Einstein's Special Relativity Fails?

[paultrr]

just briefly,

of course it contradicts SRT. the speed of light must be invariant to all observers, and as this is the primary postulate any discrepancy would invalidate SRT.

 

Also it is this very postulate that creates the need for length contraction and dilation of time in the first place.

 

Lorenze transformations were necessary to maintain 'c' as constant and centeral to Einstien's universal view.

 

the probolem for SRT is that because it is all inclusive with it's references to light and time thus it applies to a closed univerese or should I say it must be circular in logic to be comprehensive it is exceedingly difficult to falsify because one aspect will always justify the other aspects.....this is as you would expect from such a theory with such large ramifications universally.

 

For example you may wish to argue that the satelite clock should see the Earth clock run slow. BUt it will be argued that they are no longer inertial frames, or the lack of simultaneousness means they don't. it will then be argied that the reason nonsimultaneousness exists is because the Earth clock appears slow....and so on.....each arguement justifying the apparent contradiction.

 

It has been declared in this thread that the use of preferred frame invalidates the need for the earth clock to be slow. but an obvious question is in all cases when determining an observation a prefered frame is established. Does this mean that the notion of both clocks being slower than the other is a furphy simply because it simply can't exist because we have chosen to measure from our rest frame?

So the arguement will continue and because of the complexity will never be resolved.

 

Does SRT require the satelite to see the Earth clock as slow? [ ignoring light info delays for a moment]

 

according to Paul no it doesn't......so I ask when does each clock see the other as slow?

 

and is this proven as physical fact by physical evidence?

 

can this ever be proven by physical observation?

 

I tend to think that by the very nature of SRT it is impossible to prove simply because an observer can never be at 2 different velocities simultaneously. and so SRT is unfalsifiable.

 

SRT provides predictions about what another observer will see when at a different velocity and that is essentially all it is about. Can the predictions be proven. yes but it seems only one way as in the case of the GPS issue.

 

also Damo I think you need to differentiate between light info delays and actual time dilation. time dilation as referenced by SRT is more about actual dilation of the observers tme frame [universe] and not so much about information delays.

 

Paul or telemad will correct me I am sure if i am mistaken

 

When one does not apply corrections, and experiments with one clock on earth and one in a moving jet have been done before that way, you do get a difference where the clock on the ground is slower. If the corrections via program where removed from the GPS system you'd get differences in the clocks.

[quantum quack]

When one does not apply corrections, and experiments with one clock on earth and one in a moving jet have been done before that way, you do get a difference where the clock on the ground is slower. If the corrections via program where removed from the GPS system you'd get differences in the clocks.

I am sorry Paul, I was under the impression that only the satelite clock was prelaunch calibrated tro account for dilations?

 

So have they slowed the Earth clocks so that synchronisation can be achieved? I don't think that would be right somehow.

as far as i can tell it is only one clock that is made to tick faster to allow for dilation and that is the satelite clock.

 

i can't se how they can synch the clocks if SRT holds true.....hmmmmm...shall think on it some more.....

also i don;t think they are fidling with teh earth clocks tick rate in fact I think that woudl throw the whole system into confusion. it appears they only fiddle with the sat clock, but i may be mistaken.....

 

Th eissue of synching clocks is a hot potatoe for SRT. Always there is a cliam that it con;t be done due to simultaneity issues.....so how can they do it now with GPS if simultaneity is relative.....

[paultrr]

I am sorry Paul, I was under the impression that only the satelite clock was prelaunch calibrated tro account for dilations?

 

So have they slowed the Earth clocks so that synchronisation can be achieved? I don't think that would be right somehow.

as far as i can tell it is only one clock that is made to tick faster to allow for dilation and that is the satelite clock.

 

i can't se how they can synch the clocks if SRT holds true.....hmmmmm...shall think on it some more.....

also i don;t think they are fidling with teh earth clocks tick rate in fact I think that woudl throw the whole system into confusion. it appears they only fiddle with the sat clock, but i may be mistaken.....

 

Th eissue of synching clocks is a hot potatoe for SRT. Always there is a cliam that it con;t be done due to simultaneity issues.....so how can they do it now with GPS if simultaneity is relative.....

