Pragmatic Failure of Special Relativity

[Thabiguy]

Originally Posted by MacM

Show my calculations in error and I'll shut up. Is that a fair offer?

Okey dokey. Let's see if you're a man of your word.

Originally Posted by MacM

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's center).

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.

I bolded the error for you. The relative velocity between the orbiting clock and a clock at the equator is not equal to the difference between the magnitude of the two velocities.

This is because velocity is a vector, and so in order to find the relative velocity between two moving objects, you need to do vector subtraction, not scalar subtraction. - This is not even SR, this is plain Newtonian mechanics.

In other words (in case you're unfamiliar with vectors), the relative velocity doesn't just depend on how fast the two objects are moving, but also in what direction they're moving. If they're moving in the same direction, you need to subtract the velocities. If they're moving in the opposite direction, you need to add the velocities. If they're moving at an angle, you need to do vector subtraction to get the correct result.

Calculating the relative speed as (3,874.5 m/s - 463.8 m/s) = 3,410.7 m/s implies that the satellite and the surface clock are moving in the same direction. But that will practically never be true; they will almost always move in different directions, therefore having a relative speed higher than 3,410.7 m/s.

In fact, they will just as frequently move in approximately opposite directions as in approximately same directions, yielding relative speed up to 3,874.5 m/s + 463.8 m/s = 4,338.3 m/s.

Because the relative velocity you have calculated (3,410.7 m/s) is wrong (too low), your subsequent calculation of time dilation of 5.58 microseconds per day is also wrong (too low). Specifically, 5.58 is not the result which SR gives, it's an erroneous result that you have arrived to, due to your failure to properly subtract velocities.

[nathan]

Originally Posted by Thabiguy

In fact, they will just as frequently move in approximately opposite directions as in approximately same directions

Is that true? IIUC satellites (not just GPS ones) orbit in the same direction as Earth's rotation. That just makes sense when launching them -- you need to give them a particular orbital velocity +/-Ws, and it's cheaper to add to Earth's rotation We to reach +Ws than subtract from it to reach -Ws.

GPS satellites have orbits inclined to the equator, but the equatorial component of the orbit is always going to be west to east, and be the dominant velocity in the satellite/detector system. Isn't it?

I return to

[ArmillarySphere]

Well. Seems there are a number of misconceptions here:

1. The friend travelling by car with a slow clock.

Surprise, surprise, if the clock runs at a slower speed but the odometer is fine, you will get a higher value for the speed than an observer at rest. However, this is not analogous to an SR scenario - in that case, the odometer would also measure half the distance of the observer at rest. So both will agree on how fast the car was moving, but will disagree on 1) how long it took to drive, 2) the distance driven and 3) the time of arrival, assuming they agreed on when the drive started. Exactly the scenario for SR.

2. The twin non-paradox.

Because really, what's the hangup? The amount of time dilation does not depend on acceleration in any way whatsoever, but does depend on the relative speed of the reference frames and how long is spent in each one. You can design the twin scenario so that no acceleration is involved from start to finish, by the way - have the twins start out already in motion when they synchronise clocks, and then introduce a third traveller who will meet and synchronise time with one of the twins and then rendezvous with the other, all without changing velocity. The acceleration is zero throughout, yet SR predicts that the third traveller's clock will lag behind the second one he meets, regardless of which one accelerated initially. There is no paradox.

[Thabiguy]

Originally Posted by nathan

Is that true? IIUC satellites (not just GPS ones) orbit in the same direction as Earth's rotation. That just makes sense when launching them -- you need to give them a particular orbital velocity +/-Ws, and it's cheaper to add to Earth's rotation We to reach +Ws than subtract from it to reach -Ws.

What happens when you successfully launch a satellite and it makes it through half its orbit?

Originally Posted by nathan

GPS satellites have orbits inclined to the equator, but the equatorial component of the orbit is always going to be west to east, and be the dominant velocity in the satellite/detector system. Isn't it?

West to east in the US is opposite to west to east in China.

[nathan]

Originally Posted by Thabiguy

What happens when you successfully launch a satellite and it makes it through half its orbit?

Ah, I realized that, but forgot to mention why I thought it immaterial to GPS. There's the rather obvious problem of a big rock in the way blocking the photons. The GPS calculations only have to work for satelites above the horizon.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by MacM

Any measurement done while in relative motion. My comments are strictly direct to only those relavistic affects that induce permanent change once comparisons are made back in a common rest frame.

So your theory is that the time dilation and length contraction are permanant physical changes that are not caused by velocity but are caused by acceleration?

Originally Posted by MacM

That doesn't alter the conslusions of the paper. You have to read it. What you expect the Conclusions up front in the abstract or descriptions of the tests???

Which of the dozens of papers are you refering to?
And yes: I expect the conclusions in the abstract. That is what the abstract is for. A summary of the tests is also expected.

Originally Posted by MacM

I have not said any such thing. I properly qualified what I have said please stop misquoting me. I have very clearly state just the opposite. I have said time dilation is real but properly point out that it is not due to "Relative Velocity" which is symmetrical, time dilation is asymmetrical and not caused by relative velocity.

Where are your citations to the experiments that show that time dilation is asymmetrical?
Why does SR match the time dilation when it does not cause time dilation?

Originally Posted by MacM

No but I certainly am not surprised. I would expect that to be true. BUt what you clervrly choose to ignore is that having extablished a higher (unknown) absolute velocity and then coasting the magnitude of dilation increases. That is the acceleration has adjusted the tick rate while it was accelerating.

The fact that instaneous relative velocity during acceleration agrees with SR for the accelerting clock is a no brainer. But that dilation is still just for the accelerting clock and not a function of relative veloicty because the esting clock has the same relative veloicty and is under going no change.

See how simple this really is.?

The particles are travelling in a circle under a constant acceleration of 1018 g. This means that their velocity is always changing (that is what acceleration means). Their velocity is known. They are not "coasting". In fact relative to a point outside the muon ring their "absolute" velocity changes sign twice each time that the muons go around the ring. Velocity is a vector. A particle going in a circle is under constant acceleration and their velocity is always changing.

