Is The Theory of Relativity Fatally Flawed?

[MacM]

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?

Maybe this will clear things up.

In SR there are no preferred rest frames. Each observer assumes he is at rest.

In LR there is a choice made and a local preferred rest frame is made. In the case of GPS the obvious choice is the earth's axis. Which is what they use. From that perspective it is the earth that is at rest in all experiments.

NOw there is nothing to preclude you from chosing the orbit as your preferred frame at rest (although it would not seem a reasonable choice to have the larger mass circling the small satellite). But if you did that choice must be applied as the point of rest for all observers in that experiment.

There are never any switched frames as part of a given case. The reciprocity of SR is eliminated. The mathematics are the same but more structured and restricted in their application.

That means you could calibrate the GPS from the orbit view using LR but from the earth clock view it would still be the orbit clock that is at rest.

In deep space there may not be an obvious choice for a rest frame, just as in SR but the differance is this.

Given clock A and clock B with relative velocity. SR says both clock locally are at rest and see the other as in motion. That creates the untenable duality of tick rates in the clocks.

In LR you would arbitrarily choose one as at rest. i.e - "A" and it is "B" that is in motion. "B" would agree that "A" is at rest and that he is in motion because it is against an assumed background ether field as a referance.

To take the opposing view you must then say clock A' and B', not A and B. You must use different clocks to take the opposing view. You can see then in LR that the different times for the opposing views are on different physical clocks and not a multiple tick rate for the same physical clock.

 

[Yuriy]

MacM,
I understood all what you said and I do not want to arguee with that. I am right now interested to know your answer on such a question:
I am an alien from another planet and do not know anything about GPS and all synchronization done at it; I do not know anything about what reference frame has chosen as absolute one for any purposes. I have my clocks that can measure the flow of the physical time in nature. I can also see the readings of any your clocks.
I am far-far away Earth to be able to take into account any gravitational effects between earth and my clocks. My questions are:
1. Will I see that clocks on Earth in any places - on Equator and on Poles are running slower according to Lorentz time delay formula?
2. Will the Principle of relativity in its classical definition work for any observer like me?
Allow me remind you the classical principle of Relativity:
"The physical laws of Nature and results of all experiments are independent on the velocity of the inertial observer"
Please, confirm your simple answer, like "Yes" or "No" because without clarification these issues I can not agree that I did mistake in -4.9...

 

[Persol]

In LR there is a choice made and a local preferred rest frame is made..... here is nothing to preclude you from chosing the orbit as your preferred frame at rest

My god... MacM just discovered SR!

 

[MacM]

My god... MacM just discovered SR!

If you understood LR you would know just how wrong you are. They are not the same.

 

[MacM]

MacM,
I understood all what you said and I do not want to arguee with that. I am right now interested to know your answer on such a question:

I am an alien from another planet and do not know anything about GPS and all synchronization done at it; I do not know anything about what reference frame has chosen as absolute one for any purposes. I have my clocks that can measure the flow of the physical time in nature. I can also see the readings of any your clocks.

Only one note here. Your assumption that your clocks are measuring physical time in nature is limited to your local proper time.

I am far-far away Earth to be able to take into account any gravitational effects between earth and my clocks. My questions are:

1. Will I see that clocks on Earth in any places - on Equator and on Poles are running slower according to Lorentz time delay formula?

You distance away from earth does not alter the affect of gravity on the earth clocks. It alters the tick rate of your clock in your local proper time.

So you would see earth clocks running slower due to gravity on earth and you would see them running slower due to relative velocity.

However, it would not be a good Lorentz reference since you are establishing a frame with relative velocity between clocks and it is changing continuously due to the rotation of the earth and at different latitudes.

Lorentz would do what GPS does which is select the earth axis as a common point. Earth clocks have no relative velocity to that point. Your incoming space craft would, unlike the orbiting GPS system.

2. Will the Principle of relativity in its classical definition work for any observer like me?

Allow me remind you the classical principle of Relativity:

"The physical laws of Nature and results of all experiments are independent on the velocity of the inertial observer"

Yes or No doesn't cut it here. I need clarification of your definition. No experiment has any velocity unless it is referenced as relative velocity. But experiments (physics) in any inertial system are the same. They are not viewed the same by a moving observer.

That however is a measurement in relative motion and not the true results of the experiment.

Please, confirm your simple answer, like "Yes" or "No" because without clarification these issues I can not agree that I did mistake in -4.9...

I can't imagine how you are getting a different velocity affect since SR uses the LR time dilation formula. You must be using a different referance frame.

 

[Persol]

If you understood LR you would know just how wrong you are. They are not the same.

The sad thing is that your LR claims aren't consistent. If you allow any frame to be considered the rest frame, where does it differ from SR?

 

[MacM]

The sad thing is that your LR claims aren't consistent. If you allow any frame to be considered the rest frame, where does it differ from SR?

It differs from SR in that you cannot switch frames once selected. If you calibrate clocks to a given frame that frame remains the rest frame.