 

No they change the in orbit clocks and the earth one's across the globe to match. The earth based one's are made to match a Universal time while those in space have their motional aspect removed from them to line up with the earth based ones. Simultaneity, as you call it only as mentioned before applies to inertia systems. Once a system or frame is forced to be pictured as not in motion simultaneity does not apply anymore period. Relativity only applies to systems in motion and only if that motion is not artifically removed. If you force by artifical means the motional effects out of the equations then what you have left is not relativity based. Its basically Newtonian. Remember the line in Apollo 13 about Newton in the driving seat? Under Newton relativity does not apply. The only aspect of relativity in the GPS system that get's left over simply provides a way to back check on time dilation once the program that counters for such is removed. But for keeping track of one's position at any given time on earth we do not need to know those time differences. So the program makes everything appear as if it was in sync. It can do so because it removes the effects of relative motion and forces the whole situation to look like Newton was fully correct by artificial means. That distroys the application of the other aspect of relativity.

[paultrr]

The only tests ever done as far as relativity(SRT & GRT) deal with the curvature of light, time dilation,and mass increase. We cannot check the one on length contraction directly because we cannot get even near any decent fraction of C to begin with. We can simulate such in a lab or on a program. But that program always assumes the length contraction is real and simulates such the way relativity actually pictures such as a rotational effect, not literal shrinking. However, if time dilation seems to hold there is no reason to expect that rotational effect to not be real either. But untill we can move at some decent fraction of C we will have no way to visually observe such. By the way, look up what I mean by rotational effect when it comes to length contraction from a visual perspective. You might get a surprize there also from the way a lot of people look at that one.

 

Length contraction is negligible at everyday speeds, it is only when an object approaches speeds on the order of 30,000,000 m/s; 1/10 of the speed of light, that it becomes important. It is experienced only in the direction in which the body is travelling and not transverse to this direction, which in turn is dependent on the frame of reference relative to which that motion is being measured. One interesting program you can play with is at: http://www.its.caltech.edu/~phys1/java/phys1/Einstein/Einstein.html

[Damo2600]

Oh I see.

 

If you fast forward the clocks on the satelite it does not affect space time. If you were on the satelite everything on earth would appear to run fast and so would your clocks. I can see reciprocity does occur but it's stupid anyway. I does happen Mac.

 

The answer to this question is simple and i'll explain the stupid part about it aswell. If I am travelling in the satelite I am always travelling parallel to the centre of gravity. length contraction occurs in the line of motion. So the speed of light remains constant in this case.

Reciprocity only means that time 'appears' to slow down due to the constant speed of light. Actually time on the satelite is going slow right? So to say that time on Earth appears to be going slow is dumb because if you looked everything would actually to be going faster. If you want to get the actual time from the Lorentz Transformation then while you are sitting in your satelite you reverse the t,x and t',x' and you have your answer.

 

So basically from the satelite you see me running across a field then I appear to be a very fast runner despite the fact that I am an unfit. Information delays have nothing to do with this as I have said because I'm guessing that the satelites aren't that high up to cause any major differences. Simultaneity has little to do with this i.e. see previous sentence.

 

c = 300 000km/s

 

So a distance of 300 000km will give you a difference of 1 second with regard to simultaneous events and information delays so it's irrelevant.

 

If you sped up the clocks on the GPS then you would see the clock running the same time as events happening on Earth. Perhaps they slow down clocks on Earth for sycronicity but it seems a rather redundant process.

 

Well enough about that.

 

As for a time machine is there anyway to place yourself in a large particle accelerator and not feel the effects of the spinning. Perhaps there is a way of using antigravity on yourself to reduce the forces. Those forces you feel like in the gravitron ride centra______. I'm stuffed if I can think of what it's called.

 

You know those BMX bikes where the handles spin 360 degrees and you can still use the breaking system. Well you could hook up a camera so it's stationary outside the particle accelerator and is still veiwable on a screen inside.

 

So if you could do this then you could basically have a time machine that sits on the ground. You could also watch the future come and go if you were travelling fast enough.

 

I have read a recent article where they sped light up and passed it through a chamber and the light exited the chamber before it had even entered. So if you could speed the particle accelerator past c then you could travel back in time. I'm sure you would need to be going a lot faster than c to have any significant effects. Then you could see if altering the past affects the future. I'm getting ahead of myself here. It would probably be used for evil purposes anyway.

