Is time universal? NO (and its proof)

[Billy T]

...GPS does use the concept of universal time which relativity forbids. GPS is 100% successful...

No, even MacM will tell you that GPS must adjust the satellite clocks to get them to agree with those on earth. (I think the gravitational adjustment is larger than the frame velocity adjustment.) MacM knows more about this than I do. I hope he will set you straight. (You should be embarased to "eat crow" from MacM.

You seem to be slipping Aer, posting errors and making false statements like: I used relativity to support relativity. Again I note that there is not one post in this long thread where I ever used any equation from relativity. - I challange you to support your claim. (One that essentially infers my reasoning is circular.)

 

[Aer]

Under the link scandalous clock on http://www.egtphysics.net/ please read the inset just below the heading "Background and problem statement" where the journal found it necessary to indicate the controversy over Hatch's article. I quote: "... will help in resolving apparently deeply held differences of opinion amongst experts in this area." That's how I know, the journal editor told me.

So by "his peers" you are referring to those that did not design the GPS system? Was this a physics journal or an engineering journal? When you say "his peers", I would think you are referring to those specialized in his area (i.e. GPS). It appears you are applying a more broad definition for "peers" as in "engineering peers" perhaps? In that case I refer you to my question:

Can you name one engineering disipline that uses relativity?

 

[Aer]

No, even MacM will tell you that GPS must adjust the satellite clocks to get them to agree with those on earth.

Correct. Perhaps you misunderstand what universal time means in this context. Universal time does not forbid time dilation. Universal time would mean that there is an ether (in this case, the gravitational potential) and that time dilation is a function of motion through this ether. I know it has been refered to as "Local Ether" and perhaps "Lorentz Ether" but I do not know that the two are necessesarily the same.

You seem to be slipping Aer

Nope, as usual you just do not understand.

 

[Physics Monkey]

Try reading Aer. The journal is called GPS Solutions so clearly the people who publish there and the community of experts the editor is referring to consists of people who work on GPS.

Engineering fields that use relativity, that's a tough one. No wait, it isn't. Electrical engineering and nuclear engineering for starters.

 

[Aer]

Try reading Aer. The journal is called GPS Solutions so clearly the people who publish there and the community of experts the editor is referring to consists of people who work on GPS.

The editors are not necessarily those who work on GPS. In fact, the editor in this case is a professor at the University of Maine, Alfred Leick. He has a PhD in Geodetic Science and teaches a course on GPS. But for the life of me, I can not find any evidence that he actually contributed to the development of the GPS system.

So I would not classify the editor in this case as an engineer as it appears he has no engineering experience nor an engineering degree. But I will concede that he is an "academic peer" which may or may not mean much depending on your perspective.

 

[Physics Monkey]

It doesn't matter if the editor is a peer of Hatch's or not. He was referring to the other GPS experts who were clearly asked to peer review Hatch's paper. His simple statement is that there exists within the community of GPS experts a strong disagreement over Hatch's position.

 

[Aer]

It doesn't matter if the editor is a peer of Hatch's or not. He was referring to the other GPS experts who were clearly asked to peer review Hatch's paper. His simple statement is that there exists within the community of GPS experts a strong disagreement over Hatch's position.

I am not sure exactly who reviewed the paper. I think it is safe to assume that at least some people who worked on designing GPS reviewed it, but some may be just secondary experts. The editor makes clear that there are some whom favor Hatch's position and some who disagree with his position. Read the quote carefully.

This manuscript has been reviewed following the guidelines of GPS Solutions. Having received credible reviews in favor and against publication, the process was unfortunately not conclusive. The manuscript is published in the hope that it will help in resolving apparently deeply held differences of opinions among experts in this area. We sincerely appreciate the thoughtful comments given by all reviewers.

I will also note for you that I've only skimmed through the site and do not necessarily endorse anything on it. Does that mean that I view that GPS incorporates special relativity strictly as the theory states? No.. I do not as I've clearly pointed out that there are several sources that say that GPS incorporates a modified special relativity, specifically one that suggests that "Local Ethers" are quite likely reality.

 

[Billy T]

PM - some friendly advise. (Your smart, but too close to the discussion to see what is happening.) Aer has you in his "lets be trivial and destroy a thread trap"

I admit to some self interest with this post - I would like you to have time to teach me about the subitily in the B = μ H. (Also I started this thread.)

 

[Aer]

PM - some friendly advise. (Your smart, but too close to the discussion to see what is happening.) Aer has you in his "lets be trivial and destroy a thread trap"

HA, no. Unlike you, I have a feeling Physics Monkey has at least a slight understanding of what I have said.

 

[James R]

Aer:

There is little doubt about his involvement in GPS. Furthermore, a simple search of "Hatch GPS Relativity" on google turns up numerous references of Hatch claiming special relativity is not used in GPS as advocated.

As Physics Monkey said, Hatch's ideas are unconventional and not representative of most experts in the field. (There are exceptions to every rule.)

