Is The Theory of Relativity Fatally Flawed?

[Persol]

Yes, this is already done.... if you have a compliant about it then say what it is.
http://www3.ltu.edu/~s_schneider/courses/contemp/minkowski.shtml

 

[MacM]

Yes, this is already done.... if you have a compliant about it then say what it is.
http://www3.ltu.edu/~s_schneider/courses/contemp/minkowski.shtml

You mean other than just being a mathematical circle jerk? I see no GPSystem in any of this.

If you can't make such an SR based GPSystem work then simply say so. Don't try to excape back into mysticisim and go off presenting twins - triplets paradoxes, etc.

I want to see a physical system described where orbiting clocks stay synchronized with earth clocks using relative velocity per SR between the clocks.

Your system can be in simple theory, not a detailed design. I just want to see you make orbiting clocks and earth bound clocks with relative velocity between them become synchronized using all of SR's claims.

 

[2inquisitive]

Yes, this is already done.... if you have a compliant about it then say what it is.
http://www3.ltu.edu/~s_schneider/courses/contemp/minkowski.shtml

Correct me if I am wrong, Persol, but aren't those diagrams using the SAME
method to solve the Twin Paradox as Hatch claims is the Lorentz Ether Theory? I mean, SR and LR give exactly the same results by that method,
which is just another way of using SR calculations?
EDIT: By the way, I got lost on the Triplet Paradox diagrams, hehe! Maybe
if I spent enough time...?

 

[Paul T]

Continued denial and attempts to claim LR success for SR is a waste of everyones time. Dig a hole and bury Einstien's Relativity.. End of discussion since you do nothing but continue to make false fiat statements. Page 11 say absolutely nothng about SR. SR is not the only relativity in the world. By definition the relativie used is LR not SR.

Sorry your BS doesn't stick. You are being shown the fool you are.

Why is it so hard for you to address the technical issue? I asked to give us the page number of the paper which tell us that LR (not SR and GR) was used to make the correction to those GPS satelite clocks rate. Here again my question.

You had been shown that on page 11 of the paper, it said clearly that GPS clocks were calibrated based on SR and GR. The paper also shown with numbers that clock rate different effect due to GR (opposite to effect due to SR) was more dominant and hence the correction to the satelite clock was to slow it down. It said nothing about LR, not a word. Since you said it did, I asked you again to show us on which page it said so.

There is no dots to connect, just tell us where it said LR is the one they really concern about. Please also show us, if you wish, that the effect due to LR makes the satelite clocks to tick faster so they were constructed to tick slower than earth clocks.

Let's do some simple calculations.

The satelite is at 4.2r or 4.2*6,378,000=26,787,600m from the earth center. Its velocity is 3,860m/s. A rough calculation gives us 1/gamma of (1-8.3E-11). So the time lose for a day is 8.3E-11*24*3,600=7.17E-6 sec or about 7.2 microsecond.

The calculation used SR. Now, use GR to compute effect due to gravitational shift. The formula is dt = t(Km)/(c²r). Location of clocks relative to earth center, r is 6,378,000m and 26,787,600m respectively for clock on earth surface and on the satelites. The results are:

For r = 6,378,000m, dt = 6.95E-10*24*3,600 = 60.0 microseconds, and

For r = 26,787,600m, dt = 1.65E-10*24*3,600 = 14.3 microseconds.​

The balance of the two is 60.0-14.3 = 45.7 microseconds.

The net correction required for the clock is therefore 45.7 - 7.2 = 38.5 microseconds, very close to 38.4 microseconds given on page 11 of HP's paper recommended by you.

Since I have no knowledge of LR, I ask you to do similar computation for the above using LR. Please note again that the correction for gravitation shift (GR effect) is much more dominant than that for velocity (SR effect), it is 45.7/7.2=6.3 times. In other word, correction for gravitational shift is more important. I want you to accounted this amount (38.5 microseconds) using your LR since you repeatedly claim that correction was made based on LR (LR alone and not relativity -- SR and GR).

 

[MacM]

Correct me if I am wrong, Persol, but aren't those diagrams using the SAME
method to solve the Twin Paradox as Hatch claims is the Lorentz Ether Theory? I mean, SR and LR give exactly the same results by that method,
which is just another way of using SR calculations?
EDIT: By the way, I got lost on the Triplet Paradox diagrams, hehe! Maybe
if I spent enough time...?

One needs to keep in mind when you say SR calculations you are actually using a Lorentz formula. So you are not proving SR unless the total scenario can be proven which includes the consequences of the choice of a referance frame.

Which in SR creates the paradox and in LR there is no paradox. In LR the one twin is indeed younger on return but there is no recipocal change in the other twin by changing views. This becomes a more realistic physical conclusion.

My position however, is that we should be cautious about accepting LR in this case as being an actual physical change in time or age. That is changing clock tick rates is a process change which has not been proven to be a change in time but may well just be a change in units of measure.