 

sounds cool anyway.

 

Josie

[Damo2600]

Centrifugal forces is what I had meant to say. I wrote centrafugal but it looked incorrect. You probably know what I meant anyway

[Damo2600]

Actually nope nope,

 

Sorry Mac. I thought I had it. But what I said makes absolutely no sense. If the speed of light is the same for all observers then reciprocity would mean that time for all observers would be going fast and at the same time going slow. That makes zilch sense.

 

IF time dilation occurs then there should be length contraction for the satelite and length expansion for earth. Further from the satelite you would see SoL on Earth to be going faster than c.

 

I have no idea what the opposite of time dilation is.

 

This has seriously got me stuffed and I'm glad there is someone else who feels the same way out there Mac.

 

Sister in arms,

Josie

[Mac]

When one does not apply corrections, and experiments with one clock on earth and one in a moving jet have been done before that way, you do get a difference where the clock on the ground is slower. If the corrections via program where removed from the GPS system you'd get differences in the clocks.

 

Come on. That is totally false. The H&K Atomic Clock Test has moving clocks running slow by different amounts depending on the direction of travel east or west. NEVER once has the reverse been observed as true.

 

The very fact that moving east or west at the same air speed affects the amount of dilation, shows that the earth's rotational speed contriblutes to the total absolute velocity involved in time dilation.

 

The prelaunch compensations made in GPS are for approximatley +45 us/day due to GR and -7us/day for orbit velocity, a net -38us/day is built into the orbiting clock to make them synchronize.

 

If such compensations were not made the orbit clock would run -7.2 us/day slow due to velocity and 45us/day fast due to GR or a net +38us/day fast. But we are speaking only of velocity and not GR affects.

 

For velocity the orbit clock is slow by -7.2us/day. At no point on the surface of the earth is the surface clock ever slower than the orbit clock due to relative velocity.

[Mac]

No they change the in orbit clocks and the earth one's across the globe to match. The earth based one's are made to match a Universal time while those in space have their motional aspect removed from them to line up with the earth based ones.

 

Simultaneity, as you call it only as mentioned before applies to inertia systems.

 

ECI stands for Earth Centered Inertial. Orbit IS considered inertial.

 

Once a system or frame is forced to be pictured as not in motion simultaneity does not apply anymore period. Relativity only applies to systems in motion and only if that motion is not artifically removed. If you force by artifical means the motional effects out of the equations then what you have left is not relativity based.

 

Sorry this is ludricrus.

 

Its basically Newtonian. Remember the line in Apollo 13 about Newton in the driving seat? Under Newton relativity does not apply. The only aspect of relativity in the GPS system that get's left over simply provides a way to back check on time dilation once the program that counters for such is removed. But for keeping track of one's position at any given time on earth we do not need to know those time differences. So the program makes everything appear as if it was in sync. It can do so because it removes the effects of relative motion and forces the whole situation to look like Newton was fully correct by artificial means. That distroys the application of the other aspect of relativity.

 

WOW. Nonsense.

[TeleMad]

So let's suggest that the speed of light is not always constant.

 

No, let's not.

 

 

Or maybe you'd also like us to base our analysis on

True AND False = True

 

Or maybe on

1 + 2 = 17

 

 

Damo2600: I have read, in the last couple of days, that this is true in some forms of movement.

 

Support that, remembering that in special relativity we are dealing only with inertial frames of reference. Until you do anything you base on it is rejected.

[TeleMad]

on SR: If it was end all fact Einstein wouldn't have released the revisions (GR) later, and we wouldn't be searching for a unified feild theory.

 

Huh???

 

What I said was that Einstein's special relativity is a scientific fact: and it is. I didn't say it applied to all reference frames, and neither did Einstein. He realized - in fact, he built into the theory - that it deals only with frames of reference in uniform motion. That's why it is the SPECIAL theory of relativity: it applies only to the SPECIAL case of uniform motion.

 

He later extended relativity to take into account accelerating reference frames also, but that's general relativity and is a different can of worms. But his general relativity did not show his special relativity to be flawed: it didn't show it to be wrong.

 

And a unified field theory is completely off track. You might as well say that Einsteins' special theory of relativity isn't a scientific fact because it doesn't address the manufacturing of golf balls!