Since their acceleration is ongoing what do you think that their tme dilation is?
At what rate is the"tick rate" being adjusted while they accelerate?
Why does the muon lifetime not get longer as the muons are longer in the ring?

Why is the lifetime in the ring the same as muons with the same energy but not going in a circle (i.e. not accelerating) ?
In other words why are muons with different acceleration histories but the same energy measured to have the same time dilation?
Could it be that the acceleration history does not matter and that it is the difference in velocity than matters?

Time dilation only depends on the velocity of the particles as seen in other experiments. You can accelerate them slowly or quickly in any kind of accelerator and you get time dilation that only depends on the velocity between them and the lab. Read some of the papers cited in the web page.

See how simple this really is?

Originally Posted by MacM

I haven't advanced a theory. I'm not here advocating any particular resolution I am merely pointing out the inconsistancies in current thought.

There are no inconsistancies. There are wonderful symmetries, e.g. observer A measures time dilation for a moving clock according to their clock and observer B at the moving clock measures time dilation for observer A's clock according to their clock.

A few of the paers from What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?

Quote:

Bailey et al., “Measurements of relativistic time dilation for positive and negative muons in a circular orbit,” Nature 268 (July 28, 1977) pg 301. Bailey et al., Nuclear Physics B 150 pg 1–79 (1979).
They stored muons in a storage ring and measured their lifetime. When combined with measurements of the muon lifetime at rest this becomes a highly relativistic twin scenario (v ~0.9994 c), for which the stored muons are the traveling twin and return to a given point in the lab every few microseconds. Muon lifetime at rest: Meyer et al., Physical Review 132, pg 2693; Balandin et al., JETP 40, pg 811 (1974); Bardin et al., Physics Letters 137B, pg 135 (1984).
Also a test of the clock hypotheses (below).
The Clock Hypothesis


The clock hypothesis states that the tick rate of a clock when measured in an inertial frame depends only upon its velocity relative to that frame, and is independent of its acceleration or higher derivatives. The experiment of Bailey et al. referenced above stored muons in a magnetic storage ring and measured their lifetime. While being stored in the ring they were subject to a proper acceleration of approximately 10¹⁸ g (1 g = 9.8 m/s2). The observed agreement between the lifetime of the stored muons with that of muons with the same energy moving inertially confirms the clock hypothesis for accelerations of that magnitude.

• Sherwin, “Some Recent Experimental Tests of the 'Clock Paradox'”, Phys. Rev. 129 no. 1 (1960), pg 17. He discusses some Mössbauer experiments that show that the rate of a clock is independent of acceleration (~10¹⁶ g) and depends only upon velocity

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by MacM

Show my calculations in error and I'll shut up. Is that a fair offer?

Yes.

Quote:

Were you one that asserted GPS used SR? Hmmm. I seem to remember posting how GPS actually worked and demonstrated how the application of SR was wrong. You are doing some fuzzy math here. Get on track.

You said some wrong things. GPS of course does "use SR".

You have a very basic misconception about what SR is. Essentially, SR is the claim that all the laws of physics are invariant under Lorentz transformations. Time dilation, Lorentz contraction etc. are all consequences of that claim. GR, and the relativistic field theories used to describe particle physics, are examples of such Lorentz invariant theories. Every time we use them or test them, we are using and testing SR, because SR is intrinsic to them.

So if you use GR to calculate something, you're using SR (just like you're also using multiplication and addition).

Quote:

I have said relativity is useful and highly precise when properly applied but my point is it is an invalid physical theory.

See above - you don't seem know what it even is. It's not really a theory - it's a symmetry, or a class of theories.

Quote:

Go ahead dispute that the apparent accelerating expansion of the universe must be a deceleration IF you accept relativity. Go ahead. I'm the dummy (according to you and others here) show me how dumb I am by properly showing the falicy of my claim.

Very well, I dispute it. It's wrong. Here's a relativistic theory in which the universe's expansion accelerates: positive cosmological constant.

You're wrong (and I can prove it mathematically if you'd like). So now will you live up to your end of the bargain and "shut up"?

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by MacM

Show my calculations in error and I'll shut up. Is that a fair offer?

Yes.

Quote:

Were you one that asserted GPS used SR? Hmmm. I seem to remember posting how GPS actually worked and demonstrated how the application of SR was wrong. You are doing some fuzzy math here. Get on track.

You said many wrong things. GPS of course does "use SR".

You have a very basic misconception about what SR is. Essentially, SR is the claim that all the laws of physics are invariant under Lorentz transformations. Time dilation, Lorentz contraction etc. are all consequences of that. GR, and the relativistic field theories used to describe particle physics, are examples of such Lorentz invariant theories.

So if you use GR to calculate something, you're using SR (just like you're also using multiplication and addition).

Quote:

I have said relativity is useful and highly precise when properly applied but my point is it is an invalid physical theory.

See above - you don't seem know what it is. SR is not really a theory. It's a symmetry. It's a big class of theories. It's a general claim about the world.

Quote:

Go ahead dispute that the apparent accelerating expansion of the universe must be a deceleration IF you accept relativity. Go ahead. I'm the dummy (according to you and others here) show me how dumb I am by properly showing the falicy of my claim.

Very well, I dispute it. It's wrong. Here's a relativistic theory in which the universe's expansion accelerates: de Sitter space at late time.

You're wrong (and I can prove it mathematically if you'd like). So now will you live up to your end of the bargain and "shut up"?

[Dancing David]

MacM,

I note a common misconception here in your post and it is a very common one about the nature of science and reality:

Quote:

Unfortunately yours is a very typical attitude. You don't care about the physical reality but only that relativity has mathematical utility. I don't dispute it's value or utility. I do dispute it physical correctness and believe that the far to common attitude limits our ability to make progress to greater understanding hence discoveries.

