TeleMad]

Mac: GPS satellites have a velocity (V1) of 3,874.5 m/s.

 

Relative to what? You don’t say.

 

Mac: 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.

 

So all of the GPS satellites orbit (1) directly above, and following the path of, the equator, (2) in the direction of the Earth’s rotation, (3) in perfect circles?

 

Please support all three of these assumptions.

[Mac]

Relative to what? You don’t say.

 

Only if you have a reading handicap. The eath's axis or center is clearly referenced.

 

So all of the GPS satellites orbit (1) directly above, and following the path of, the equator, (2) in the direction of the Earth’s rotation, (3) in perfect circles?

 

Please support all three of these assumptions.

 

Please don't be stupid trying to make me look stupid. I posted Dr Ashby's GPS description.

 

It is in great detail. all the issues you can think of are discussed. None of these comments have any bearing on the issue. I give a simplified example for clarity of the issue. Now address it.

 

Are my calculations correct or not?

[Buffy]

I'm not sure why having a third observer solves the ability to "tell who has motion".

...The problem is that Gamma3 is the SRT view and is an incorrect time dilation factor. ...The solution is Gamma Effective (although GPS doesn't take the ratio Gamma3 but uses Gamma2 because Gamma1 is negligable in the real case).

This doesn't address my question: it appears you are saying that since AC is correct, that GPS will only give correct values at the Earth's axis. If anything, my reading of the source information indicates that indeed the adjustments are *stated* relative to the earth's axis but that the surface value is what is computed by GPS. This would indicate you are misrepresenting how GPS is using the computation.

You are mixing issues. Acceleration is a GR affect. We are only considering SR at this time.

So are you saying that accelleration can only be induced by gravity and not by chemical, electrical or other power source? I was not refering to gravity at all, but rather the basic notion of SR that one accellerates from an reference point in order to create relative motion.

While the two are moving, the third observer will see dilation on their clocks.

Now you are moving from physics to "Illusion" or "Perception". While I disagree with some claimed illusions, I prefer to stay with physical reality and not illusions of motion at this time.

"Dilation is an illusion" is a required postulate of your theory, for which you provide no proof. You're certainly welcome to claim that there is not enough confirming data for it with multiple moving observers, but what you are disingenously doing is making the circular argument that assumes Dilation is an Illusion--without any supporting data to back up that claim--and then say SR is false because Dilation is an illusion. Its clear to me at least that the data currently available does not disprove SR, unless it is misinterpreted, which you conveniently insist upon. You would find a much more receptive audience for your claims if you were to start with evidence that SR's prediction of dilation is false, beyond your statement that it is simply not consistent with "physical reality" because you think that's the only proper way to view it.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[TeleMad]

Mac: Are my calculations correct or not?

 

No, they're not correct. Because it is false that all of the GPS satellites orbit (1) right above, and following the path of equator, and (2) in the direction of the Earth's rotation, and (3) in perfect circles.

 

Now, about your claim that these are Ashby's calculations - or more precisely, "I posted Dr Ashby's GPS description" - please support that assertion.

[quantum quack]

To show SRT as correct doesn't the earth have to orbit the satelite?

 

What I mean by that comment is that for reciprical dilation to be a reality and not just a mathematical construct the earth would physically have to be orbiting the satelite, in other words the satelite and Earth would have to be the only objects in this universe.

 

 

Of course for the satelite to be the center of orbit it would require enourmous shifts in space time and only if those shifts where reciprical can SRT be a justifiable proposition. IMO