GPS assumes a "universal" time local to Earth.

No it doesn't.

This has also been confirmed by at least one non-GPS designer whom has advocated the "Local Ether" theory of wave propogation. A simple search for "local ether" will give you all the information you seek.

Your repeated assertion that Local Ether is a viable alternative to relativity is so far unsupported by you on this forum. You wave around the term "local ether theory" like MacM waves "UniKEF" around. Why don't you explain the wonders of local ether theories to those of us who don't know much about them?

Can you name one engineering disipline that uses relativity?

That depends on where you draw the line between engineering and science. Engineering is applied science. The GPS system itself is engineered.

These simple facts remain: GPS uses a preferred frame which is the gravitational field created by the Earth.

That's not a preferred frame - just a convenient frame for the application. You're falling into a common misuse of the term "preferred" in this context. The frame is "preferred" in the sense that it was selected as one among many possibilities and used in the design, but it is not in any sense mandated by the physics.

GPS does use the concept of universal time which relativity forbids.

No it doesn't. In fact, GPS specifically deals with the effects of time dilation.

Universal time would mean that there is an ether (in this case, the gravitational potential) and that time dilation is a function of motion through this ether.

A gravitational potential is not a "medium" in the sense that the word "ether" is used in the context of relativity.

 

[Aer]

As Physics Monkey said, Hatch's ideas are unconventional and not representative of most experts in the field. (There are exceptions to every rule.)

Unconventional to physicists: YES.

What part of

Having received credible reviews in favor and against publication, the process was unfortunately not conclusive

states that most experts in the field disagree with Hatch. He had both favorable and unfavorable reviews. Again, I do not necessarily support any conclusions Hatch has made with his so-called "unconventional theories", so would you too classify me as one whom would give him an unfavorable review?

No it doesn't.

Yes it does. It does not use either the frame of the satellites or the frame of someone on Earth. It uses the frame of the gravitational potential of the Earth.

Your repeated assertion that Local Ether is a viable alternative to relativity is so far unsupported by you on this forum. You wave around the term "local ether theory" like MacM waves "UniKEF" around. Why don't you explain the wonders of local ether theories to those of us who don't know much about them?

It is not my assertion. There are numerous mathematically detailed papers that state as such. I've told you to search for "Local Ether" to find such papers. If you want to read them, you can surely find them yourself. Better yet, I'll make a clickable search just for you: Local Ether. The very first result is a very good location to start reading.

That's not a preferred frame - just a convenient frame for the application. You're falling into a common misuse of the term "preferred" in this context. The frame is "preferred" in the sense that it was selected as one among many possibilities and used in the design, but it is not in any sense mandated by the physics.

Wrong. If you chose any other frame, you would use a different synchronization. For instance, if we assume the surface of Earth is at rest, we would say the satelites time is dilated. If we assume the satellite is at rest, then the surface of the Earth's time is dilated and we would never be able to get synchronization.

No it doesn't. In fact, GPS specifically deals with the effects of time dilation.

Don't be silly, I never said that "universal time" forbids time dilation. "Universal time" just means that time dilation occurs with motion relative to a preferred frame, in this case, Earth's gravitational potential.

A gravitational potential is not a "medium" in the sense that the word "ether" is used in the context of relativity.

Agreed. It is a medium in the context of "local ethers" which is the context I have intended.

 

[Pete]

For instance, if we assume the surface of Earth is at rest, we would say the satelites time is dilated. If we assume the satellite is at rest, then the surface of the Earth's time is dilated and we would never be able to get synchronization.

This is the same as MacM's miscomprehension of the predictions of Relativity regarding GPS.

Here's the key point:
Relativity predicts that clocks on Earth's surface tick slower than satellite clocks in all frames.

 

[Aer]

This is the same as MacM's miscomprehension of the predictions of Relativity regarding GPS.

Miscomprehension of the predictions of relativity? Perhaps I didn't specify that I was talking about relative motion only, as in, what special relativity would say. Everything I said is completely correct regarding special relativity.

Here's the key point:
Relativity predicts that clocks on Earth's surface tick slower than satellite clocks in all frames.

Not if my satellite zooms around the Earth at 0.5c for instance and my frame is the satellite rest frame. I think you missed the point that I was referring to special relativity's prediction of reciprocity.

 

[Pete]

Everything I said is completely correct regarding special relativity.

'Fraid not.
Special relativity says that the Earth clock ticks faster than the satellite clock in all frames.

Not if my satellite zooms around the Earth at 0.5c for instance and my frame is the satellite rest frame.

Careful! In special relativity, the satellite rest frame is not inertial, and a naive application of the time dilation formulas is not appropriate.


Consider the following scenario, and an analysis using simultaneity:

Consider two clocks, A and B.
The rest frame of A is inertial.
B is moving in a circular path with A at the centre, with a constant speed of 0.5c relative to A.