You can switch frames but you must switch clocks. i.e. -

Case 1 A at rest B in motion:

A =1 B < A

Case 2 B' at rest A' in motion:

B' = 1 A' < B'

Notice the case of B < A is not the same clock where A' < B'. There never exists the case where A < B and B < A.

This is the result of assuming absolute rest frames. If you switch views you do not switch frames. That is B is in motion and A is at rest.

 

[Yuriy]

So, I fill as we come to mutual agreement at least in one issue – The classic Principle of relativity, which can be formulated as follows:
"The physical laws of Nature and results of all experiments are independent on the velocity of the inertial observer"
You wrote here: “I need clarification of your definition.” Let me do that.
First of all, let me use the shorter formulation of the Principle of relativity, to avoid ambiguous notion “results of experiment”.
" The physical laws of Nature are independent on the velocity of the inertial observer", which means that no matter what velocity v I have in respect to you, if we both are the inertial observers, we will write down the basic law of physics as the same formulas and the definitions of all basic characteristics as the same formulas. The difference will be only that I will use in that formulas and at applications of these formulas the physical characteristic measured in my reference frame by my tools, and you will use in that formulas and at applications of these formulas the physical characteristic measured in your reference frame by your tools. But we will use the same formulas. And no one formula will contain v, at all, as far as we do not express our used characteristics through the characteristics of each other.
Do you agree with this Principle?

 

[MacM]

So, I fill as we come to mutual agreement at least in one issue – The classic Principle of relativity, which can be formulated as follows:
"The physical laws of Nature and results of all experiments are independent on the velocity of the inertial observer"
You wrote here: “I need clarification of your definition.” Let me do that.
First of all, let me use the shorter formulation of the Principle of relativity, to avoid ambiguous notion “results of experiment”.
" The physical laws of Nature are independent on the velocity of the inertial observer", which means that no matter what velocity v I have in respect to you, if we both are the inertial observers, we will write down the basic law of physics as the same formulas and the definitions of all basic characteristics as the same formulas. The difference will be only that I will use in that formulas and at applications of these formulas the physical characteristic measured in my reference frame by my tools, and you will use in that formulas and at applications of these formulas the physical characteristic measured in your reference frame by your tools. But we will use the same formulas. And no one formula will contain v, at all, as far as we do not express our used characteristics through the characteristics of each other.
Do you agree with this Principle?

This is a first. We are in agreement.

 

[Yuriy]

So, MacM, will be I right saying that LR is based upon the following three basic postulates:
1. Principle of Relativity as we agreed,
2. Length contruction formula
L2 = L1 (1-v^2 /c^2 )^½
as you stated before,
2. Time delay formula
T2 = T1 (1-v^2 /c^2 )^½
as you stated before,
where v is velocity of RF2 in respect to RF1 ?

 

[MacM]

So, MacM, will be I right saying that LR is based upon the following three basic postulates:
1. Principle of Relativity as we agreed,
2. Length contruction formula
L2 = L1 (1-v^2 /c^2 )^½
as you stated before,
2. Length contruction formula
T2 = T1 (1-v^2 /c^2 )^½
as you stated before,

We are OK up to here.

where v is velocity of RF2 in respect to RF2 ?

I don't follow this statement. You seem to be saying that referance frame 2 is relatitive to referance frame 2? In which case there is no velocity.

 

[Paul T]

In SR there are no preferred rest frames. Each observer assumes he is at rest.

Why do you always make silly statements? You are now saying that according to SR, someone in spaceship moving away from earth must consider himself at rest. Why must be so? Why can't he consider himself moving away from earth?

 

[Yuriy]

MacM,
1. I said that length contruction an time delay formulas are connecting measurements in two RF one of which (RF2) moves in respect to another one (RF1) with velocity v (measured by RF1!). So these formulas are the usual ones you and I are using for calculations. Nothing new.
2. And,please, excuse me for some misprints in my prior post, I fixed all such things, so, please read it again before you will post you final response.

 

[MacM]

Why do you always make silly statements? You are now saying that according to SR, someone in spaceship moving away from earth must consider himself at rest. Why must be so? Why can't he consider himself moving away from earth?

Flip flop, flip flop. Now you want to deny the very basis of SR which is that there is no absolute rest frame and that each observer can claim to be at rest and it is the other that is in motion. That is the basis of Relativity. You know that term "Relative Velocity"?.

Who is being silly now?

 

[MacM]

MacM,
1. I said that length contruction an time delay formulas are connecting measurements in two RF one of which (RF2) moves in respect to another one (RF1) with velocity v (measured by RF1!). So these formulas are the usual ones you and I are using for calculations. Nothing new.
2. And,please, excuse me for some misprints in my prior post, I fixed all such things, so, please read it again before you will post you final response.

I'll wait until it actually changes. It still reads RF2 relative to RF2.

 

[Yuriy]

Thanks and sorry: I fixed it too. read now.

 

[James R]

Maybe this will clear things up.

In SR there are no preferred rest frames. Each observer assumes he is at rest.

Not necessary.

In LR there is a choice made and a local preferred rest frame is made.

