Three Experiments Challenging SRT

So, prove your equations anyway you can.

Otherwise, you are wrong.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I do not denying reality.

The effects of relativism (if it was the place to be) on all satellites are identical.
Relativism can slow down time for all GPS satellites, or speed it up for everyone.
But the clocks on the satellites behave differently.
This behavior of clocks can not be explained by relativism.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You have a very low level of qualification.
You are not of interest to me
You should be to study mathematics (long and hard), to your words become have values.
I beg you not to impose my own society to me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Some clocks was fast, and others - looses.
It can not be explained by relativism.

 

There is too much information about your conclusions, that is not available. Think about this...

Velocity, as per SR can slow down a clock.

Gravity, as per GR slows a clock the deeper into the gravity well it is. A clock on a satellite in orbit, will run fast.

Accelleration, as per the equivalence principle will affect the rate of a clock in the same way a gravity well does... So, during launch when the G-force is increased by the rocket's accelleration, a clock on the satellite will run slower than on earth.

During the process of putting the satellite into orbit, these different forces will slow the clock down and speed the clock up, sometimes one affect will be dominant and sometimes more than one will be affecting the satellite's clock.

Now... Where exactly in the launch and final orbit is your information comming from? The clock rate is affected differently depending on where the satellite is and how it is moving.

Over all, in the USA system the satellite clocks gain time, on average.., over the time frame of a complete orbit.

The affect(s) on the satellite clocks due to launch are taken into account in the intitial adjustments to the clock(s) before launch.

The GR and SR affects are adjusted for, from my limited understanding in two ways. Each satellite has a harmonic tuner, that adjusts the atomic clock's rate and there is a dynamic system of resynchronization, which compensates for drift between the satellite clocks and ground based clocks.

I think AlphaNumeric is correct, you are sliding into a flat out relativity and reality denial. Try to explain your assertion, as I and others have tried to explain what we understand of the system to you. Failing that, meaning if you cannot, just give it up, go back and try to work your way through translations, of the information easily available about the US GPS system.

So far what you have been claiming without any supporting evidence or even logical argument, has been in error. To put it mildly. When faced with the amount of science available on the US GPS system, just saying something over and over does not make it true.

 

Time can not slow down.

Proof 1: If the observer sees a slowing of time of another observer, the second observer will see the acceleration of time of first observer. This violates the equality of inertial systems.
If both the observer sees time dilation from each other, then violated the principle of causality.

 

That is not a proof because that is not a reasoned argument from generally accepted premises.

 

Generally accepted premises?

It's very funny.

 

False, because observers do not use the same concept of simultaneity in relativity.

Actually this has already been considered. There are no causality violations in relativity as long as nothing capable of carrying information travels faster than light.

 

It is the verbal gymnastics.
It makes no sense.

In it can be trusted only.
But it is impossible to understand.

1. If the observer sees a slowing of time of another observer, the second observer will see the acceleration of time of first observer (not violated the principle of causality).

2. If both the observers sees time dilation from each other, then NOT violated the principle of causality too?

These two options of one situation to do ambiguity, and therefore can not exist simultaneously.

 

Sorry to say Masterov, Przk is quite correct as far as I know...

Just assume for a moment that he is correct if you can.

Ask yourself why would he say such a thing?
What does he know that allows him to state what many who are very conversant with SRT say?

The problem, I believe, is in the incorrect expectation that each observer can record something simultaneously from the others perspective.
In this sense "reciprocation" is broken, as the relativity of simultaneity does not allow an observer such a priviledge except by abstraction using the transforms.
I am sorry PZYK if I have confused the issue with my naive explanation but this was where I got stuck years ago and have seen so many get stuck in thinking in terms of reciprocation.

I asked the question "What is the time difference between the two events at t=0? and was essentially told that it is impossible to compute the difference in a flat space sense yet each observers HSP will record zero time difference. In other words there is no universal reference frame to make a calculation of that difference as the "universal HSP belongs to the observer making the calculation and not both observers simutaneously.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Suppose that two observers are projecting movies on one screen.
If Przk right then on the screen there is an indefinite sequence of picture areas.