[TeleMad]

You are precisely correct. IF SRT were actually valid physics then it would be impossible to synchronize clocks that have relative motion.

 

Consider two different inertial frames of reference moving relative to one another. Two events are of interest. The "moving" reference frame, in which those two events occur at the same place, needs only 1 clock: the other "at rest" reference frame, in which the two events occur at two different spatially separated positions, needs two different clocks: one at each location.

 

Obviously the "moving" reference frame's 1 clock can be synchronized with itself (if such a statement even makes sense).

 

And the "at rest" reference frame's two clock can be synchronized with each other.

 

However, since what is simultaneous in one inertial frame of reference CANNOT be simultaneous in another inertial reference frame moving relative to it, along a path between the two events, then from the perspective of the "moving" frame, the clocks in the other frame are not synchronized. That is, synchronization of those two clocks was simultaneous in one frame of reference but not in the other. So in that other frame of reference, those two clocks are in fact not synchronized.

 

In that sense, it would be impossible to synchronize 3 different clocks in 2 different inertial frames of reference moving relative with respect to one another. Yet that fact is EXACTLY what eliminates the APPARENT contradiction with each observer in those two frames seeing the other's clock run slow.

[TeleMad]

quantum quack: 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.

 

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

 

Not argued, pointed out as fact.

 

quantum quack: BUt it will be argued that ... the lack of simultaneousness means they don't.

 

In special relativity, which you seem to WANT to discuss but never do, clocks in both inertial frames of references DO ACTUALLY run slow from the perspective of the other.

 

quantum quack: and so on.....each arguement justifying the apparent contradiction.

 

The arguments showing that in fact the contradiction is ONLY apparent.

 

quantum quack: Does SRT require the satelite to see the Earth clock as slow?

 

according to Paul no it doesn't......so I ask when does each clock see the other as slow?

 

To which I ask, why are you asking about ACCELERATING frames of reference when you are asking about SPECIAL relativity?

 

 

quantum quack: also Damo I think you need to differentiate between light info delays and actual time dilation. time dilation as referenced by SRT is more about actual dilation of the observers tme frame [universe] and not so much about information delays.

 

Paul or telemad will correct me I am sure if i am mistaken

 

You are correct on that.

[TeleMad]

TeleMad: Just that your calculations are wrong! They are wrong because (1) of the method you used to calculate the relative velocity, which fails to model reality, and (2) your erroneous numerical values produced.

 

Mac: Totally false.

 

Nope, totally true.

 

Mac: You miss the point entirely.

 

Nope, you screwed up your point entirely. That’s YOUR fault, not mine.

 

Mac: It is not necessary to replicate the actual geometry of the orbits to asscertain the error in SRT. The maximum dilation possible is at the equator and it falls short.

 

AND WHERE DID YOU SAY THAT IN YOUR ORIGINAL CALCULATION?? YOU DIDN'T!!!

 

Here, let’s take a look.

 

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.

 

Nothing about the MAXIMUM possible dilation.

 

So you lose. You asked me to look at your calculations and tell you whether or not they were valid. They aren't. If you MEANT to say something that was valid but didn't, that's YOUR fault, not mine.

 

Geez Mac, how many years and how many sites have you posted this stuff, and it still is invalid? One would think you'd learn from your batterings across the globe and correct your statements.

 

 

And there’s more! Even if you now go back an plug in your “maximum possible”, your statement is STILL wrong. The maxium possible dilation would occur when the satellite was traveling in an orbit above the equator BUT IN A DIRECTION OPPOSITE TO THE EARTH’S ROTATION. And that is NOT what your too simplistic subtraction models.

 

So you lose even when you attempt to rewrite history.

 

 

Finally, let me remind you that you quite wrongly stated that the relative velocity between the ground clock and the satellite's clock would be the same, even if the satellite orbited from north to south!!!!

 

So I don't even buy your new excuse. The facts indicate that you thought all along that your calculation was correct for any orbit. I showed you wrong. Then you tried to rewrite history, but even then, you failed.

 

So there are 3 reasons you lose on this one matter Mac. Sorry. Have a nice day!

[Mac]

Consider two different inertial frames of reference moving relative to one another. Two events are of interest. The "moving" reference frame, in which those two events occur at the same place, needs only 1 clock: the other "at rest" reference frame, in which the two events occur at two different spatially separated positions, needs two different clocks: one at each location.