Now this is a rather common mistake (from my POV)

All human thoughts, ideas, words and theories are abstracted metaphors, they are semantic idiomatic and self referencing, they are maps that approximate the terrain of experience and observation.

All human thoughts, ideas, words and theories are equally true and equally false. They only have meaning through the application of self reference, all of them are approximate placeholders used to make use of common reference. None of them are true in and of them selves.

The concept of 'tree' only has meaning in reference to an idiomatic and self referencing set of communications between people. The term 'tree' has no validity in and of itself, it is never absolute, a 'yew' might be a 'tree' or a 'shrub', but a 'japanese split leaf maple' is always a 'tree' although it is often smaller than a 'shrub'.

So when it comes to theories, none of them are real, just as words are never real. they only are approximate models of reality. the utility comes in the ability to approximate reality and model it.

Further demonstration, 'matter' is mostly empty space, it is not 'solid' (it is made non-penetrable by the repulsion of electrons.

But the word electron is what? A model, you can not say that 'electrons' have a physical reality, they are just a word reference and short hand for a bunch of math and thought models.

[MacM]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Don't you realize that free-fall applies to accelerating frames of reference, which are not inertial frames? Wouldn't someone who proposes to criticize SR and GR be expected to know the difference between inertial & non-inertial frames, for frak's sake?

Even my high school students know the difference.

Then please tell us when you expect to graduate highschool.

FYI: To those that might actually care here is a link to GR:

http://books.google.com/books?id=-8P...esult&resnum=3




Which states on page 223: Astronauts in a spaceship orbiting the Earth are in free-fall...."

On page 224 states: The Einstein form of the principle of equivelence states that inertial and free-falling systems are entirely equivelent."

Now I'll now say much beyond just correcting the record here but only to note the arguements against using the SR form of mathematics of V2 - V1 where V2 is orbit velocity to the ECI and V1 is clock surface velocity to the ECI, is not well supported but I choose to not argue the issue of inertial condition and that it would disprove SR because I do agree that vector is an important component part of such calculation.

What it boils down to is SR is not applicable to the rotating system but not because GPS is non0inertial. It is inertial. Just to keep you guys straight on physics.


QUOTE=MattusMaximus;4660776]"Rotational motion is without force" - huh?! Ever hear of centripetal forces? Or, for that matter, fictitious centrifugal forces? [/quote]

Yes you apparently are. Go learn about free-fall vs simple rotary motion of a flywheel.

QUOTE=MattusMaximus;4660776]Wrong. There are SR corrections used in GPS because of the motion of the satellites relative to the ground station and relative to each other.[/quote]


I'll have a look at your link but before closing this just point out that wiki is hardly a steller source of scientific fact since it is basically a collection of posts by all sorts of people. There is a valuable saying "Don't believe everything you read on the internet." I on the other had have linked an actual book on the subject.

As I have stated I too have seen numerous well educated proffessionals, physicits, etc, erroneously claim SR is proven by GPS. Your assertion that the vector calculations are SR is completely false. As I correctly pointed out they are compensation for differential arrival time due to vector of motion. They are not any form of gamma or time dilation compensations. ONLY the ECI frame is used for that calculation.

Go learn.

[MacM]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

MacM, for you to flatly state that time dilation due to SR isn't real is pretty laughable to me. I have observed it for myself. In fact, I have my high school AP physics students do a lab on this very thing every year... Ever hear of the famous muon time dilation experiment?

Why is it that educated people can be so hard headed and refuse to see the forest for the trees. I clearly have stated that muon time dilation is real but you ignore that it has been found that muon ansitrophy in their velocity relative to earth is a valid basis to calculate our motion in the universe at large i.e. - let me clarify "Demonstrates muon velocity has an absolute motion component" and that time dilation is not just relative to the observer, otherwise you would be required to demonstate the reciprocity mandated by the relative velocity view of Einstien's SR.

The elimination of reciprocity by declaring who has velocity removes the "Relative Velocity" component of the theory. You and most others still srongfully assert that relative velocity causes time dilation. You operate in a void of emperical data to support that assertion.

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by MacM

You and most others still srongfully assert that relative velocity causes time dilation. You operate in a void of emperical data to support that assertion.

See post #126.

[MacM]

Originally Posted by D'rok

At the risk of poisoning the well...

http://www.crank.net/gravity.html

Scroll down for "UniKef". Mr. MacM is "crankier".

He He. I'm not surprised to see this pop up. But for those that might care anybody can have virtually anyoneelse listed on this site. That is not to comment one way or the other about the postings.

To make my point here is a subsequent series of posts on the site where a Russian Physicist named Yuri, for which we had a mutual distaste of each other had me listed.

I then had him listed by posting a ludricrus paragraph from one of his many books on relativty and physics.
**************************************

MacM
Registered Senior User (9,477 posts)
05-28-05, 10:36 PM #1

YURIY MAKES CRANK.NET:

http://www.crank.net/einstein.html

The Model of the World of Vacuum 2005 May 04
... Einstein was wrong ...
"Moreover, as one knows, the brilliant ideas of GRT still are 'beloved corn' of whole contemporary physics: it creates a lot more unanswered questions than delivers explanations. Then on page 10 referring to his own 'Vacuum Theory', which is totally untested and unsupported he makes the following comparision: 'That is the statement, which sounds as an ultimate strong and simple (Does it sounds like some statement from the Bible, does not it?) ...'" In PDF format.
http://www.minescience.com/vol_8.htm

------------------
invert_nexus
Ze do caixao (9,596 posts)
05-28-05, 11:33 PM #2

Ha!
Congratulations, Mac.
I don't exactly have any confidence in your Unikef, but this is too funny.
Wonder if he'll show up here to defend his non-crankness?

Ha!!
Hee hee.
Chortle.
*****************************

FYI: This twit of a person actually left the forum because of his embarasssment.

Of equal interest guys look at my posting history. If you think you will wear me down have another thought about that.

