You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Is The Theory of Relativity Fatally Flawed?
- Thread starter MacM
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
James R said:I don't know why you bother with those kinds of responses, MacM. If you don't intend to give a useful response, there's really no point.
BTW, you're cross-polluting threads again. Stop it.
I must ask. How is it to provide the physical proof, albeit it may be currently running in another thread, is not allowed to enter the arguement. That makes no sense.
I am not attempting to duplicate the arguement here but merely point out the physical conclusions of GPS as relates to the issue of validity of Relativty..
MacM said:Enough trying to talk with rocks.
You have failed to address the issue of GPS and the non-switchability of frames required by SR.
I have not seen your calculation using LR for those GPS satelites clocks correction. Have you finished the calculation yet?
Paul T said:I have not seen your calculation using LR for those GPS satelites clocks correction. Have you finished the calculation yet?
Enough of your stupidity Paul T. The SR formula is the same one developed by Lorentz and used in LR before Einstein. The results are the same. Would you like me to post the results.
OK. -7.2 micro-seconds/day. Due to LR relative velocity. Satisfied. Dumb. Shssh. :bugeye:
MacM said:Enough of your stupidity Paul T. The SR formula is the same one developed by Lorentz and used in LR before Einstein. The results are the same. Would you like me to post the results.
OK. -7.2 micro-seconds/day. Due to LR relative velocity. Satisfied. Dumb. Shssh. :bugeye:
Hahaha, you called this calculation? How did you get that -7.2 microseconds/day? You did not show us the calculation, just the result. We don't even know what formula and assumption did you use. You cannot just jump to the result and say, this is the calculation: -7.2 micro-seconds/day. Even with my stupidity I would not present this kind of "calculation". Ah, try again....
Paul T said:Hahaha, you called this calculation? How did you get that -7.2 microseconds/day? You did not show us the calculation, just the result. We don't even know what formula and assumption did you use. You cannot just jump to the result and say, this is the calculation: -7.2 micro-seconds/day. Even with my stupidity I would not present this kind of "calculation". Ah, try again....
Look. You can flap around in the breeze all you want but I won't waste time with you. It has been pointed out that SR uses the LR formula. The same formula will procude the same result with the same given input.
Your post is gebberish nonsense.
Yuriy said:No, MacM wrong again. I have checked: according to LR answer is -4.9 micro-sec/per day. What is not correspond to the reality. So, LR is dead.
As I posted in the other thread where you posted this trash.
SR uses the LR formula T2 = T1(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>
The same formula, with the same input, will result in the same answer - Unless of course Yuriy is at the calculator.
Just a note:
This thread was started by MacM. It's titled "Is The Theory of Relativity Fatlly Flawed?". In his mind, relativity is "Special Relativity". That's why he thought that GPS clock correction is required mainly for effect due to velocity. He thought that correction for effect due to gravitational shift is just a trivial correction and therefore need not be discussed.
This thread was started by MacM. It's titled "Is The Theory of Relativity Fatlly Flawed?". In his mind, relativity is "Special Relativity". That's why he thought that GPS clock correction is required mainly for effect due to velocity. He thought that correction for effect due to gravitational shift is just a trivial correction and therefore need not be discussed.
Yuriy said:You forgot to use distance dilation: the events are happening in the different points. What contraction formula you are using in LR?
What referance point are you using?
Also it makes no differance. Whatever contraction exists in SR exist in LR. So you've screwed something up.
Paul T said:Just a note:
This thread was started by MacM. It's titled "Is The Theory of Relativity Fatlly Flawed?". In his mind, relativity is "Special Relativity". That's why he thought that GPS clock correction is required mainly for effect due to velocity. He thought that correction for effect due to gravitational shift is just a trivial correction and therefore need not be discussed.
Horse Shit. GR doesn't have the reciprocity problem that SR does. It is not being questioned. Now stay on point.
MacM said:Horse Shit. GR doesn't have the reciprocity problem that SR does. It is not being questioned. Now stay on point.
Illogical dream! If SR wrong, GR cannot be correct since SR is a special case of GR. Why do you address only SR "incorrectness" and apriori accept GR as correct?
Yuriy said:MacM:"So you've screwed something up."
I used usual formula of LR:
L2 = L1(1 - v^2/c^2)^1/2
Are you telling me that this formula is not in LR? Or it is wrong formula?
No, I'm saying it is the same formula as in SR, as well is any contracton. Hence if you got a different answer you screwed something up.
Paul T said:Illogical dream! If SR wrong, GR cannot be correct since SR is a special case of GR. Why do you address only SR "incorrectness" and apriori accept GR as correct?
I didn't say I accept GR as correct. I said it doesn't suffer the same reciprocity problem as SR.
GR is positional. That value affect doesn't change the relationship when you change views. The clock runs faster in orbit from either view.
In SR the moving clock always runs slower. You now have a case where the two views cannot become physical reality for any given clock because its tick rate is different from different views.
And now the last question before I will give up: Did I right thing using the Principle of Relativity in its conventional sense: "The all phenomena and all equations look the same in all inertial reference frame"? May be LR does not accepts this principle and I was wrong using it?
Yuriy said:And now the last question before I will give up: Did I right thing using the Principle of Relativity in its conventional sense: "The all phenomena and all equations look the same in all inertial reference frame"? May be LR does not accepts this principle and I was wrong using it?
I'm not sure but this may be where there is an error.
LR does not let you alter referance frames. An experiment must select a preferred frame. In that preferred frame nothing changes relationship .
You can't go to the orbit view and see the earth clock go slow. The earth is the preferred frame.
MacM,
Now I am confused. Do you state that LR does not accepts old and good Principle of Relativity, formulated by Galileo, that all inertial odservers should see the all phenomena in Nature the same and all physical laws should be invariant at transit between any inertial reference frames?
Now I am confused. Do you state that LR does not accepts old and good Principle of Relativity, formulated by Galileo, that all inertial odservers should see the all phenomena in Nature the same and all physical laws should be invariant at transit between any inertial reference frames?
I already was ready to claim that I am mistaken with my –4.9 m-sec/day but you just made me suspicious. May be “Earth is the preferred reference frame”, but how about “You can't go to the orbit view and see the earth clock go slow”? No matter how fast I am moving, no matter am I on orbit or am I moving straightforward I will see the Earth clock running the same? Even if my clocks do not have mechanism compensating the LR’s dilation of time as it is in GPS? So, you say that LR as a concept rejects the old good Principle of relativity? Yes or no?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.