Has anyone looked into the details of the global GPS satellite system with regards to how that system does not follow the laws of general and special relativity?
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 1:24 AM, H Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 10:28 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Yes, but you will have fun trying to visualize this with SR. >> >> SR assumes that each sees the other as length contracted, as clock A and >> A' pass an observer on each frame at A and A' would disagree as to how long >> the other is, and hence both would insist that the other ship is shorter ad >> view that B and B' are not aligned, but each would disagree as to which was >> off. >> >> Another observer in a neutral frame (both have the same relative velocity >> to this intermediate frame) would see that they line up just fine! >> >> > Let's call it relational simultaneity to indicate that it is different > from Einstein's relative simultaneity. Since relational simultaneity does > not begin with a clock synchronization scheme in a stationary (and > isolated) frame of reference we are not beholden to apply the transform > rules of the special theory of relativity. > > > >> This is how SR wins, by making a reality so absurd you get tempted to >> give up on the while thing as you try to make sense of it's contradictions >> and paradoxes. >> >> Let me Quote Wikipedia: >> Albert Einstein <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein> chose a >> synchronization convention (see Einstein synchronization) that made the >> one-way speed equal to the two-way speed. >> >> In other words a one way speed of light measurement becomes a 2 way speed >> of light measurement due to the clock sync scheme, and as such it is >> invalid for measuring a deviation from C, by design it won't. >> >> If you measured the speed of sound in a wind tunnel under this scheme you >> would come to the same conclusion that the speed of sound is not relative >> to the air. >> > > So an honest one way speed of light measurement requires a method of clock > synchronization that is nothing like classic clock synchronization methods. > > Harry > > >> >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:58 PM, H Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> John, >>> >>> Einstein's conception of simultaneity follows a procedure. The first >>> step in this procedure is to establish clock synchronization in one frame >>> of reference in isolation from a moving system. However, it occurred to me >>> that this first step is not necessary. Instead it is possible to imagine a >>> method of clock synchronization that requires contact with a moving system. >>> >>> Imagine four clocks which are wound up but not ticking. Two clocks A and >>> B are separated by a given distance in a stationary frame and the other two >>> clocks A' and B' are separated by the same distance in a moving frame >>> aligned along a closely parallel axis. When the pairs of clocks brush past >>> they all start ticking. >>> >>> Harry >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 6:58 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> I agree that video is not terribly useful. >>>> >>>> Here is an argument against Einstein's scheme of synchronization. >>>> Please correct me if you think I am misrepresenting it. >>>> >>>> We have 3 points in a straight line labelled A, B and C with an equal >>>> distance between B and it's 2 neighbours. >>>> >>>> A pulse of light from B travels to A and C, A and C are not considered >>>> synchronized as far as B is concerned, if they both send a light pulse B >>>> will see the light from them at the same moment. >>>> >>>> Why it is invalid: >>>> >>>> The method works fine for some purposes, but not for the purpose of >>>> seeing if the speed of light is actually C, since the method of setting >>>> clocks in sync uses light and includes any delay. >>>> >>>> Let's say the light too 0.5 seconds to move left from B to A, and 1.5 >>>> seconds to move the same distance toward the right from B to C. >>>> >>>> Now the clock at C would be 1 second out of sync compared to A. >>>> Next each sends a light pulse back in this faulty sync scheme idea of >>>> the same moment, so light leaves A a second earlier, but now that light >>>> takes longer, 1.5 seconds to get to B, but the light from C moving to the >>>> left takes only .5 seconds. >>>> >>>> B sees the light from both at the same time and would conclude the >>>> synchronization scheme was sound, and the speed of light was constant. >>>> >>>> Indeed we could do this test with sound in a wind tunnel, you would end >>>> up with silly sync results and the idea that the speed of sound was >>>> constant. >>>> >>>> Other sync methods must be used if the speed of light is to be tested >>>> such as testing the speed of light in a Sagnac loop. >>>> >>>> Light in a Sagnac loop is known to take more or less time as the loop >>>> is rotated, the claim of SR is that while the time light takes to make a >>>> full loop will vary and even exceed C from the rotating frames perspective, >>>> if measured over a portion it will be found to be C under Einstein's >>>> methods of synchronization. >>>> >>>> Well, I do agree, but only because the method entirely unsuited for >>>> testing the constancy of the speed of light. >>>> >>>> If another method is used Relativists (some anyway) will agree that the >>>> speed of light over a portion of the loop will not be C. >>>> One such scheme is synchronization from the center. >>>> >>>> This means the speed of light could be found to be unequal in a portion >>>> of a Sagnac loop. >>>> >>>> And if another scheme of synchronization must be accepted since >>>> Einstein's method is rigged, then this would also apply to a spaceship that >>>> is moving in a very subtle arc, an arc that would make a circle of any size >>>> even larger than a galaxy. >>>> >>>> Since all real world motion is not perfectly straight, then even a >>>> momentary subtle