That is the changing tick rate is nothing more than placing more or less markers (frequency) onto a time interval being measured. That is the watch may say less time passed but be no more physical to time than to have the battery in your watch getting low.

This concept is highlighted by the comparision of relavistic GR affects on an atomic clock and grandfather clock running side by side and moved to different elevations.

When the atomic clock tick rate decreases the GF clock increases and vice-versa. So the affect of relativity depends entirely on the structure of the clock and its processes. Hardly proof that time is being affected by these external changes being applied to clocks causing a measurment change.

 

[MacM]

Why is it so hard for you to address the technical issue? I asked to give us the page number of the paper which tell us that LR (not SR and GR) was used to make the correction to those GPS satelite clocks rate. Here again my question.

Let's do some simple calculations.

The satelite is at 4.2r or 4.2*6,378,000=26,787,600m from the earth center. Its velocity is 3,860m/s. A rough calculation gives us 1/gamma of (1-8.3E-11). So the time lose for a day is 8.3E-11*24*3,600=7.17E-6 sec or about 7.2 microsecond.

The calculation used SR. Now, use GR to compute effect due to gravitational shift. The formula is dt = t(Km)/(c²r). Location of clocks relative to earth center, r is 6,378,000m and 26,787,600m respectively for clock on earth surface and on the satelites. The results are:

For r = 6,378,000m, dt = 6.95E-10*24*3,600 = 60.0 microseconds, and

For r = 26,787,600m, dt = 1.65E-10*24*3,600 = 14.3 microseconds.​

The balance of the two is 60.0-14.3 = 45.7 microseconds.

The net correction required for the clock is therefore 45.7 - 7.2 = 38.5 microseconds, very close to 38.4 microseconds given on page 11 of HP's paper recommended by you.

Since I have no knowledge of LR, I ask you to do similar computation for the above using LR. Please note again that the correction for gravitation shift (GR effect) is much more dominant than that for velocity (SR effect), it is 45.7/7.2=6.3 times. In other word, correction for gravitational shift is more important. I want you to accounted this amount (38.5 microseconds) using your LR since you repeatedly claim that correction was made based on LR (LR alone and not relativity -- SR and GR).

Being obtuse does not make your case. It has already been pointed out that SR adopted LR formulas. So any calculation will produce the same affect. The only differance (and it is a major issue for any physical reality consideration) is the choice of frames and allowed function.

Where SR requires the views of two observers in relative motion to be interchangeable and create recipocal reactions - i.e. both clocks running slow, that feature is prohibited by LR. One obseerver is in a preferred frame and is at rest and the other moves and the two views cannot be interchanged.

The article does not discuss the LR SR issue. It merely refers to relativity. Both LR and SR are relativity concepts and they use the same mathematics but the choice of the frame and the result physically makes GPS LR corrected not SR corrected.

Now if you still disagree please show us your SR GPS function where the earth clcok is either precalibrated to cause clock synchronization from the orbiting clocks view as being at rest.

 

[Persol]

You mean other than just being a mathematical circle jerk? I see no GPS system in any of this.

Then you probably aren't looking close enough. What do you believe teh GPS system has that this does not?

 

[2inquisitive]

Then you probably aren't looking close enough. What do you believe teh GPS system has that this does not?

Well,I'm not MacM, but I can tell what I believe is different. Simultaniety.
In the diagrams, for instance, time did not run at a simultanious rate between
the two twins when they were separating from each other vs when they
were meeting each other. The 7.2 microseconds would work as an AVERAGE
time dilation, but not at all points during the orbit between the reciever and
the satellite transmitter. All satellite clocks in the GPS system MUST be
synchronized (simultanious) with each other for the system to work. Orbits
are all over the place, some satellites approaching each other even. The
GPS system can operate for up to 180 days with no input from the master
controller on the ground, if it needs to. The GPS satellites can keep their
clocks synchronized and simultanious by exchanging information WITH EACH
OTHER. That is why I do not believe time dilation due to relative velocity
can be true, neither 'LR' nor SR. A preset rate would not work for all the
different relative velocities between the satellites themselves. The ground
reciever does not have to be synchronized with the satellites, the reciever
gets its information from the satellites and performs its own time synchronization, using the 4th satellite. But the satellite clocks themselves
have to be simultanious with each other at the moment the triangulation
and 4th clock readings are calculated, or the system doesn't work.

 

[2inquisitive]

By the way, if anyone is really interested in how GPS works, Trimble has a very good
tutorial that is easy to understand. Trimble is a major manufacturer of GPS recievers.
http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html

If you combine that tutorial with the information at the U S Naval Observatory's
website, it will start to become clear to you what is happening. The U S Naval
Observatory is the military branch that actually operates the GPS system, called
NAVSTAR.
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gps.html

 

[Persol]

In the diagrams, for instance, time did not run at a simultanious rate between
the two twins when they were separating from each other vs when they
were meeting each other.