But for now I need to go to work. Was up most of the night recycling these issues. I may well start to skip those posters that are just repeating their false assertions about GPS, SR or my knowledge and look for intelligent replies or inquiries to further this discussion. I haven't quite reached the bottom of page (2) and I see we have already reached page (4).

Have a nice day and be careful about trying to talk down to me. The almost 10,000 posts on that site is only one of several sites to which I have been a member and still post occasionally.

Like I have said I have had many years of discussion and debate over these issues. Once the tendancy to assume the worst of me passes you will begin to learn somethings. At least I would hope so and it has been the case many times before.

BTW: NOt advocating UniKEF at all here but just to keep the record straight while it is mostly conjecture and commonsense thinking Chapter 7 Calculus for on UniKEF gravity was written for me by Dr Edward Allard, physicist, of infered inventor fame and an aquaintence. Also I have performed actual gravity testing of the UniKEF concept and have gotten positive results. Perhaps more on that if I remain here.

[dahduh]

Originally Posted by MacM

Why is it that educated people can be so hard headed and refuse to see the forest for the trees.

MacM, perhaps you should look up the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by MacM

Ah. We are not completely in disagreement. The gibberish part is because you apparently are unfamiliar with the Taylor series

Actually, I have taught Taylor series.

I'm not sure how the gibberish can be because I'm unfamiliar with a part of my professional specialization that you didn't put in the post at all.

I stand by my statement. Your math is gibberish. I further submit that YOU are unfamiliar with Taylor series.

[drkitten]

never mind.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by nathan

Ah, I realized that, but forgot to mention why I thought it immaterial to GPS. There's the rather obvious problem of a big rock in the way blocking the photons. The GPS calculations only have to work for satelites above the horizon.

The clock still ticks even when the satellite is under the horizon.

[dasmiller]

Sheesh, doesn't anyone here sleep? Anyway-

Originally Posted by MacM

I'm not sure we are communicating here. I gave Two process in my GPS disertation. I specifically pointed out the one trying to apply an SR type relative velocity between clocks yields an incorrect value of -5.58 usec/day due to velocity compensation. The actual net adjustment is about 38usec/day including GR and LR (not SR). But I also gave the correct result using the actual process GPS uses which involves the ECI reference frame.

So why are you affixed to the incorrect calculation.?

I believe that your example misrepresents how SR would be calculated by the "relativists."

Evidently you agree:

Originally Posted by MacM

Now I'll now say much beyond just correcting the record here but only to note the arguements against using the SR form of mathematics of V2 - V1 where V2 is orbit velocity to the ECI and V1 is clock surface velocity to the ECI, is not well supported but I choose to not argue the issue of inertial condition and that it would disprove SR because I do agree that vector is an important component part of such calculation.

Any conclusion you draw from this misrepresentation is necessarily flawed.

Originally Posted by MacM

Can we move on?

If you stop saying that your example proves that GPS doesn't validate SR, then yes.

[nathan]

Originally Posted by drkitten

The clock still ticks even when the satellite is under the horizon.

of course it does.

[dasmiller]

Originally Posted by MacM

No I'm saying GPS uses over a dozen computations but the ONE that involves orbit velocity is based on the ECI frame which is a common locally preferred rest frame for both the orbiting clocks and surface clocks.

Are you really so familiar with the GPS CS Kalman filter that you know how the coordinate systems are represented internally?

[Thabiguy]

Originally Posted by nathan

Ah, I realized that, but forgot to mention why I thought it immaterial to GPS. There's the rather obvious problem of a big rock in the way blocking the photons. The GPS calculations only have to work for satelites above the horizon.

No. That's not how GPS works. Time dilation is not compensated for with respect to those observers that see the satellites above the horizon. First, it would not be possible, because the satellites are simultaneously visible by many observers with quite different relative velocities, so no matter what you did, someone would always see the GPS clock ticking at an incorrect rate.

But there is a more fundamental reason why GPS clocks can't be set to tick at - even approximately - correct rate with respect to those who see them overhead. The reason is that the atomic clocks in GPS are not there just to measure time intervals during the period you see them above the horizon. The clocks have to keep precise time. They need to be able to tell with great precision what the current time is. And that is in order to tell where exactly they're located at any given moment - in order to allow you to tell where you're located.

If you set the clocks to tick at the correct rate when they're passing over your head, they would not be able to keep correct time, because they would inevitably tick incorrectly whenever they drop below the horizon, and the next time they pass over your head, the clock would be off.

So what is done is that the GPS time is defined in an inertial system, and corrections are then done to account for distortions due to Earth-based observations.

The role that time dilation plays in the accuracy of GPS is that it needs to be accounted for to maintain the time kept by the clocks accurate in the long run, orbit after orbit after orbit. The relative velocity of the satellite when it passes overhead is quite irrelevant to this. If you want to calculate by how much the clock drifts in a day, the whole orbit matters.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by MacM

I have said no such thing.

Oh, but you have. In your very first post on this thread, no less. Shall I quote it again?

Yes. Yes I shall:

Originally Posted by MacM

... we are dealing with some form of universal absolute velocity change relative to the other observer.

See that bit right there? That bit about an "absolute velocity change relative to the other observer"?

The terms "absolute" and "relative" are mutually contradictory. This is, what, the fourth time I've brought this up in one form or another? It's the third time I've stated this was a problem for your claims. And it's now the second time I've told you that it needs to be resolved before you can arrive at a correct conclusion.

[ben m]

Originally Posted by MacM

it has been found that muon ansitrophy in their velocity relative to earth is a valid basis to calculate our motion in the universe at large i.e. - let me clarify "Demonstrates muon velocity has an absolute motion component"

That's not true. It has not "been found that muon ansitrophy in their velocity relative to earth is a valid basis to calculate our motion in the universe at large". Either you just made that up, or you calculated it incorrectly, or you're citing an incorrect source.