Really? Is the choice of "preferred rest frame" arbitrary in LR? How can that be? Isn't that inconsistent with an ether theory?

There are never any switched frames as part of a given case. The reciprocity of SR is eliminated. The mathematics are the same but more structured and restricted in their application.

Sounds like the difference between MacM "reciprocity" and real applications of SR.

 

[Yuriy]

To all readers.

1. The first of all, I have to confess: whole my post with –4.9 micro-sec/day was made up. I did not do any calculations. Simply, when a read that MacM did post “… OK. -7.2 micro-seconds/day. Due to LR relative velocity. Satisfied. Dumb. Shssh”, finally anyhow answering on Persol’s question in numerical manner I said to myself: “That is your chance to get the definite answers from him” and I started this journey. I knew, that for my acceptance of a mistake I did he will give me what I need. And I got it, just as you all got.
2. So, now each of you have MacM’s own words that he accepts as a true the following system of assumptions (or use any other name for that), which I will call “System LR”:
 The Principle of Relativity, stated that “The physical laws of Nature are independent on the velocity of the inertial observer", which means that no matter what velocity v I have in respect to you, if we both are the inertial observers, we will write down the basic law of physics as the same formulas and the definitions of all basic characteristics as the same formulas. The difference will be only that I will use in that formulas and at applications of these formulas the physical characteristic measured in my reference frame by my tools, and you will use in that formulas and at applications of these formulas the physical characteristic measured in your reference frame by your tools. But we will use the same formulas. And no one formula will contain v, at all, as far as we do not express our used characteristics through the characteristics of each other.
 The formula for length contraction
L2 = L1 (1-v^2 /c^2 )^½
 Time dilation formula
T2 = T1 (1-v^2 /c^2 )^½
where v is velocity of RF2 in respect to RF1.
3. In other hand, all of you know that SRT is based upon two assertions, which I will call “System SRT”:
 The same Principle of Relativity, and
 the Einstein’s Postulate of Absoluteness of the speed of light: “The speed of light in vacuum is the ultimate speed existing in Nature for any passage of energy and it is the absolute constant of Nature, equal c for a vacuum in any inertial reference frame.”.

4. As all you know (see any textbook on SRT or my Lecture on this Forum), “System SRT” automatically leads to the following theorem (i. e. all following can be proven as a mathematical theorem following “System SRT”):
“At conditions of System SRT there are unique linear transformations between coordinates and time of any event measured in the one inertial RF “K” as (x,y,z,t) and coordinates and time of the same event measured in the another inertial RF “K’” as (x’,y’,z’,t’), and these transformations are the Lorentz transformations; and there is a unique law of addition of velocities, which is the Einstein’s law of addition; and that there is a unique formulas connecting the length and times interval measured for the same events in both RFs and these formulas are
L2 = L1 (1-v^2 /c^2 )^½
and
T2 = T1 (1-v^2 /c^2 )^½
where v is velocity of RF2 in respect to RF1;
and all that is absolutely independent upon fact does the Ether exist in Nature, or does not;
and all that is absolutely independent upon fact does the some absolute reference frame exist in Nature, or does not”. (All these results actually are the basics of SRT).
5. MacM rejects “System SRT” and accepts “System LR”.
6. And here comes my surprise for MacM, for sake of which I conducted all my scheme of “discussion” with him the last two days:
It can be proven the following theorem *):
“ The “System LR” and “System SRT” are equivalent systems of assertions: one follows from another and visa-versa”.
Therefore, accepting two mentioned formulas - for length contraction and time dilation – together with Principle of Relativity or accepting the Einstein Principle of Absoluteness of speed of light together with
Principle of Relativity gives the same conceptual description of Nature.
Principle of Absoluteness of the speed of light follows the "System LR"!
In other words, all what MacM stated about some peculiar “Lorentz Relativity” as an alternative to SRT is totally BS. And there is no sense in any continuation of discussion on that matter in this thread.
*) This theorem easily can be proven by approach I use in my Lecture on SRT in “The Scientific Notes” #6 om my site www.minescience.com at derivation of the Lorentz transformation from Einstein’s Principle of Absoluteness of speed of light.

 

[MacM]

Yuriy,

I'll not duplicate your long disertation but make this short. You have gone several laps around the track and for nothing. I have stated several times that SR uses LR formulas. That they are the same and produce the same result given the same input.

In the end your conclusion ignores the differances in the theories. Remember this is not MacM's theory it is Lorentz Relativity Theory which actually preceeded Einstiens Relativity.

The differance is in the selection of absolute referance frames. Once you choose that frame you do not switch frames when you switch views. That is whichever observer is declared as at rest remains at rest and the other observer does not assume nor can he assume he is at rest. He is in motion relative to the other observer.

I suppose we can accept your word that you deliberately tried to trap me somehow by posting erroneous time dilation calculations.

 

[James R]

MacM:

Do LR and SR produce all the same mathematics, then?

If so, there is no useful distinction to be made between the theories, so we can refer to the theories interchangeably.