Special Relativity Is Refuted

One difference between a sound wave and light is that sound is one molecule hitting another and transferring energy through collisions, whereas light consists of photons.

Another difference is that the propagation velocity of sound waves increases with the density of the medium through which it propagates increases, where the propagation velocity of light increases as the density of the medium decreases.

In the extremes.., light propagates through a vacuum where sound may not pass and sound propagates through solids where light may not pass.
 
It is really hard to find this info - you have to google :time, dilation, GPS.

Try this link.

So is this site a conspiracy, are they liars, are they sheeple, or do they just not have the intelligence of you and motor daddy?:D

The author of the link, has no idea about the GPS.
It's a stupidity.
Read carefully and learn!

Timekeeping and leap seconds

Timekeeping and leap seconds
While most clocks are synchronized to Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), the atomic clocks on the satellites are set to GPS time (GPST; see the page of United States Naval Observatory). The difference is that GPS time is not corrected to match the rotation of the Earth, so it does not contain leap seconds or other corrections that are periodically added to UTC. GPS time was set to match Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) in 1980, but has since diverged. The lack of corrections means that GPS time remains at a constant offset with International Atomic Time (TAI) (TAI – GPS = 19 seconds). Periodic corrections are performed on the on-board clocks to keep them synchronized with ground clocks.[80]
The GPS navigation message includes the difference between GPS time and UTC, which as of 2011 is 15 seconds because of the leap second added to UTC December 31, 2008. Receivers add this offset to GPS time to calculate UTC and specific timezone values. New GPS units may not show the correct UTC time until after receiving the UTC offset message. The GPS-UTC offset field can accommodate 255 leap seconds (eight bits) that, given the current period of the Earth's rotation (with one leap second introduced approximately every 18 months), should be sufficient to last until approximately the year 2300.
 
One difference between a sound wave and light is that sound is one molecule hitting another and transferring energy through collisions, whereas light consists of photons.
You ever heard of wave–particle duality?
You can explain why increases the propagation speed of the light when leaving the water?
 
You ever heard of wave–particle duality?
You can explain why increases the propagation speed of the light when leaving the water?

Sound and light have two completely different mechanisms.

In a medium other than a vacuum light propagates by continual absorbtion and re-emission of photons by electrons.

Have you ever studied any physics? Or do you just depend on Wiki?
 
Last edited:
In a medium other than a vacuum light propagates by continual absorbtion and re-emission of photons by electrons.

AlexG, I understand this explanation and its logic. Still I have always had some reservation as to its accuracy, based on the following.

Every medium that we are aware of that is transparent to light is composed of atoms and molecules with known and documented EM absorption and emission spectrum that are well defined. The model referred to in the quote above assumes that we can both know what material(s) a light source originates from, by its emission spectrum and what material(s) it has traveled through by absorption spectrums, while at the same time assuming that the light or individual photons are absorbed and emitted unchanged by those same absorption and emission characteristics, of the involved medium(s).

If that model as an explanation is accurate and not just an artifact of logic, how can we assume that any of the light we perceive as originating in the far reaches of the universe tells us anything about the far reaches of the universe?, when the photons we detect have undergone an unknown number of absorptions and re-emissions?
 
The author of the link, has no idea about the GPS.
It's a stupidity.
Read carefully and learn!

Timekeeping and leap seconds

Hmm... so you are going with their stupid? I was guessing you would go with conspiracy, but thinking about it, the stupid angle makes more sense. You are completely ignorant of physics so it is actually quite easy for you to dismiss the authors as stupid becasue what they are writting makes no sense (to YOU).:rolleyes:
 
Sound and light have two completely different mechanisms.

In a medium other than a vacuum light propagates by continual absorbtion and re-emission of photons by electrons.

Have you ever studied any physics? Or do you just depend on Wiki?
Once again you have shown your ignorance.
Photon emission direction is not correlated with the direction of absorbed photon.
What does this mean? Do it yourself if you are able.
I recommend to you to search Google, but I see that you are not accustomed
to get information.
 
Hmm... so you are going with their stupid? I was guessing you would go with conspiracy, but thinking about it, the stupid angle makes more sense. You are completely ignorant of physics so it is actually quite easy for you to dismiss the authors as stupid becasue what they are writting makes no sense (to YOU).:rolleyes:

Oh the irony. :)

What is a stupid?
 
Hmm... so you are going with their stupid? I was guessing you would go with conspiracy, but thinking about it, the stupid angle makes more sense. You are completely ignorant of physics so it is actually quite easy for you to dismiss the authors as stupid becasue what they are writting makes no sense (to YOU).:rolleyes:
It was about GPS systems, isn't it?
Before you post something documenting yourself about it.
See why is necessary the time correction for GPS systems, before you say something stupid.
 