If you disagree cite your sources.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by MacM

Some Hodge-Podge thought for your Comments.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX

PRAGMATIC FAILURE
OF
SPECIAL RELATIVITY
--------------------------------
ABSTRACT

For over one hundred years persons have challenged the Special Theory of Relativity. Some due to a lack of understanding of what it actually says and others by misapplying mathematics. Many however have presented challenges with sound evidence which falsifies Special Relativity but it is ignored.

This effort avoids the complex arguements of relavistic mathematics because it indeed has high utility and is highly accurate under certain conditions and applications. An effort is made rather by pointing out what one must accept IF one subscribes to the theory as a physical reality and where a simple lack of understanding of physical reality may be the basis for the flawed concept.

FALSE PREMIS

Every theory has some basic premis or assumptions. In the case of Special Relativity the premis or assumption that may be responsible for the error is based on actual measurements:

"The velocity of light is measured the same for every observer regardless of their relative velocity to the source" An exception to that is the Sagnac affect.

Since this has been a physical measurement it has been assumed that light velocity is invariant rather than perhaps we do not understand the origin of light. More on that distinction later but for now lets consider physical aspects of Special Relativity which relativists choose to ignore.

PHYSICAL AFFECT OF SYMMETRICAL RELATIVE VELOCITY

Since the relavistic argument is that either of two inertial moving observers with a relative velocity to each other can be assumed at rest and the other having all motion, such that when "A" is at rest "B's" clock runs slow according to "A" and distance between "A" and "B" is seen foreshortened by "B".

That is the purported equivelence of relative velocity produces two distinctly different physical affects to the two observers purely as a function of each being considered at rest. That is if we consider "B" at rest then "A's" clock must run slower than "B" and "A" then see's distance to "B" as being less than "B" measures to "A".

The initial claim by Einstein about the equivelence of inertial frames and that either can be considered at rest results in the paradox generally refered to as the "Twin Paradox". That is two twins, one that stays at home on Earth and another that goes out and travels at high relative velocity in space is to be younger than his stay at home twin when he returns. But the symmetry of either being at rest means that according to the space traveler he expects his stay at home twin to be younger since according to him he has been at rest and his twin has been zooming around the galaxy riding on Earth.

The "Twin Paradox" exemplifies the fact that if you do accept that inertial motion can be assumed at rest then "A's" clock is ticking slower than "B's" clock concurrently with "B's" clock ticking slower than "A's" clock.

This conundrum is arbitrarily labled "Counter Intuitive" when it clearly should be labled "Sheer Nonsense".

ENTER FUDGE FACTOR

The truth is relativists don't really envision or treat inertial systems as equal. To resolve the untenable physical conflict of the equivelence of inertial systems Einstein published The General Relativity 15 years later and explained that only the observer that switches frames experiences relavistic change.

"Frame Switching" is just a shallow cover phrase for the physical fact that to switch frames one must accelerate. That is if I experience F=ma then I undergo v = at and have force induced motion. So only one inertial traveler can be considered to have motion and that is the one with the greatest delta velocity due to acceleration times time, the other is comparative rest.

SO we are no longer dealing with mere "Relative Velocity", we are dealing with some form of universal absolute velocity change relative to the other observer due to one having experienced F = ma.

Relativists choose to ignore the fact that they are now claiming one observer has actual motion versus another which has remained inertial and hence IS at relative rest. That mere "Relative Velocity" has never and never can cause any physical changes.

Simply put relative velocity means neither, either one or both have had changes in absolute velocity in the universe. They say there is no absolute rest reference and they are only partly correct. They assume that "Absence of Evidence" is the same as "Evidence of Absence" and that simply is not a scientific fact.

But the bottom line is when two observers are at relative inertial rest and one accelerates that observer makes changes in his absolute velocity in a universal sense even though we can only measure velocity relative to some other point. The fact is the observer that did not experience F=ma and remained at rest can have NO physical changes because there has been no physical cause.

That is not to say there cannot be measurement changes it simply means they are clearly illusions of motion and not physical reality. "Observed" time dilation is a perception or measurement issue while in motion. The only true time dilation is that recorded between clocks once those clocks are returned to a common relative rest for direct comparision.

Since time dilation affects have been precisely measured then it is a physical reality. The question then becomes what is the cause. A change in time tick rate or a change in distance? Unfortunately Einstein and relativits ignore the obvious. IF time tick rate dilation is a physical reality then Lorentz Contraction of space cannot exist.

That is because IF my clock is ticking slow i.e. - 0.5 ticks to your 1 tick, then my accumulated time for a trip is only correct if distance remained the same. If distance were infact foreshortened by 1/2 and my clocks ticked slowed to 1/2 then I would accumulate only 1/4 as many tick times for the trip. That is inconsistant with observation.

Special Relativity is only valid mathematically because it ignores physical reality and applies two sets of time standards to the same clock at the same time. They argue the moving observer experiences no change. That therefore 1 second is still 1 second. That can be true locally but it simply means he has a distorted measurement and it does not make his time standard equivelent to the resting clock standard.

Relativity switches time standards between observers to make itself consistant mathematically to then claim distance changed.

They apply a common relative velocity cause and then not only have respective observers undergo different physical affects but claim which affect depends on observer view point. These cannot be considered physical facts.

It is utter stupidity.

DISCUSSION

Since as it will be shown that Lorentz Contraction of space is problematic and never has been measured. I choose time dilation to be the actual physical reaction to motion.

What does that mean for physics? It means that universally relative velocity is symmetrical but locally it is not. That is from a persepective of absolute rest all relative motions are symmetrical and distance does not change. However, from absolute rest one can be measured to have greater velocity than another observer to which you have a relative velocity and you will have the slower time tick rate than the other.

That would appear to be counter intuitive because we have been raised to think of relative velocity in absolute terms universally. If you are driving down the road at 60 Mph and veer off the road into a parked car we claim that each vehicle has a common relative velocity of 60 Mph.

However, it appears that is only true at everyday velocities and that at relavistic velocities our locally measured velocities will differ because v = d / t. Distance remains fixed but each t is recorded differently by the respective observers.