According to the earth they do....

 

[2inquisitive]

One other thing I thought of, which may be obvious to others also. When we say the
clocks on the satellites slow down due to their velocity, it seems to me that it would
be due to their velocity THROUGH THE GRAVITATIONAL FIELD, not relative velocity
between each satellite clock. In other words, the gravitational field itself is what the
satellites velocity is relative to. Since all the orbits are in the same intensity of field,
all clocks would run slower by the same amount due to their velocity, which is also
equal velocity for each. Hence, they can maintain simultaniety with each other, all
clocks run slow by the same amount, velocity relative to the field is equal for all,
all are in the same intensity of gravity because their orbital planes are the same
distance from the dominate gravitational source, the Earth. That is how the satellites
clocks can maintain simultaniety.

 

[MacM]

One other thing I thought of, which may be obvious to others also. When we say the
clocks on the satellites slow down due to their velocity, it seems to me that it would
be due to their velocity THROUGH THE GRAVITATIONAL FIELD, not relative velocity
between each satellite clock. In other words, the gravitational field itself is what the
satellites velocity is relative to. Since all the orbits are in the same intensity of field,
all clocks would run slower by the same amount due to their velocity, which is also
equal velocity for each. Hence, they can maintain simultaniety with each other, all
clocks run slow by the same amount, velocity relative to the field is equal for all,
all are in the same intensity of gravity because their orbital planes are the same
distance from the dominate gravitational source, the Earth. That is how the satellites
clocks can maintain simultaniety.

Your above post hit the nail on the head regards the differances. That has been my point is trying to get them to recognize the changing view of observers. When you said the tick rate increases when approaching, is also the same as saying the earth clock slowed from the opposing perspective.

Now in this post are you saying that you see the gravity field (which is all pervasive), as an ether field?

 

[2inquisitive]

I see it as similar to an either field, but not exactly like the ones I have seen in ether
theories. Kind of like an either field, a gravitational field like I am describing is more
or less like an energy field, through which all other actions take place. The intensity,
or 'gravitational strength' of the field is responsible for our recognition of 'time.'
Much like in relativity theory, while an observer, or multipal observers, are within a
certain 'gravitational intensity' location in the field, everything seems normal, the laws
of physics are unchanged. The observer can move to a different 'gravitational intensity' location and he will still observe no changes in physics, the speed of light
will still be measured the same. But the speed of light in this new location will be
different when compared to the previous location. When an observer moves to a
different location with a change in gravitational strength, time changes, atoms tick at
a different rate, and the speed of light changes WHEN COMPARED TO THE PREVIOUS
LOCATION, but the observer detects no change in this new frame while there. I asked Yuriy once, does a light clock run faster in a lower gravity area? His answer was yes.
It runs faster when compared to a light clock in a different, higher gravity location.
I said well to me that proves that the speed of light is not constant, it is only constant
to the observers in a particular gravity intensity location. Everyone on the surface of
the Earth measures the speed of light the same because they are all in nearly the same gravitational intensity, the Earth's gravitational field at its surface. An observer
in intersteller space would still measure the speed of light as a constant, but that
observer's 'constant' would be different than an observer's 'constant' on Earth because
time and atomic processes vary according to gravitational intensity. If an observer
stands at one spot on Earth, the speed of light and time can be visualized as increasing as the Earth's gravitational field decreased farther from the surface, the
speed of light and time would decrease again as it passed through gravitational field
of another planet, etc. But if the observer were making the same trip himself, he
would detect no changes in anything, because time itself was changing along the
way because of the different gravitational intensities encountered. The speed of light
would always be measured as isotropic by the moving observer, but the moving observer's clock would NOT be in sync with a stationary observer's clock watching him.

 

[Paul T]

Being obtuse does not make your case. It has already been pointed out that SR adopted LR formulas. So any calculation will produce the same affect. The only differance (and it is a major issue for any physical reality consideration) is the choice of frames and allowed function.

Useless notion. Nobody care about your LR. You couldn't even prove your own claim that your recommended HP's paper makes reference to LR. It said about relativity (SR and GR) on page 11. I have been asking you since many posts ago on which page the paper said about LR? And until now, you have not yet given any reference page. There is nothing about LR in that paper, I knew it the first time you made the silly claim.

Then, you are also unable to provide even a simple calculation to justify that LR (not SR and GR) is used for correction of GPS satelites clocks rate.

Where SR requires the views of two observers in relative motion to be interchangeable and create recipocal reactions - i.e. both clocks running slow, that feature is prohibited by LR. One obseerver is in a preferred frame and is at rest and the other moves and the two views cannot be interchanged.

This is useless and bullshit statement. Keep it for yourself in your dream world.