arc would have to behave as if it were part of a giant >>>> Sagnac loop that. >>>> >>>> This quickly turns into the speed of light not being constant outside >>>> of completely perfect inertial frames that do not exist in reality. >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 6:32 AM, H Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> John, >>>>> Forget these videos. >>>>> I just realized they are not a fair critique of special relativity >>>>> because they don't factor in the the postulate of the constancy of light >>>>> speed. >>>>> >>>>> Harry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:53 PM, H Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Sorry, >>>>>> I should have included section 1 _and_ 2 from Einstein's paper. The >>>>>> second section is added below. >>>>>> Harry >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:39 PM, H Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Of the six videos, this one is the most important one... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [ The Neo-classical Theory of Relativity ] Einstein's incorrect >>>>>>> method to synchronize clocks - case (A). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2qYCvw1UiE&list=UUek3dPxFThe8FLl-ONbOeVw >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ...because it uses the same thought experiment described by Einstein >>>>>>> his 1905 paper On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.** >>>>>>> The video shows that Einstein was wrong to conclude from this >>>>>>> thought experiment that simultaneous events in a stationary frame >>>>>>> cannot be >>>>>>> synchronized >>>>>>> with events in a moving frame. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The criticisms in other videos could/will be ignored on the grounds >>>>>>> that they don't include relativistic corrections. (Whether or not the >>>>>>> corrections are sufficient to address all the criticisms doesn't >>>>>>> actually >>>>>>> matter as long as one can say there aren't any.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Harry >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **1. Definition of Simultaneity >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of >>>>>>> Newtonian mechanics hold good.2 In order to render our presentation more >>>>>>> precise and to distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally from >>>>>>> others >>>>>>> which will be introduced hereafter, we call it the "stationary system." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If a material point is at rest relatively to this system of >>>>>>> co-ordinates, its position can be defined relatively thereto by the >>>>>>> employment of rigid standards of measurement and the methods of >>>>>>> Euclidean >>>>>>> geometry, and can be expressed in Cartesian co-ordinates. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the >>>>>>> values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time. Now we must bear >>>>>>> carefully in mind that a mathematical description of this kind has no >>>>>>> physical meaning unless we are quite clear as to what we understand by >>>>>>> "time." We have to take into account that all our judgments in which >>>>>>> time >>>>>>> plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for >>>>>>> instance, >>>>>>> I say, "That train arrives here at 7 o'clock," I mean something like >>>>>>> this: >>>>>>> "The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the >>>>>>> train are simultaneous events."3 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending >>>>>>> the definition of "time" by substituting "the position of the small >>>>>>> hand of >>>>>>> my watch" for "time." And in fact such a definition is satisfactory >>>>>>> when we >>>>>>> are concerned with defining a time exclusively for the place where the >>>>>>> watch is located; but it is no longer satisfactory when we have to >>>>>>> connect >>>>>>> in time series of events occurring at different places, or--what comes >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> the same thing--to evaluate the times of events occurring at places >>>>>>> remote >>>>>>> from the watch. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determined >>>>>>> by an observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the >>>>>>> co-ordinates, and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the hands >>>>>>> with light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and reaching >>>>>>> him >>>>>>> through empty space. But this co-ordination has the disadvantage that >>>>>>> it is >>>>>>> not independent of the standpoint of the observer with the watch or >>>>>>> clock, >>>>>>> as we know from experience. We arrive at a much more practical >>>>>>> determination along the following line of thought. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can >>>>>>> determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by >>>>>>> finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these >>>>>>> events. If there is at the point B of space another clock in all >>>>>>> respects >>>>>>> resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to >>>>>>> determine >>>>>>> the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is >>>>>>> not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, >>>>>>> an >>>>>>> event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined only an "A time" >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> a "B time." We have not defined a common "time" for A and B, for the >>>>>>> latter >>>>>>> cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definitionthat the >>>>>>> "time" >>>>>>> required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to >>>>>>> travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the "A time" from A >>>>>>> towards >>>>>>> B, let it at the "B time" be reflected at B in the direction of A, and >>>>>>> arrive again at A at the "A time" . >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from >>>>>>> contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the >>>>>>> following relations are universally valid:-- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A >>>>>>> synchronizes with the clock at B. >>>>>>> If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the >>>>>>> clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we have >>>>>>> settled what is to be understood by synchronous stationary clocks >>>>>>> located >>>>>>> at different places, and have evidently obtained a definition of >>>>>>> "simultaneous," or "synchronous," and of "time." The "time" of an event >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> that which is given simultaneously with the event by a stationary clock >>>>>>> located at the place of the event, this clock being synchronous, and >>>>>>> indeed >>>>>>> synchronous for all time determinations, with a specified stationary >>>>>>> clock. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity >>>>>>> >>>>>>> to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks >>>>>>> in the stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> stationary system we call it "the time of the stationary system." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> from >>>>>>> https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times >>>>>> >>>>>> The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and >>>>>> on the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light. These two >>>>>> principles we define as follows:-- >>>>>> >>>>>> The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are >>>>>> not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or >>>>>> the >>>>>> other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion. >>>>>> Any ray of light moves in the "stationary" system of co-ordinates >>>>>> with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a >>>>>> stationary >>>>>> or by a moving body. Hence >>>>>> >>>>>> where time interval is to be taken in the sense of the definition in >>>>>> § 1. >>>>>> >>>>>> Let there be given a stationary rigid rod; and let its length be l as >>>>>> measured by a measuring-rod which is also stationary. We now imagine the >>>>>> axis of the rod lying along the axis of x of the stationary system of >>>>>> co-ordinates, and that a uniform motion of parallel translation with >>>>>> velocity v along the axis of x in the direction of increasing x is then >>>>>> imparted to the rod. We now inquire as to the length of the moving rod, >>>>>> and >>>>>> imagine its length to be ascertained by the following two operations:-- >>>>>> >>>>>> (a) The observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the >>>>>> rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by >>>>>> superposing the measuring-rod, in just the same way as if all three were >>>>>> at >>>>>> rest. >>>>>> (b) By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and >>>>>> synchronizing in accordance with § 1, the observer ascertains at what >>>>>> points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured >>>>>> are >>>>>> located at a definite time. The distance between these two points, >>>>>> measured >>>>>> by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is >>>>>> also a length which may be designated "the length of the rod." >>>>>> >>>>>> In accordance with the principle of relativity the length to be >>>>>> discovered by the operation (a)--we will call it "the length of the rod >>>>>> in >>>>>> the moving system"--must be equal to the length l of the stationary rod. >>>>>> >>>>>> The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call "the >>>>>> length of the (moving) rod in the stationary system." This we shall >>>>>> determine on the basis of our two principles, and we shall find that it >>>>>> differs from l. >>>>>> >>>>>> Current kinematics tacitly assumes that the lengths determined by >>>>>> these two operations are precisely equal, or in other words, that a >>>>>> moving >>>>>> rigid body at the epoch t may in geometrical respects be perfectly >>>>>> represented by the same body at rest in a definite position. >>>>>> >>>>>> We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the rod, clocks >>>>>> are placed which synchronize with the clocks of the stationary system, >>>>>> that >>>>>> is to say that their indications correspond at any instant to the "time >>>>>> of >>>>>> the stationary system" at the places where they happen to be. These >>>>>> clocks >>>>>> are therefore "synchronous in the stationary system." >>>>>> >>>>>> We imagine further that with each clock there is a moving observer, >>>>>> and that these observers apply to both clocks the criterion established >>>>>> in >>>>>> § 1 for the synchronization of two clocks. Let a ray of light depart >>>>>> from A >>>>>> at the time4 , let it be reflected at B at the time , and reach A again >>>>>> at >>>>>> the time . Taking into consideration the principle of the constancy of >>>>>> the >>>>>> velocity of light we find that >>>>>> >>>>>> where denotes the length of the moving rod--measured in the >>>>>> stationary system. Observers moving with the moving rod would thus find >>>>>> that the two clocks were not synchronous, while observers in the >>>>>> stationary >>>>>> system would declare the clocks to be synchronous. >>>>>> >>>>>> So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the >>>>>> concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system >>>>>> of >>>>>> co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as >>>>>> simultaneous events when envisaged from a system which is in motion >>>>>> relatively to that system. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 7:54 PM, John Berry >>>>>>> <berry.joh...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.neoclassicalrelativity.org/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are 6 simple videos showing arguments against various parts >>>>>>>> of Special Relativity. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/user/NeoclassicRelativity >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