Remember that velocity is a composite calculated result of the ratio of two physical factors. Time and Distance. What relativity does is assume a common calculation of velocity and therein cause a physical change in reality. i.e. d = v*t when in fact velocity will not be the same to each observer because we have stipulated that one clock ticks slower than the other.

Therefore if you retain this physical assertion (which conforms with measurements and observation of clocks with relative motion) then you have as an example where relative velocity is 0.866c t2 = t1/2 or t1 = 2*t2.

v1 = d /t1 and v2 = d / t2 hence v2 = 2*v1.

Lets move into space and set up a test course. First while at common rest fabricate a cable which has mile markers attached ever 5,280 feet. The cable is of a known and long length. I then fire up my rocket and stretch the cable out between us.

Now I release the cable and fire my return rockets and achieve 0.1c such that my clock now is only ticking 99.4987% as fast as yours. As I pass the mile markers I notice that they are passing by at a rate, and I'm approaching you, at v = d / 0.994987t = 0.1005 c !

While you remained stationary and will see me passing miles markers at v=d/t=0.1c. When I arrive we compare clocks and calculate that the times are correct if and ONLY if distance did not change.

An analogy of what Special Relativity does is given by the following example.

EXAMPLE

You live in town "A" and it is a known 60 miles to town "B". Your friend comes to visit and doesn't know the area. He also doesn't know that his dashboard clock is defective and is only ticking at 50% the rate of your clock and the atomic clock at the NBS.

He calls you and tells you he is leaving town "B". You both look at your clocks. He is driving precisely 60 Mph but his Speed-O-Meter is broken. However his Odometer is working correctly.

When he arrives one hour later by your clock you congratulate him on making good time having averaged 60 Mph for the trip.

He says "heck no I was going 120 Mph because it only took 30 minutes to get here and it was 60 miles".

Special Relativity wrongfully asserts that both clock standards are equal and that he accumulated less time because he traveled less distance. It is assinine and easily disproved.

We must stop comparing accumulated time and compare tick rates while in motion. If tick rates are measured dilated (with doppler compensation) then distance has not changed. If tick rates remain concurrent (in sync) with doppler compensation then distance must have changed.

ABSURD CONSEQUENCES OF ACCEPTING SPECIAL RELATIVITY

1 - If you accept Special Relativity then you must accept that given sufficient velocity when you accelerate away from something you get closer to it because Loretnz Contraction of space proceeds faster than your recesssion velocity.

2 - An observer riding a particle in a particle accelerator that goes from 0 to 0.866c in 1 milli-second causes the 4.3 lyr distance to Alpha Centuri collapse to 2.15 lyr in 0.001 seconds. There are 31,536,000 seconds per year or the particle only took 3.2E-8 years to cause the change.

In other words dimensions changed at 2.15 lyr / 3.2E-8 Yr = 67,802,400 c !!
Relativists try to obscur this fact and save Special Relativity by mathematically claiming the particle observer doesn't see the change that it is hidden behind an event horizon and isn't seen until light from 4.3 lyr arrives.

This Texas Two Step just doesn't hold up because if I continue toward Alpha Centuri I will collide with it even if it were hidden behind an optical event horizon. Dare they argue you don't arrive when distance has been reduced to zero!!!!!

Dare they argue that you cannot see something 1 meeter away for several light years just because to do so falisifies Special Relativity.

Spatial contraction is either a physical reality or it is not. You can't claim it exists then ignore the consequences.

3 - If you really believe in Special Relativity then the accelerating expansion of the universe is in fact a deceleration because at the relavistic velocities near the observable edge Lorentz Contraction has to be reversed. That is a decelerating expansion causing Lorentz Expansion from previously contracted space due to a higher velocity in the past.

VELOCITY ADDITION

Einstein would have us believe that 2 + 2 = 3 just because he can make a closed mathematical loop by ignoring physical changes created by his own theory. That is claim a clock ticks slow but then claim it has the same time standard as another clock hence space (distance) must have contracted to account for the differential in accumulated time in the same test.

The fact is there have been hundreds of objects in space measured to have
velocities that are not only greater but much greater than v = c. Relativists have worked overtime to find a means of invalidating such data.

The primary tactic has been to show that for relavistic motion in a narrow line of sight can result in measurement of change which exceeds v = c. There is a problem with that defense of Special Relativity.

They ignore the fact that only an extreme minority of such observations are
accompanied by red or blue shift, meaning they are not line of sight motions but are proper velocities of objects moving orthogonal to our line of sight.

What is likely to be the case is that v = c in the line of sight is a velocity limit of observation because objects undergo Lorentz Contraction and dimensionally cease to exist in our physical realm at or above v = c.

That is our physical universe consists of objects v< c to our unknown absolute velocity but when we move and have relative velocity to other objects in our universe we actually have different universes; albiet an overwhelming amount of the universes are common.

However once you reach or exceed v = c to all matter that existed in your universe while inertial before your acceleration you will now exist in a completely different universe at a different absolute universal energy level.

RELATIVITY OF SIMULTANEITY

The bottom line is that we live in a 3D world where time is an attribute of an
energetic space. Ours is a "Dynamic Present" in "Absolute Time". That is time is a measure of change of energy states of objects and is not an independant dimension or linked to space other than as a result of energy flow which forms space itself.

Pragmatically it is clear that our present consists of every event information in the universe that arrives collectively at any given instant to our ordinate point and creates the present.

For example if you live on Earth and I on the moon and we have synchronized
clocks. If I detonate a flash charge at t=0 it is part of my present but that is an event in your future dynamic present by 1.28 seconds.

If you then set off a flash charge automatically and simultaneously when you receive my flash signal then my flash and your flash are both part of your dynamuic present. But my flash is in my past by 1.28 seconds and your flash is in my future by 1.28 seconds.

It is interesting then that for our dynamic presents when we change our absolute spatial ordinate points by moving we must automatically enter both the Past and Future simultaneously relative to our original origin.