The article does not discuss the LR SR issue. It merely refers to relativity. Both LR and SR are relativity concepts and they use the same mathematics but the choice of the frame and the result physically makes GPS LR crrected not SR corrected.

Exactly, it doesn't say a word about LR. Why did you then repeatedly claim that the paper making reference to your LR? It said about relativity. Other people know that relativity in this case means SR and GR or in fact simply GR since SR included in GR. Your claim that LR and not SR is what used to correct the GPS satelites clock is meaningless. Can you account 38.5 microseconds per day using your LR? No, you don't and that's why you keep dragging your silly feet along with repeated useless claim...LR and not SR. Silly! Didn't you even realize that time dilation effect due to velocity only 7.2 microseconds while...ah forget it, you are [deleted]. Keep make that silly "LR not SR" claim of yours. It is apparent that your argument has no bearing, it was just -- as always -- your dream world argument. It's fun though reading your silly argument...but, after awhile it becomes damn boring. You will say...so did my argument, right. [deleted]

Now if you still disagree please show us your SR GPS function where the earth clcok is either precalibrated to cause clock synchronization from the orbiting clocks view as being at rest.

It is useless. This kind of bullshit spreaded by you can be found in almost every threads (particularly those started by you). Keep it in your own dream world.

 

[MacM]

“ Originally Posted by MacM
Being obtuse does not make your case. It has already been pointed out that SR adopted LR formulas. So any calculation will produce the same affect. The only differance (and it is a major issue for any physical reality consideration) is the choice of frames and allowed function. ”

Paul T:"notion. Nobody care about your LR.

Useless comment. It is not my LR. It is Lorentz. The guy that beat Einstein to the concept of time dilation.

Paul T:"You couldn't even prove your own claim that your recommended HP's paper makes reference to LR.

I made no such claim. So it would be hard to prove.

"It said about relativity (SR and GR) on page 11. I have been asking you since many posts ago on which page the paper said about LR? And until now, you have not yet given any reference page. There is nothing about LR in that paper, I knew it the first time you made the silly claim.

Perhaps you should read more carefully. Both the paper I presented and my comments. That paper does not mention SR. It only mentions relativity and mentions relative velocity. Both LR and SR deal with these attributes. Your claim that it proves SR is shear stupidity since SR uses the LR formula in the first place.

I have not seen you apply the SR switching of frames to the GPS system and show us the status of clock synchronization. No it is clearly an LR based concept. You cannot switch frames which means it is not SR.

"Then, you are also unable to provide even a simple calculation to justify that LR (not SR and GR) is used for correction of GPS satelites clocks rate.

Stupid comment since it has been noted many times here that SR uses the LR formula.

“ Originally Posted by MacM

Where SR requires the views of two observers in relative motion to be interchangeable and create recipocal reactions - i.e. both clocks running slow, that feature is prohibited by LR. One obseerver is in a preferred frame and is at rest and the other moves and the two views cannot be interchanged. ”


Paul T:"This is useless and bullshit statement. Keep it for yourself in your dream world. "

My you get testy when back into a corner. So now are you trying to deny the bullwork of SR which is the switchability of frames? It seems many of you here would like to convert SR into LR and claim you knew it all along. It isn't that simple. You have made your bed, so now sleep in ti, as the saying goes."

“ Originally Posted by MacM

The article does not discuss the LR SR issue. It merely refers to relativity. Both LR and SR are relativity concepts and they use the same mathematics but the choice of the frame and the result physically makes GPS LR crrected not SR corrected. ”

Paul T:"Exactly, it doesn't say a word about LR. Why did you then repeatedly claim that the paper making reference to your LR?

I didn't. I pointed out it is an LR based concept. And why do you want to claim SR when there is no mention. Funny how they chose to not state SR and simply use the term relativity isn't it.

"It said about relativity. Other people know that relativity in this case means SR and GR or in fact simply GR since SR included in GR.

Funny indeed. How do you suppose you can justify that assumption. You simply ignore the existance of LR (the origin of SR) and try to take credit for LR. What a lot of crap.

"Your claim that LR and not SR is what used to correct the GPS satelites clock is meaningless. Can you account 38.5 microseconds per day using your LR? No, you don't and that's why you keep dragging your silly feet along with repeated useless claim...LR and not SR. Silly! Didn't you even realize that time dilation effect due to velocity only 7.2 microseconds while...ah forget it, you are [deleted]. Keep make that silly "LR not SR" claim of yours. It is apparent that your argument has no bearing, it was just -- as always -- your dream world argument. It's fun though reading your silly argument...but, after awhile it becomes damn boring. You will say...so did my argument, right. [deleted]

The issue here is the fact that SR fails the GPS system. It has nothing to do with GR. As I told James R. "You cannot boot strap theories". That is you cannot claim SR valid because you claim GR valid. It must be the other way around. If SR is invalid (and it is) then GR must also be flawed. That does not mean that it cannot be used to get one correct answer, just as SR in this case gets a correct answer using the LR formula.