It was about GPS systems, isn't it?
Before you post something documenting yourself about it.
See why is necessary the time correction for GPS systems, before you say something stupid.

Have you been drinking?
 
See why is necessary the time correction for GPS systems, before you say something stupid.

Yeah, some how I'm not surpirsed by direction this discussion has taken.

From your own source:

The difference is that GPS time is not corrected to match the rotation of the Earth, so it does not contain leap seconds or other corrections that are periodically added to UTC. GPS time was set to match Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) in 1980, but has since diverged. The lack of corrections means that GPS time remains at a constant offset with International Atomic Time (TAI) (TAI – GPS = 19 seconds). Periodic corrections are performed on the on-board clocks to keep them synchronized with ground clocks.

Nothing to do with Relativity, the adjustments for relativity were performed before the satellite was launched.

The adjustments wikipedia mentions relate to glitches in the earths rotation, and changes in its rate of rotation due to things like tidal friction with the moon, and changes in the earths mass distribution. The changes in the earths mass distribution occur because of things like mantle convection and earthquakes. I think also that the coupling between the core and the earths magnetic field comes into it as well.
 
Then it's no longer a spherical wave- the relation $$t=\frac{1}{c}\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2}$$ doesn't hold for fixed $$y,z$$ unless you set $$y=z=0$$ for all times, and if the light pulse propagates directly along the x-axis, then it's a basic result that the pulse will be moving at $$c$$ in the same direction in both frames.

I see that the proper application of calculus is pseudoscience here. Why am I not surprised.

When you calculate the spherical light wave moving while holding y and z fixed, you get the results presented in the paper.

Did you ever learn above the partial derivative?
 
Admitting that I have not read the whole of the paper, if this were a court of law the proper response would be, "Assumes facts not in evidence".

An initial issue, at least from the Abstract, is that the paper is addressing the situation from within the context of special relativity, which is consistent with a frame of reference that is a flat 4-D Minkowski space time, consistent with special relativity. While even a few years ago we could have assumed that the conclusions drawn from such a perspective were valid, on their own merit. That is not entirely the case today.

It has always been assumed, that general relativity reduces to consistency with Newtonian dynamics locally. This because within the known margins of error Newton's field equations represent a good description of local space. General relativity becomes dominant only in the case of the proximity of "strong" gravitational fields.

The recent results from the GP-B experiment demonstrate that space is curved and dynamic even under gravitational condition traditionally considered to be dominated by Newtonian dynamics. This suggests that instead of general relativity reducing to Newtonian dynamics locally, it is more likely Newton's field equations provide a close approximation of Einstein's field equations, locally.

Since we know know now know that space is locally dynamic, we also know that it is nowhere truly completely Newtonian. Beginning the exploration of a model such as has been put forward within the confines of special relativity is by far an easier task than jumping right into the more complicated field equation and space-time of GR. However, in light of the proofs provided by the GP-B experiment, until the assumptions and conclusions have been verified from the perspective of GR, they can no longer be assumed to be a proof.

This really bothers me personally. However, GP-B has proven that space is locally curved and because of the nature of light we can no longer assume that, in the case of light space and space-time are anywhere anything other than relativistic.

Does this sound like garbage? In some ways it does really bother me, personally. But it does seem that we can no longer treat SR and a flat 4-D Minkowski space time as anything other than a locally close approximation of GR rather than the other way around.

Beyond all this, the paper cited and its conclusions are not consistent with experience.

An initial issue, at least from the Abstract, is that the paper is addressing the situation from within the context of special relativity, which is consistent with a frame of reference that is a flat 4-D Minkowski space time, consistent with special relativity.

This does not work.

The paper assumes the truth of SR and explores the results using calculus.

It proves if the SLW propagates away from the unprimed origin along a fixed y line and z-0, then using calculus, the SLW propagates toward the primed origin.
 
Actually the derivative still is fixed on the expanding wave. Doing the partial derivative for fixed y and z just means the author isn't doing it for fixed $$\theta$$ and $$\varphi$$: i.e. he's considering a point that's moving around the expanding sphere in such a way that its y and z coordinates always stay the same instead of expanding radially outward. In some cases such a point will actually move faster than c, which could easily lead to the sort of causality reversals the author seems to be confused by. Note that the author also found t' decreasing, for increasing t, under exactly the same circumstances.

Let me see if I understand you.