 

I think you will find if you study the method of getting to the position of relative simultaneity you will find that the idea of two observers projecting on to a single screen is incorrect.
As the screen is now a surrogate universal reference frame. Each observer has his own screen. [ a universe unto them selves]
SRT does not allow a universal reference frame as the universe belongs only to the observer observing it. He can only, by way of abstraction arrive at what the other observer may see through the use of the transforms as the other observer is also in his own universe. [ both by the way will consider their universes to by quite normal 3 d space - no contraction, no dilation]
that's my take on it... I hope Przk will correct me if I am wrong on this as this is the killer of SRT to work through for any one...

 

I asked an ex-Russian Professor here at sciforums about 5 years ago to see if he could calculate the universal difference in t=0 on a single hsp after many pages of what appeared to be sophisticated math which I would never be able to repeat he had to give up in frustration.

The end result is a single HSP that can never be proved to be single HSP so both observers have their own light cone** on the same hsp yet can never determine that that is the case.

Both observers appear to be simultaneous in event yet neither can state so, as according to SRT that simultaneity is relative... sound paradoxical and to be honest I believe it is in actual fact a paradox, but this is not the positon held by conventional SRT exponents.


** not sure on this description..

 

You have succeeded greatly in the ability to deceive ourselves.

1. Our screen are one and only.
2. This screen has an electronic device with a electric light (bulb).
3. For some sequence of picture areas it bulb lights up.
For another sequence of picture areas it bulb not lights up.

The first observer believes that the light must shine, and the second observer believes that the light should not shine.

Question: Will the light shine?
Which of observers to be right, and - why?

 

Such paradoxes are a death sentence for any scientific theory unambiguously.
For any, but not for SRT, because SRT is not a scientific theory.
SRT is a religious doctrine.

Such "paradoxes" settle Master Theory entirely.

 

Obviously you never bothered to try to understand the theory you are criticising. Symmetrical time dilation follows directly from the Lorentz transformation:

\( \begin{eqnarray} t' &=& \gamma (t \,-\, \frac{v}{c^{2}} x) \\ x' &=& \gamma (x \,-\, vt) \,, \end{eqnarray} \)​

with \(\gamma \,=\, \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 \,-\, \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}\) as usual.

For a clock moving with the origin of the primed frame, \(x' \,=\, 0\), so \(x \,=\, vt\) and

\( \begin{eqnarray} t' &=& \gamma(t \,-\, \frac{v}{c^{2}} vt) &=& \gamma (1 \,-\, \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}) t &=& \frac{1}{\gamma} t \,. \end{eqnarray} \)​

So \(\left. \frac{\partial t'}{\partial t} \, \right|_{x'=0} \,=\, \frac{1}{\gamma}\).

For a clock at rest, at the origin of the unprimed frame, \(x \,=\, 0\) and \(t' \,=\, \gamma t\).

So \(\left. \frac{\partial t}{\partial t'} \, \right|_{x=0} \,=\, \frac{1}{\gamma}\).

These time dilation factors are not each other's inverse because of the \(- \gamma \frac{v}{c^{2}} x\) term in the Lorentz transformation, which represents relativity of simultaneity. There is no reason the time dilation factors should be inverses of one another unless clocks share the same synchronisation in different frames. In relativity they don't, which is what makes symmetrical time dilation possible.

 

Regarding causality, it's easy enough to show from \(\Delta t' \,=\, \gamma (\Delta t \,-\, \frac{v}{c^{2}} \Delta x )\) that if \(|\Delta t | \,>\, c | \Delta x |\) (i.e. timelike separated events), \(|v| \,<\, c\), and \(\Delta t \,>\, 0\), then \(\Delta t' \,>\, 0\). So the order of events is preserved for timelike separated events (i.e. those between which subluminal communication is possible).

 

Look Lorentz's error, post 219, page 11 of this thema.

 

Look at your own errors, explained [POST=2958193]here[/POST] and [POST=2958299]here[/POST] and [POST=2958444]here[/POST] and [POST=2958462]here[/POST], as well as being repeated and referred to many more times than that. The equation works fine. You just don't understand how or where to apply it correctly.