GPS FALSIFIES SPECIAL RELATIVITY

Relativists like to have it both ways. They routinely assert (brag) that GPS proves Special Relativity that clock time must employ both General Relativity and Special Relativity corrections to function,. Yet when I point out the following:

**********************GPS Calculations *********************

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's center).

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.

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.

HOWEVER: Using the absolute velocity of orbit of 3,874.5 m/s and NOT "Relative Velocity" per SRT one gets 1.2915E-5c, squared = 1.66797E-10. Divided by 2 = 8.33986E-11.

8.33986E-11 * 24 * 3,600 = 7.205E-6 or 7.2 micro-seconds per day due to orbit velocity.

For the earth surface clock I calculate V2 = 463.8 m/s = 1.546E-6c. Squared = 3.29E-12. Divided by 2 = 1.195058E-12 * 24 * 3,600 = 1.0325E-7 or -0.10325 Micro-seconds per day being only about 1% in the daily time loss and may be disregarded.

It is vital to note that 7.2 micro-seconds is the correct answer and that the 5.58 micro-sceonds computed using Special Relativity is INCORRECT.

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

To which the relativists two step and claim that Special Relativity can't be used because it is a General Relativity problem due to gravity and rotational motion. That orbit is not an inertial condition because in orbit you are under constant acceleration!

At the same time free fall in a gravity field is claimed to be inertial even though observers are accelerating and orbit is also considered a form of free-fall.

So they flip flop on their definitions and applicability depending on the challenge presented.

The fact is that GPS *** DOES NOT *** use Special Relativity at all. It makes a velocity compensation but it is based on orbit velocity to a common relative rest reference. A Lorentz Relativity not Einstein's Special Relativity is used.!!!

i.e. - a locally preferred common rest frame which is prohibited by Special Relativity. It employs the center of the earth as it's reference for both surface clock velocity and the GPS satellite orbit velocity.

GPS DOES NOT employ V1 - V2 or relative velocity between clocks which is Special Relativity.!!!!

FYI the surface velocity changes with latitude; however, it just happens that the Earth is an Oblate Sphereoid and the difference in surface distance to the center of the Earth has a gravitational offset value precisely equal to the change in velocity by relavistic mathematics.

Such that is latitude has no bearing on surface clock tick rates. Altitude however does.

ALTERNATIVE

It appears that light may in fact merely be something moving faster than v = c in a vacuum. That is light is really nothing more than Cerenkov Radiation at the maximum EM velocity. It seems coincidental that Lorentz Contraction of matter also occur at v = c such that one can envision light as a form of release of dimensional binding energy.

In that perspective an observers relative motion to a source changes the time and location of photon production making it appear to be invariant when in fact each observer is observing a different photon. Every photon is being generated as a quantum energy function relative to Lorentz collapse of dimension.

That is photons do not travel or have velocity but are pertabations in the fabric of flowing space which has "0" velocity locally at an ordinate point of origin but has virtually unlimited velocity at the edge of the universe distance away.

Therefore at every ordinate point there is an unlimited range of spatial motion as a carrier of the light source pertabation. Observers see the photon being generated only on the v = c spatial carrier but the pertabation exists on all spatial flow such that every observers see the same light velocity but is not seeing the same light photon.

This may sound complex but it really isn't. If you see the origin of the universe as a Big Rip instead of a Big Bang you eliminate the requirement for an inflationary period and you eliminate the absurd singularity of the Big Bang.

The origin may be one of borrowed energy such that there has been no actual creation. We exist by ex-nihilo bifurcation of (N)othingness into (S)omethingness.

i.e. (N)----------------------> (+S) + (-S) = (+1) + (-1) = 0

UniKEF Theory of Gravity envisions the spatial flow as being the cause of gravity by attenuation of flowing space denser mass. It predicts that the apparent measured fact that we are at the center of the unverse is due to attenuation of the field within itself thereby forming an energy domain limit to our observed universe but the universe extends well beyond our observation. As we move the edge of our universe move with us retaining the domain limit in lyr.

That is space is free flowing "Unbound" energy and mass is compacted space by space curving into relavistic orbs forming particles. The compaction factor being c^2 and the origin of E = mc^2.

In this view a 2 inch diameter ball of pure mass. i.e. 2.19 pounds/inch cubed = 9.17E13 pound ball, contains the same energy as a spatial sphere of 9,470 miles in diameter. I suspect that we will find that Lorentz Contraction of space is in comperable proportion.

That is where mass may contract to zero dimension at v = c relative to the observer while space for an observer actually in motion may only decrease by current Lorenz / c. Instead of the universe collapsing to zero at v = c it will shrink by 3E-7% or 0.000000003 or 1/333,333,333.



Dan Keith McCoin

Translation: I don't understand it, therefore it must be false.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by MacM

Hello Ben,

Thanks for your comments. It is a fudge factor in that relativists still want to claim mere relative velocity causes relavistic changes. Clearly relative velocity doesnot and cannot do anything in terms of physical change.

And yet it does.

In a battle against reality, you are bound to lose.

[nathan]

Originally Posted by Thabiguy

No. That's not how GPS works. Time dilation is not compensated for with respect to those observers that see the satellites above the horizon. First, it would not be possible, because the satellites are simultaneously visible by many observers with quite different relative velocities, so no matter what you did, someone would always see the GPS clock ticking at an incorrect rate.

But there is a more fundamental reason why GPS clocks can't be set to tick at - even approximately - correct rate with respect to those who see them overhead. The reason is that the atomic clocks in GPS are not there just to measure time intervals during the period you see them above the horizon. The clocks have to keep precise time. They need to be able to tell with great precision what the current time is. And that is in order to tell where exactly they're located at any given moment - in order to allow you to tell where you're located.

If you set the clocks to tick at the correct rate when they're passing over your head, they would not be able to keep correct time, because they would inevitably tick incorrectly whenever they drop below the horizon, and the next time they pass over your head, the clock would be off.