“ Originally Posted by MacM

Now if you still disagree please show us your SR GPS function where the earth clock is either precalibrated to cause clock synchronization from the orbiting clocks view as being at rest. ”

Paul T:"It is useless. This kind of bullshit spreaded by you can be found in almost every threads (particularly those started by you). Keep it in your own dream world.

We notice you have failed to properly demonstrate my bullshit is in error.

Can't respond at the technical level so you must resort to innuendo and slander huh?


Last edited by James R : Today at 01:16 AM. Reason: personal insults removed

 

[Paul T]

Useless comment. It is not my LR. It is Lorentz. The guy that beat Einstein to the concept of time dilation.

Since it was you who introduced and repeatedly mentioned LR here then I said it is your LR. Does it mean you invent LR? Not necessary. However, strickly speaking, LR that you mentioned here seem to be your own LR as what other people's view on the matter could be different than yours. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with my "your LR" statement.

You couldn't even prove your own claim that your recommended HP's paper makes reference to LR.

I made no such claim. So it would be hard to prove.

No such claim? You are now saying that your recommended paper does not make reference to LR! Thanks. That's all I wanted to know.

Perhaps you should read more carefully. Both the paper I presented and my comments. That paper does not mention SR. It only mentions relativity and mentions relative velocity. Both LR and SR deal with these attributes. Your claim that it proves SR is shear stupidity since SR uses the LR formula in the first place.

It doesn't mention SR nor GR explicitly, but people knows (you don't) that they refer to SR and GR. Be clear, mister. Are you now saying that the paper makes reference to LR???

I have not seen you apply the SR switching of frames to the GPS system and show us the status of clock synchronization. No it is clearly an LR based concept. You cannot switch frames which means it is not SR.

As I said, your silly idea of trying to switching frames is useless. Only a dumb like you would argue this sort of thing again and again. This kind gabage idea of yours have been discussed all over the place in this forum. Why bother do it again here. Silly.

Then, you are also unable to provide even a simple calculation to justify that LR (not SR and GR) is used for correction of GPS satelites clocks rate

Stupid comment since it has been noted many times here that SR uses the LR formula.

Then what are you waiting for? Do the calculation using your LR and show us the result, even if it is the same as SR.

BTW, are they really exactly the same? If they do, then why must we have SR and you have your LR? Since they are the same I should stop call it SR and start call it LR. Then I say, your paper makes reference to LR (exactly the same as SR, BTW) and GR. Will this solve the matter? There is no more issue. Just a name, LR or SR, what the heck...just choose what name you want to use and I will use that name.

My you get testy when back into a corner. So now are you trying to deny the bullwork of SR which is the switchability of frames? It seems many of you here would like to convert SR into LR and claim you knew it all along. It isn't that simple. You have made your bed, so now sleep in ti, as the saying goes."

Your silly idea is useless.

I didn't. I pointed out it is an LR based concept. And why do you want to claim SR when there is no mention. Funny how they chose to not state SR and simply use the term relativity isn't it.

Why did you claim it is LR if it doesn't say it is LR? Hey, are LR and SR difference now? Hahaha, you never stick to one idea!

Funny indeed. How do you suppose you can justify that assumption. You simply ignore the existance of LR (the origin of SR) and try to take credit for LR. What a lot of crap.

Crap. Just choose the name you want to use and tell me.

The issue here is the fact that SR fails the GPS system. It has nothing to do with GR.

What? GPS has nothing to do with GR? Tsk..tsk...then give us calculation to verify that 7.2 microseconds and 45.6 microseconds and 38.4 microseconds mentioned in your recommended paper. You can use whatever theory you want, LR or whatever. Why? Having problem? I haven't seen a single calculation from you. You just give us more and more bullshit!

As I told James R. "You cannot boot strap theories". That is you cannot claim SR valid because you claim GR valid. It must be the other way around. If SR is invalid (and it is) then GR must also be flawed. That does not mean that it cannot be used to get one correct answer, just as SR in this case gets a correct answer using the LR formula.

Crap!

We notice you have failed to properly demonstrate my bullshit is in error.

Your bullshit is crap. What do you think the worth of CRAP?

Can't respond at the technical level so you must resort to innuendo and slander huh?

Technical level. Hehehe. I am still waiting your calculation using your favorite LR to demonstrate those 38.4 microseconds clock correction. Are you still working on it?

 

[MacM]

“ Originally Posted by MacM
Useless comment. It is not my LR. It is Lorentz. The guy that beat Einstein to the concept of time dilation. ”

Paul T:"Since it was you who introduced and repeatedly mentioned LR here then I said it is your LR. Does it mean you invent LR? Not necessary. However, strickly speaking, LR that you mentioned here seem to be your own LR as what other people's view on the matter could be different than yours. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with my "your LR" statement.