Are you claiming that the spherical light wave does not propagate along a y line that is fixed and z = 0?

And, yes, you are correct, the intersections occur daster than the spedd of light.

So what. Now, take the next step. These SLW intersections with the y line propagate toward the primed origin contradicting the light postulate in the primed frame.

I see you were unable to refute this calculus fact.
 
Hello, back from a long drive and dinner.
There are five glaring mistakes on page 2, which is exactly what we expect when the level of discussion is "the article used calculus"

The Five mistakes I would like to unravel are:
1) Incorrect manipulation of expressions, which ignore the postulates. Thus he stops talking about the physics of light.
2) Ignoring the rest of the Lorentz transform
3) The absurd assertion that radially propagating light also propagates along a vertical line with fixed y.
4) The misuse of multivariable calculus that asserts that just because "$$\frac{\partial x'}{\partial x} > 0$$, if x increases, then x' increased."
5) This misuse of multivariable calculus that asserts that $$\frac{\partial x'}{\partial x} > 0$$ and $$\frac{\partial x}{\partial t} > 0$$ and $$x' < 0$$ are enough to conclude that in the primed frame the light is moving toward the coordinate origin.

Correct manipulation of expressions
Given $$z = 0 \, , \; 0 < x \, , \; 0 < y \, , \; 0 < v < c $$, $$c^2 t^2 = x^2 + y^2$$ describes a two-dimensional surface. So solutions are necessarily parameterized by two independent variables.
$$t(x,y) = \frac{1}{c} \sqrt{x^2 + y^2}$$ is one possible parameterization.
$$x(\theta,t) = ct \, \cos \theta \, , \; y(\theta,t) = ct \, \sin \theta$$ is another.
$$x(y,t) = \sqrt{c^2 t^2 - y^2}$$ is another.

So when we parameterize x', t' and y' in terms of x and t, we have the related choices:
$$x'(x,y) = \left( x - v t(x,y) \right) \gamma = \frac{c x - v \sqrt{x^2 + y^2}}{c \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} = \frac{c x - v \sqrt{x^2 + y^2}}{\sqrt{c^2 - v^2}} \\ y'(x,y) = y \\ t'(x,y) = \left( t(x,y) - \frac{v x}{c^2} \right) \gamma = \frac{\frac{1}{c} \sqrt{x^2 + y^2} - \frac{v x}{c^2}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} = \frac{c \sqrt{x^2+y^2}-v x}{c \sqrt{c^2-v^2}} $$

Partial derivatives are only partial derivatives

Now we can take partial derivatives of these expressions, remembering to do the work Mr Banks ignored:
$$ \begin{array}{rclrclrclrcl} \frac{\partial x'(x,y)}{\partial x} & = & \frac{c - \frac{v x}{\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}}}{\sqrt{c^2 - v^2}} & \frac{\partial y'(x,y)}{\partial x} & = & 0 & \frac{\partial t'(x,y)}{\partial x} & = & \frac{\frac{cx}{\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}} - v}{c \sqrt{c^2 - v^2}} & \frac{\partial t(x,y)}{\partial x} & = & \frac{x}{c\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}} \\ \frac{\partial x'(x,y)}{\partial y} & = & \frac{- v y}{\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}\sqrt{c^2 - v^2}} & \frac{\partial y'(x,y)}{\partial y} & = & 1 & \frac{\partial t'(x,y)}{\partial y} & = & \frac{y}{\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}\sqrt{c^2 - v^2}} & \frac{\partial t(x,y)}{\partial y} & = & \frac{y}{c\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}} \end{array}$$

So here we can see that even though $$\frac{\partial x'}{\partial x} > 0$$, $$\frac{\partial x'}{\partial y} < 0$$ and so the sign of $$\partial x'$$ is indeterminate unless we add a constraint on $$\partial x \, , \; \partial y$$. Mr. Banks sees to hold y constant, but then he is no longer describing the propagation of rays of light but where the expanding sphere of light meets the line $$y = y_g$$ which is akin to a searchlight beam hitting a wall and not akin to a particle. Like a spot on the wall lit up by a laser pointer, it is not constrained to move slower than light.
$$\frac{\partial x}{\partial t} = c \sqrt{1 + \frac{y^2_g}{x^2}} > c$$

Directions need more than one coordinate
Even with all the problems, does the imaginary choice move away from the new coordinate origin?
To answer this, we must take the dot product of the velocity with the position in the new coordinate system and check the sign.
$$x'(x,y) \frac{\partial x'}{\partial t'} + y'(x,y) \frac{\partial y'}{\partial t'} = x'(x,y) \frac{\partial x'}{\partial x} \frac{\partial x}{\partial t'} + y'(x,y) \frac{\partial y'}{\partial x} \frac{\partial x}{\partial t'} = c \frac{c \sqrt{x^2+y^2}-v x}{\sqrt{c^2-v^2}} $$ which is always greater than zero, indicating that even in the bad physics, Mr. Banks has also erred when "the article used calculus."