Let's consider simultaneity in the rest frames of A and B.
Since the direction of A from B is always perpendicular to A's velocity relative to B, and the direction of B from A is always perpendicular to B's velocity relative to A, we see that according to special relativity:

If an event at A is simultaneous with an event at B in A's frame, then the two events will also be simultaneous in B's frame.

This immeidately implies that time dilation between A and B must be absolute. The two clocks must agree on which one is slow:

Say A's clock resets to zero simultaneously with B's clock resetting to zero in A's frame. We know that these reset events are also simultaneous in B's frame.

Now say that A's clock reads 100s simultaneously with B's clock reading 86.6s. We know that these ticks are also simultaneous in B's frame.

So in A's frame, 100 seconds pass in the time it takes 86.6 seconds to tick past on A's clock.
And in B's frame, 86.6 seconds pass in the time it takes 100 seconds to tick past on A's clock.

There ya go.

 

[MacM]

No it doesn't. In fact, GPS specifically deals with the effects of time dilation.

After all this time and you still do not get it. Time dilation is NOT a featrure exclusive to SRT. It indeed computes time dilation but due to absolute motion of orbit relative to the center of the earth (and a couple of other simular frames of referance) but does not use SRT which would be relative velocity between the clocks and would also mandate reciprocity.

The one way gamma function is a property of an absolute view and forbids the elusive reciproicty. You continue to try and take credit for one half of SRT being SRT. You cannot exclude those jparts that do not work or are not proven and claim GPS supports it. It does not.

 

[KitNyx]

There are two things (well two main things) that I am confused about. Would anyone mind explaining them?

1) what is the "frame of the gravitational potential of the Earth"? I am in Earths "gravity field" yet my frame of reference can never be the same as yours (also in Earths gravity field). Do you mean Greenwich Standard Time?

2) reciprocity? What does relativity have anything to do with mutual give and take?

- KitNyx

 

[MacM]

This is the same as MacM's miscomprehension of the predictions of Relativity regarding GPS.

Here's the key point:
Relativity predicts that clocks on Earth's surface tick slower than satellite clocks in all frames.

You need to breakdown the relativity components. Otherwise you mislead readers. GR causes clocks on earth to tick slower by about 45us/day but orbit velicty causes them to tick slower by 7.2us/day. Such that the orbiting clock is prelaunch calibrated to slow it down by (45 - 7.2) = 38us/day.

But this is a velocity compensatation and is not done consistant with SRT. A veloicty adjsument made using SRT predicts -5.8us/day an incorrect value as justified by actual emperical results.

Give it up SRT is falsified by GPS.

 

[MacM]

If an event at A is simultaneous with an event at B in A's frame, then the two events will also be simultaneous in B's frame.

This immeidately implies that time dilation between A and B must be absolute. The two clocks must agree on which one is slow:

Say A's clock resets to zero simultaneously with B's clock resetting to zero in A's frame. We know that these reset events are also simultaneous in B's frame.

Now say that A's clock reads 100s simultaneously with B's clock reading 86.6s. We know that these ticks are also simultaneous in B's frame.

So in A's frame, 100 seconds pass in the time it takes 86.6 seconds to tick past on A's clock.
And in B's frame, 86.6 seconds pass in the time it takes 100 seconds to tick past on A's clock.

There ya go.

And simultaneity is not at issue and does not resolve the problem of reciprocity. The only issue here is the failure of any relatvitist to supply evidence or emperical data demonstrating reciprocity.

Even though it was a bogus publication of the test results; the fact that H&K had pilots and clocks aboard their planes, as did the surface monitors; only the clocks in actual motion dilated.

According to you the pilots had the expectation based on SRT that they would find the earth clocks dilated.

What happened to that SRT prediction?

 

[MacM]

2) reciprocity? What does relativity have anything to do with mutual give and take?

- KitNyx

SRT makes the false conclusion that everything is relative. Since you cannot sense your own inertial motion if there is relative veloicty between you and another jperson then you assume he has all motion and you are at rest. HEnce his clocks dilate, etc. But the other person likewise claims to be at rest and says it is you that have all motion and the situation is reversed such that SRT ends up claiming each clock runs slower than the other!.

 

[James R]

MacM:

After all this time and you still do not get it. Time dilation is NOT a featrure exclusive to SRT.

No. It appears in GR, too, and SR is a subset of GR. Right?

It indeed computes time dilation but due to absolute motion of orbit relative to the center of the earth (and a couple of other simular frames of referance) but does not use SRT which would be relative velocity between the clocks and would also mandate reciprocity.

You still don't understand that "absolute motion of orbit relative to" anything is a contradiction in terms. Either something is absolute, or it is relative. There's no such thing as "relatively absolute" or "absolutely relative".

The one way gamma function is a property of an absolute view and forbids the elusive reciproicty

Relativity has no "one way" gamma function. Only wacky MacM physics has that.