Other people that want to claim it is SR are simply not adhering to the rules of SR and selection of switchable frames.

"
“ Originally Posted by Paul T

You couldn't even prove your own claim that your recommended HP's paper makes reference to LR. ”

MacM:"I made no such claim. So it would be hard to prove. ”

Paul T:"No such claim? You are now saying that your recommended paper does not make reference to LR! Thanks. That's all I wanted to know.

If you read english you would have known that from the first post. Don't make it appear my statement has changed it hasn't. Only your understanding of its meaning in english has changed.

“ Originally Posted by MacM

Perhaps you should read more carefully. Both the paper I presented and my comments. That paper does not mention SR. It only mentions relativity and mentions relative velocity. Both LR and SR deal with these attributes. Your claim that it proves SR is shear stupidity since SR uses the LR formula in the first place.
”

Paul T:"It doesn't mention SR nor GR explicitly, but people knows (you don't) that they refer to SR and GR. Be clear, mister. Are you now saying that the paper makes reference to LR???

I am saying that they deliberqtely do not mention SR or LR because they do not want to rock the boat but that they know and anybody being honest knows that the choice of referance frame is an LR choice.

“ Originally Posted by MacM

I have not seen you apply the SR switching of frames to the GPS system and show us the status of clock synchronization. No it is clearly an LR based concept. You cannot switch frames which means it is not SR. ”

Paul T:"As I said, your silly idea of trying to switching frames is useless. Only a dumb like you would argue this sort of thing again and again. This kind gabage idea of yours have been discussed all over the place in this forum. Why bother do it again here. Silly.

What a crock of crap. Now you want to ignore the fact that switching frames is a root considerqtion in SR. In SR there is no absolute motion. Either observer can assume he is at rest and you must be able to switch frames or views.

I can understand why you now want to jpretend that is not so but you can't get away with it. You are stuck with your SR view now lets see you make it work in the GPS case. Switch frames. Go ahead cause the earth clock to now slow down from the precalibrated orbit clock where they are running synchronized, and tell us what happens.

“ Originally Posted by Paul T

Then, you are also unable to provide even a simple calculation to justify that LR (not SR and GR) is used for correction of GPS satelites clocks rate
”

MacM:"Stupid comment since it has been noted many times here that SR uses the LR formula.”

Paul T:"Then what are you waiting for? Do the calculation using your LR and show us the result, even if it is the same as SR. "

If there were any jpurpose to do so I would but you seem to want to not address the issue. Now switch frames and tell us what happens to the GPS system.

BTW, are they really exactly the same? If they do, then why must we have SR and you have your LR? Since they are the same I should stop call it SR and start call it LR. Then I say, your paper makes reference to LR (exactly the same as SR, BTW) and GR. Will this solve the matter? There is no more issue. Just a name, LR or SR, what the heck...just choose what name you want to use and I will use that name.

]

What is it about GPS using a locally absolute at rest frame that is prohibited in SR do you not understand. Go ahead. Switch frames and see if GPS continues to remain synchronized.

“ Originally Posted by MacM

My you get testy when back into a corner. So now are you trying to deny the bullwork of SR which is the switchability of frames? It seems many of you here would like to convert SR into LR and claim you knew it all along. It isn't that simple. You have made your bed, so now sleep in ti, as the saying goes."

Paul T:"Your silly idea is useless.

Right. :bugeye: I didn't think you could answer technically.

“ Originally Posted by MacM

I didn't. I pointed out it is an LR based concept. And why do you want to claim SR when there is no mention. Funny how they chose to not state SR and simply use the term relativity isn't it. ”

Paul T:"Why did you claim it is LR if it doesn't say it is LR? Hey, are LR and SR difference now? Hahaha, you never stick to one idea!

And you never digest anything meaningful. For the 7th time SR uses the time dilation formula developed by LR. They are indeed exactly the same. The differance is in the application. SR requires no preferred rest frame, frames must remain switchable.

In LR you cannot switch frames and in GPS you cannot switch frames. Guess what that means.

“ Originally Posted by MacM

Funny indeed. How do you suppose you can justify that assumption. You simply ignore the existance of LR (the origin of SR) and try to take credit for LR. What a lot of crap. ”

Paul T:"Crap. Just choose the name you want to use and tell me."

I have and it is the correct name for the function as it is being peerformed GPS uses LR not SR.

“ Originally Posted by MacM

The issue here is the fact that SR fails the GPS system. It has nothing to do with GR. ”

Paul T:"What? GPS has nothing to do with GR? Tsk..tsk...then give us calculation to verify that 7.2 microseconds and 45.6 microseconds and 38.4 microseconds mentioned in your recommended paper. You can use whatever theory you want, LR or whatever. Why? Having problem? I haven't seen a single calculation from you. You just give us more and more bullshit!