So what is done is that the GPS time is defined in an inertial system, and corrections are then done to account for distortions due to Earth-based observations.

The role that time dilation plays in the accuracy of GPS is that it needs to be accounted for to maintain the time kept by the clocks accurate in the long run, orbit after orbit after orbit. The relative velocity of the satellite when it passes overhead is quite irrelevant to this. If you want to calculate by how much the clock drifts in a day, the whole orbit matters.

Hm, I thought that the receiver applied relativistic calculations using ephemerides transmitted by the satellites themselves on the timing data that is being received. Someone upthread mentioned there are a set of 6 classical parameters and a set of 3 relativistic ones. Is that not the case? From that it can determine satellites' locations and then determine the distance it is from them, and then determine it's own position by triangulation.

Are you describing the calculation done to determine the ephemerides?

[Thabiguy]

Originally Posted by nathan

Hm, I thought that the receiver applied relativistic calculations using ephemerides transmitted by the satellites themselves on the timing data that is being received.

In order to transform ephemerides into a location, you need time. Not interval between two events. Current time.

[nathan]

Originally Posted by Thabiguy

In order to transform ephemerides into a location, you need time. Not interval between two events. Current time.

yes. still not understanding your point.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by MacM

Wholly crap. An actual intelligent member here.

Translation: "Holy crap! Someone who agrees with me!"

Quote:

common sense

Woo talk. I knew this would come up, eventually.

Quote:

Not required

That's another thing I expected.

Quote:

Another JREF member's credability bites the dust.

So shut up and listen now. You have made it clear I am more knowledgeable about this than yourself.

Why do some people insist that the whole world is wrong ? It's the Galileo complex, all over again.

Quote:

SR is not used in GPS.

Do you every get something right ?

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by nathan

yes. still not understanding your point.

The clocks in orbit need to know what time a ground based observer thinks it is in order to transmit the proper data to them.

Which means the satellites need to know "proper time" in the ground-based frame. So their clocks are tweaked to run slowly (or so that they would run slowly if they were on the ground) so the time signals they send are synched with what the ground-based clocks expect.

[dasmiller]

Originally Posted by nathan

Someone upthread mentioned there are a set of 6 classical parameters and a set of 3 relativistic ones. Is that not the case?

The other 3 terms aren't generally considered relativistic AFAIK. They're used to to correct for the perturbations caused by the moon, sun, Jupiter, Earth's actual shape, solar wind, etc.

There are so many things that impact the GPS orbit (or any other orbit) and so little space in the GPS downlink datastream that it's really not possible to downlink the zillion correction terms you'd need to fully represent the orbit. And, for that matter, some of the terms aren't known that well (you should see all the papers on GPS solar pressure models), and there's not much point in downlinking a zillion little tiny correction terms when you're fuzzy on the big corrections. But by adding 3 more terms, they can give a much more accurate representation than they get from just the 6 Keplerian elements.

[Thabiguy]

Originally Posted by nathan

yes. still not understanding your point.

My point is, as I said already, that the atomic clocks in GPS are not synchronized to tick at a "correct" rate with respect to an observer that sees them overhead. They are instead synchronized to keep accurate time over extended periods of time (many orbits). This is because they need to be able to tell the current time according to some standard, rather than just measure time interval between two events.

For this reason, your earlier assumption that

Quote:

The GPS calculations only have to work for satelites above the horizon.

is incorrect. For the purpose of accurately keeping time (which is essential to GPS operation), time dilation over the whole orbit matters, not just the part when the satellite is above the horizon.

What do you still not understand?

[Pantaz]

Originally Posted by Thabiguy

West to east in the US is opposite to west to east in China.

Huh?

[Thabiguy]

Originally Posted by Pantaz

Huh?

Get a globe and try it.

[Dorfl]

Originally Posted by Thabiguy

Get a globe and try it.

I too was confused at first, since China tends to be used as the proverbial place on the other side of the Earth here as well, as in "dig a hole to China" or "run away to China". But checking a globe it turns out to be only about 90 degrees off from Sweden, and about opposite to USA. Figures of speech are wierd.

[Molinaro]

Originally Posted by Pantaz

Huh?

I think you need to read it as: The vector representing W to E in NA is opposite in direction to the vector representing W to E in China.

Picture the direction the vectors would be pointing, not along the surface of the globe, but as a vector suspended in empty space.

[Skwinty]

Originally Posted by Dorfl

I too was confused at first, since China tends to be used as the proverbial place on the other side of the Earth here as well, as in "dig a hole to China" or "run away to China". But checking a globe it turns out to be only about 45 degrees off from Sweden, and about opposite to USA. Figures of speech are wierd.

Stand in front of a mirror and raise your left hand. Now imagine the mirror image was actually some one else looking at you. they would have their right hand raised.

[Pantaz]

Originally Posted by Molinaro

I think you need to read it as: The vector representing W to E in NA is opposite in direction to the vector representing W to E in China.

Picture the direction the vectors would be pointing, not along the surface of the globe, but as a vector suspended in empty space.

Ah! Thank you!

[Dorfl]

Originally Posted by Skwinty

Stand in front of a mirror and raise your left hand. Now imagine the mirror image was actually some one else looking at you. they would have their right hand raised.

What I hadn't figured out is that the US and China are in fact on opposite sides of the Earth. I had pictured them as being more like 90-135° apart, since we tend to speak of China as though it were 180° away from Sweden, which in turn is quite far from America.

[jsfisher]

Originally Posted by MacM

FYI: To those that might actually care here is a link to GR:

http://books.google.com/books?id=-8P...esult&resnum=3

Which states on page 223: Astronauts in a spaceship orbiting the Earth are in free-fall...."

Yep, this is true.

Quote:

On page 224 states: The Einstein form of the principle of equivelence states that inertial and free-falling systems are entirely equivelent."

Well, ignoring the misspellings, this is also correct. Gravitational systems and inertial systems are equivalent according to Einstein and GR.

But the original point was about inertial frames of reference. Why did you bring up this other stuff?