A better way
Because of the conservation of angular momentum, we should use a better parameterization to see the fate of actual rays of light. $$x(\theta,t) = ct \, \cos \theta \, , \; y(\theta,t) = ct \, \sin \theta$$ is natural.
So when we parameterize x', t' and y' in terms of theta and t, we have the related choices:
$$x'(\theta,t) = \left( x(\theta,t) - v t \right) \gamma = \frac{c \, \cos \theta - v}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} t \\ y'(\theta,t) = y(\theta,t) = ct \, \sin \theta \\ t'(\theta,t) = \left( t - \frac{v x(\theta,t)}{c^2} \right) \gamma = \frac{1 - \frac{v}{c} \, \cos \theta }{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} t $$

$$ \begin{array}{rclrclrclrclrcl} \frac{\partial x'(\theta,t)}{\partial \theta} & = & \frac{-c \, \sin \theta }{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} t & \frac{\partial y'(\theta,t)}{\partial \theta} & = & ct \, \cos \theta & \frac{\partial t'(\theta,t)}{\partial \theta} & = & \frac{\frac{v}{c} \, \sin \theta }{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} t & \frac{\partial x(\theta,t)}{\partial \theta} & = & - c t \, \sin \theta & \frac{\partial y(\theta,t)}{\partial \theta} & = & c t \, \cos \theta \\ \frac{\partial x'(\theta,t)}{\partial t} & = & \frac{c \, \cos \theta - v}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} & \frac{\partial y'(\theta,t)}{\partial t} & = & c \sin \theta & \frac{\partial t'(\theta,t)}{\partial t} & = & \frac{1 - \frac{v}{c} \, \cos \theta }{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} & \frac{\partial x(\theta,t)}{\partial t} & = & c \, \cos \theta & \frac{\partial y(\theta,t)}{\partial t} & = & c \, \sin \theta \end{array}$$

So how fast is light moving in the unprimed frame (holding theta constant)?
$$\sqrt{\left( \frac{\partial x}{\partial t} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{\partial y}{\partial t} \right)^2} = c$$
And in the unprimed frame?
$$\sqrt{\left( \frac{\partial x'}{\partial t'} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{\partial y'}{\partial t'} \right)^2} = \sqrt{\left( \frac{\partial x'}{\partial t} \frac{\partial t}{\partial t'} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{\partial y'}{\partial t} \frac{\partial t}{\partial t'} \right)^2} = \sqrt{\left( \frac{c \, \cos \theta - v}{1 - \frac{v}{c} \, \cos \theta } \right)^2 + \left( c \sin \theta \frac{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}{1 - \frac{v}{c} \, \cos \theta } \right)^2} = c$$

So is the light moving towards the origin in the primed frame?
$$\left( \frac{c \, \cos \theta - v}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} t \right) \left( \frac{c \, \cos \theta - v}{1 - \frac{v}{c} \, \cos \theta } \right) + \left( ct \, \sin \theta \right) \left( c \sin \theta \frac{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}{1 - \frac{v}{c} \, \cos \theta } \right) = \frac{c^2 t (v-c \cos \theta)^2}{\sqrt{c^2-v^2} (c-v \cos \theta)} + \frac{c^2 t \sqrt{c^2 - v^2} \sin^2 \theta}{c - v \cos \theta} = \frac{c^2 t (c-v \cos \theta)}{\sqrt{c^2-v^2}} > 0$$
Of course not. Only someone without the ability to understand special relativity would think so. Only someone who doesn't understand calculus would calculate so.

Let's see, we are viewing the SLW propagating along a fixed y line with z = 0 in the unprimed frame.

So, applying the partial derivative with y and z fixed is natural and normal. That is the first place you are confused.

The paper applied the partial derivative correctly. Now, if the partial derivative is false, then make that statement so you can be corrected.

You then make the statement that holding y fixed and z = 0 is not a legitimate wan to analyze the SLW. I suggest you take a freshmen course in calculus to gain a better understanding of the partial derivative and it applications.

Now, if the partial derivative in the paper is false, prove that which means you will prove calculus is false.

But, that is the problem set up by the author.

Both calculus and SR cannot be true.
 
Back
Top