Please take a course in reading comprehension. Of course they make GR corrections. But that is not the issue here, the issue here is "GR" has nothing to do with the fact that SR fails GPS tests.

“ Originally Posted by MacM

As I told James R. "You cannot boot strap theories". That is you cannot claim SR valid because you claim GR valid. It must be the other way around. If SR is invalid (and it is) then GR must also be flawed. That does not mean that it cannot be used to get one correct answer, just as SR in this case gets a correct answer using the LR formula. ”

Paul T:"Crap!

You bet SR is crap and it is about time you started to understand that.

“ Originally Posted by MacM

We notice you have failed to properly demonstrate my bullshit is in error. ”


Paul T:"Your bullshit is crap. What do you think the worth of CRAP?

We note that you have failed to show the frames of referance in GPS can be switched. We note that you have failed to show SR is the GPS.

“ Originally Posted by MacM

Can't respond at the technical level so you must resort to innuendo and slander huh? ”


Paul T:"Technical level. Hehehe. I am still waiting your calculation using your favorite LR to demonstrate those 38.4 microseconds clock correction. Are you still working on it?

38.4 micro-sec? We aren't talking about GR here but the differance between LR and SR. I know you would rather skip that and argue somethingelse but it doesn't work that way.

Now show us that GPS can be an SR system. Switch frames and tell us the status of clock synchronization.

 

[Paul T]

Other people that want to claim it is SR are simply not adhering to the rules of SR and selection of switchable frames.

Crap! What's a silly rule?

No such claim? You are now saying that your recommended paper does not make reference to LR! Thanks. That's all I wanted to know.

If you read english you would have known that from the first post. Don't make it appear my statement has changed it hasn't. Only your understanding of its meaning in english has changed.

This is unbelievable silly. If you couldn't show us that the paper used your LR then why did you refer to us the paper and told us that it used LR?

I am saying that they deliberqtely do not mention SR or LR because they do not want to rock the boat but that they know and anybody being honest knows that the choice of referance frame is an LR choice.

Hahahaha. Crap! You are a paranoia freak. They did not mention SR nor GR because relativity means SR and GR. And...well..well what's the silly idea you have here again that the choice of reference frame indicating LR being used. Hahaha. Sillier and sillier!

What a crock of crap. Now you want to ignore the fact that switching frames is a root considerqtion in SR. In SR there is no absolute motion. Either observer can assume he is at rest and you must be able to switch frames or views.

Forget all this crap. You have been arguing this silly idea for far too long.

I can understand why you now want to jpretend that is not so but you can't get away with it. You are stuck with your SR view now lets see you make it work in the GPS case. Switch frames. Go ahead cause the earth clock to now slow down from the precalibrated orbit clock where they are running synchronized, and tell us what happens.

GPS clocks are corrected based on SR and GR. What's a silly idea you have there that the correction was done using SR alone. Effect due SR is less dominant than that due to GR. You still unable to understand this? Tsk...tsk..tsk..you are hopeless.

If there were any jpurpose to do so I would but you seem to want to not address the issue. Now switch frames and tell us what happens to the GPS system.

I said, forget this crap. Your recommended paper has already addressed the clocks correction issue. It requires no crap idea from you.

What is it about GPS using a locally absolute at rest frame that is prohibited in SR do you not understand. Go ahead. Switch frames and see if GPS continues to remain synchronized.

Hahaha, there is prohibited frame in SR? Silliest idea that I have ever heard. What's wrong with using earth center as the reference frame origin. It makes the problem much easier. Don't be silly, it is not prohibited. Choosing, say NY as the reference frame origin would make the problem much harder, that's all the matter.

And you never digest anything meaningful. For the 7th time SR uses the time dilation formula developed by LR. They are indeed exactly the same. The differance is in the application. SR requires no preferred rest frame, frames must remain switchable.

If you can do the calculation, do it. Your repeated refusal to give us your calculation using LR tell us that you don't know what the hell you were talking about. Show us your calculation then we know what kind of LR are you referring to.

In LR you cannot switch frames and in GPS you cannot switch frames. Guess what that means.

In that case, the calculation cannot be the same as SR one. Why do you avoid giving us your version of calculation based on LR?

I have and it is the correct name for the function as it is being peerformed GPS uses LR not SR.

But, your recommended paper say nothing about it. How do you ascertain that the paper really used LR and not SR? I have given you my calculation which verified that the number given in that paper (7.2 microseconds) tally with the result obtained using SR. Again, show us your version of calculation using LR so that we know how LR being used.

Please take a course in reading comprehension. Of course they make GR corrections. But that is not the issue here, the issue here is "GR" has nothing to do with the fact that SR fails GPS tests.

It is only your imagination. I have no interest to your LR, unless you can show us that it is usefull. From the start my interest was on GPS clocks correction and therefore whatever required for the clocks correction (SR or GR) is relevant.

BTW, the paper says nothing about SR failure. How do you justify that SR fails GPS test?