 

Obviously the "moving" reference frame's 1 clock can be synchronized with itself (if such a statement even makes sense).

 

And the "at rest" reference frame's two clock can be synchronized with each other.

 

However, since what is simultaneous in one inertial frame of reference CANNOT be simultaneous in another inertial reference frame moving relative to it, along a path between the two events, then from the perspective of the "moving" frame, the clocks in the other frame are not synchronized. That is, synchronization of those two clocks was simultaneous in one frame of reference but not in the other. So in that other frame of reference, those two clocks are in fact not synchronized.

 

In that sense, it would be impossible to synchronize 3 different clocks in 2 different inertial frames of reference moving relative with respect to one another. Yet that fact is EXACTLY what eliminates the APPARENT contradiction with each observer in those two frames seeing the other's clock run slow.

 

Unfortunately you are guilty of the typical circular logic defense. Throw all sorts of extreaneous issues into the mix and attempt to confuse the issue. I don't confuse that easily.

 

Now demonstrate ONE case of recorded reciprocity in 100 years of relativity or admit it either does not exist and Special Relativity is false or explain why it has never been recorded or observed; also explain how you propose that two clocks with relative motion will both run slower than each other. :friday:

 

Tick rate is not subject to Relativity of Simultaneity in any case.

 

In your hast to defend Special Relativity you have convienently failed to answer my test question to you:

 

"What is the relative velocity between surface clocks and a geosynchronous orbiting satellite?"

[TeleMad]

You are incorrect to assert that orbit is not an inertial frame.

 

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 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.

[TeleMad]

TeleMad: You can't simply subtract two velocities to calculate the relative velocity between two objects when they are traveling in directions that are at right angles to each other.

 

And yet that is exactly what you did to find the relative velocity of the satellite clock to the ground clock: simple subtraction. And now you've even explicitly asserted that simple subtraction would work even when the two were traveling in paths that are perpendicular to each other.

 

Mac: The case yo just cited the relative velocity is 50 Mph and that is not what I did.

 

All you did was take two individual velocities and simply subtract one from the other to determine the relative velocity between them. See…

 

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.

 

You calculated the relative velocity between the (1) orbiting clock and (2) the ground clock by simply subtracting one’s velocity from the other’s.

 

Mac: … moving in a cicular orbit around the center of the earth in any direction you have a perepheral velocity. That veloicty does not change because it is at 90 or any other degrees angel to another circular orbit.

 

Nothing new to me so far.

 

Mac: The two perepheral velocities are infact subtractable regardless of angle.

 

Care to support that such is how one find the relative velocity between the ground clock and the satellite?

 

Sorry, but I don’t buy it. You mean to tell me that if:

 

1) I am at a fixed position at the equator, rotating from west to east with the Earth

 

2) Satellite A is in orbit above the equator and is moving in the same direction as Earth’s rotation

 

3) Satellite B is in orbit above the equator and is moving in the direction opposite of Earth’s rotation

 

4) They both passed directly overhead of me at the same exact time, 2 hours ago

 

5) I use two laster devices to bounce a light beam off of each satellite to measure the distance to it

 

that I will get the same value for both distance measurements?

 

Again, I don’t buy it. Can you show that such is the case?

 

 

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

So that we are all on the same page, let me describe this as I did just above for a similar situation. Here, I am positioned at the ground clock.

 

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 satellites' 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 circle G draw a point. This represent the ground clock. At the 12 O'clock position on circle S draws 2 points, labeled CW (clockwise) and CCW (counterclockwise) to represent the two satellites heading in opposite directions.

 

At this point both satellites are directly over head. Now let's see what happens after 2 hours. 2 hours is 1/12 of the Earth's rotational period and 1/6 the orbital period of the two satellites.

 

For the ground clock, draw a point at the 11 O'clock position on circle G.

 

For the satellite clock orbiting in the Earth's rotational direction - satellite CCW - draw a point at 10 O'clock on circle S.

 

For the satellite clock orbiting opposite of the Earth's rotational direction - satellite CW - draw a point at 2 O'clock on circle S.

 

When we measure the distances between G and CW and between G and CCW we find they differ.

 

Now, since the amount of travel time is the same for the two satellites, but their distances to the ground clock differ, then their velocities relative to the ground clock must differ.