We note that you have failed to show the frames of referance in GPS can be switched. We note that you have failed to show SR is the GPS.

Hahaha. Silly. SR is the GPS? What's a crap! SR is not GPS and GPS is not SR. Wake up...wake, what are you talking about. Your argument is becoming more and more meaningless.

38.4 micro-sec? We aren't talking about GR here but the differance between LR and SR. I know you would rather skip that and argue somethingelse but it doesn't work that way.

As I said, I was interested on GPS clock correction not your LR. If your LR is unable to provide us correct result then it is useless. I am not arguing something else. From the start I said GPS clock correction needs SR and GR and your paper supports that. Now it is your half cook argument that the clock correction is based on LR is the CRAP!

Now show us that GPS can be an SR system. Switch frames and tell us the status of clock synchronization.

This is silly. GPS clock correction needs SR and GR consideration. If you don't like the name...they are corrected for velocity and gravitational shift. Gravitational shift effect is -- I don't know how many times have I repeated this -- much more dominant than time dilation due to velocity. Your demand that someone should show you that GPS can be an SR system indicating your hopeless stupidity.

 

[MacM]

Crap! What's a silly rule?

This is unbelievable silly. If you couldn't show us that the paper used your LR then why did you refer to us the paper and told us that it used LR?

Hahahaha. Crap! You are a paranoia freak. They did not mention SR nor GR because relativity means SR and GR. And...well..well what's the silly idea you have here again that the choice of reference frame indicating LR being used. Hahaha. Sillier and sillier!

Forget all this crap. You have been arguing this silly idea for far too long.

GPS clocks are corrected based on SR and GR. What's a silly idea you have there that the correction was done using SR alone. Effect due SR is less dominant than that due to GR. You still unable to understand this? Tsk...tsk..tsk..you are hopeless.

I said, forget this crap. Your recommended paper has already addressed the clocks correction issue. It requires no crap idea from you.

Hahaha, there is prohibited frame in SR? Silliest idea that I have ever heard. What's wrong with using earth center as the reference frame origin. It makes the problem much easier. Don't be silly, it is not prohibited. Choosing, say NY as the reference frame origin would make the problem much harder, that's all the matter.

If you can do the calculation, do it. Your repeated refusal to give us your calculation using LR tell us that you don't know what the hell you were talking about. Show us your calculation then we know what kind of LR are you referring to.

In that case, the calculation cannot be the same as SR one. Why do you avoid giving us your version of calculation based on LR?

But, your recommended paper say nothing about it. How do you ascertain that the paper really used LR and not SR? I have given you my calculation which verified that the number given in that paper (7.2 microseconds) tally with the result obtained using SR. Again, show us your version of calculation using LR so that we know how LR being used.

It is only your imagination. I have no interest to your LR, unless you can show us that it is usefull. From the start my interest was on GPS clocks correction and therefore whatever required for the clocks correction (SR or GR) is relevant.

BTW, the paper says nothing about SR failure. How do you justify that SR fails GPS test?

Hahaha. Silly. SR is the GPS? What's a crap! SR is not GPS and GPS is not SR. Wake up...wake, what are you talking about. Your argument is becoming more and more meaningless.

As I said, I was interested on GPS clock correction not your LR. If your LR is unable to provide us correct result then it is useless. I am not arguing something else. From the start I said GPS clock correction needs SR and GR and your paper supports that. Now it is your half cook argument that the clock correction is based on LR is the CRAP!

This is silly. GPS clock correction needs SR and GR consideration. If you don't like the name...they are corrected for velocity and gravitational shift. Gravitational shift effect is -- I don't know how many times have I repeated this -- much more dominant than time dilation due to velocity. Your demand that someone should show you that GPS can be an SR system indicating your hopeless stupidity.

Enough trying to talk with rocks.

You have failed to address the issue of GPS and the non-switchability of frames required by SR.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

You're mixing frames, as I said. A clock's "tick rate" never changes in its own reference frame. It does, however, change in other frames. In this case, B's tick rate slows in A's frame, and A's tick rate slows in B's frame.

You are relying on the fact that B's tick rate doesn't change in B's frame to deduce that it doesn't change in A's frame. Unfortunately for you, you can't draw that conclusion from that reasoning.

This is false. Please review the explanation already given. In A's frame, the final time difference results from time dilation alone. In B's frame, the final time difference results from time dilation plus the fact that clock A started running before clock B.

This is a MacM fantasyland concept which has no meaning in the real world.

Every clock in existence reads "one time then another".

Which do you assume is real?

It is strange that you, the great detractor of relativity, are suddenly agreeing that length contraction exists.

Have you half-converted to the Church of Relativity?

Or is this merely another argument of convenience for you? When can we expect the next bait and switch?

Not in this scenario.

I'll not reiterate here but as in the GPS thread. Physical reality disagrees with you. And so do I.