My father has over 300 papers published in aerospace, including work done with NASA, he's got a professorship, published numerous books, edits an industry leading journal and he knows nothing about any of theoretical physics. Being a mechanical engineer or an electrical one (my father headed an entire engineering department for more than a decade) doesn't mean you have any experience with relativity.
So I stick by what I said, you have no formal training, relevant formal training.
Perhaps a bit of surprise to you but I am not offended by this part of your post. I have never claimed to be an expert in relativity. I do know physics and it is obvious to anyone willing to look at the actual facts that the time-space concept as advocated by current Special Relativity violates basic physics.
That is to say I find your mathematical skills also irrelevant to the issue raised. You should take very much to heart what Einstein said:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_einstein.html
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
Your responses verify that you lack true understanding of any underlying physics or you refuse to actually consider the challenge.
GPS uses general relativity, which includes special relativity.
This is what I mean. You proceed based on preconcieved concepts. The assertion that SR is GR in flat space doesn't cut it and frankly is irrelevant.
Einstein himself said when he published General Relativity that postulate 2 (invariance of light) was only true in absence of gravity. Since gravity exists everywhere there is no place in the universe where space is flat and SR valid.
Useful if properly limited yes but not valid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_delay
Quote by Einstein - Chapter 22 General Relativity
"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity.
A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust.
But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)."
- Albert Einstein (The General Theory of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General Principle of Relativity)
If SR is wrong, GR is wrong.
False premis. SR according to Einstin is only valid in flat space (absence of gravity fields) which excludes every cubic inch of the universe. So it clearly is not valid but still useful if gravity is sufficiently small. However, that is not to say General Relativity is valid but it certainly is more valid.
And part of the GPS calculation involves time dilation due to motion.
Please post the velocity component calculations using GR. The motion calculation is based on orbit velocity to the ECI frame, not to surface clocks. The calculation is based on a preferred frame which is prohibited by SR but is in the form of LR.
Further there is a dispute which there is no uniform agreement on today in modern science. Orbit is a rotating frame where velocity is constantly changing i.e. - angular change, and that as such it is constantly accelerating and is a non-inertial frame.
It is in the realm of GR not SR. But the counter arguement is that orbit is in free-fall and free-fall in a gravity field is also considered inertial.
So I do not dispute time dilation or the principle of relativity. I do reject Einstein's Special Relativity for good cause.
And you're wrong about all clocks at the Earth's surface ticking at the same rate. The equator moves at about 1000mph, the poles simply rotate. That's why most rocket launch sites are near the equator, so that they get the energy boost from the rotation of the Earth, which means less fuel is needed.
Thank you for showing your lack of understanding. I said nothing about clocks having the same rotational velocity anywhere on earth at sea level. I said they tick in sync. Since you do not know that, or understand that, then you have clearly exposed that you know less than myself about certain GPS issues concerning SR. The answer is actually simple. Due to the rotation the earth it has formed an oblate spheroid and the affect of GR precisely and completely offsets the velocity affect at sea level at all latitudes.
******************************** Extract **********************************
http://graycarbon.com/post/36857159/changing-spaces-and-unchanging-time-on-the-earths
Basically if someone is moving slower than you than their time runs faster that yours and if someone is moving faster than you than their time runs slower than yours. We are in luck because as you move to higher elevations on the earth your speed increases. This means that time will go slower for us due to special relativity.
When we combine the effects of general relativity and special relativity they cancel each other out(this only works comparing two spots of the surface of the earth).
********************************************************************************
So one could go to the trouble of computing both the GR component and latitude surface velocity components at sea level and attempt to use that applying lorentz formulas. But as I have previously demonstrated IF you assume earth's rotational velocity to be ve and orbit velocity to be vo where relative velocity was considered to be vr = vo-ve then the time dilation function only produces -5.8us/day dilation. That is an incorrect value.
However if you compute te'=t(1-ve^2/c^2)^0.5 and to' = t(1-vo^2/c^2)^0.5 and then take the respective dilation components delta t = te' - to' produces -7.2 us/day which is the correct value that is empirically supported. That is the difference between respective time dilations to a common rest frame (the ECI) is valid but not any computation between clocks.
However, the fact is due to the complexiety of earth surface clocks ticking the same at all latitudes and the affects of elevation considering that the surface te' produces less than 1% of any dilation, it is not used at all. Only the to' is calculated. There are numerous other frames and calculations but not for orbit velocity or surface velocity.
And its true that you can't use SR directly to compute the effects due to a lack of inertial frames
That is debateable see above but yours is one view. There are numerous physicists that argue SR and GR are both applied. That just isn't so. GR is and LR velocity is.
but you can use GR. SR is a special case of GR, if SR is fundamentally flawed, so must GR be.
Again a false premis. SR is known even by Einstein to be flawed but useable. The fact is had GR preceeded SR, SR would never have been formulated.
Or is this logic getting a little too much for you to follow?
Oh, I'm doing fine. How about yourself?. Have you been able to develope a physics rebuttal to the issue of:
1/2 the distance, in 1/2 the accumulated time, at the same speed means that the clock did not change tick rate and hence is ticking in sync with the resting clock. There is NO physical exception SR's ignoring physical reality does not change physical reality. Therefore at the end of the trrip both clocks must display the same amount of time for the trip. That precludes any measured time dilation.
Since that is inconsistant with empirical data it falsifies SR's mathematical spatial contraction which invalidates SR as advocated by Einstein.
Obviously understanding basic English is a struggle for you but I'll say it again :
No physicist claims that relative motion guarantees different measured periods of time.
Good. Please tell James R and Billy T while you are at it and might I say it is about time. Granted once SR was published and the Twin Paradox became the embarrassement that it was to Einstein and he ultimately concieved GR he then said time dilation was in the one frame that had gone non-inertial, SR became a bit more acceptable.
However what is unfortunate is that people choose to ignore that to consider who accelerated (switched frames) means you were actually stipulating who accelerated and possessed "Actual Velocity" vs original SR's "Mere Relative Velocity" you are no longer using SR but a form of LR or absolute change in inertial velocity to a rest frame and not relative velocity between clocks with relative motion..
I gave an explicit example, which (despite all your formal training) you utterly failed to understand, where two people move with relative motion yet measure the same amount of time between two events.
NONSENSE. You are starting to aggravate me with your false negative innuendo. I have NOT failed to understand any such post. The simple fact is I have posted scenarios numerous times demonstrating the fact that relative velocity can be as a result of symmetrical acceleration and no dilation occurs between the pair but both dilate equally to the common rest frame. So I have no idea where you are getting this BS.
You have created a strawman, believing that physicists say something they do not.
No. I have pointed out what "Some" have said and I have pointed out what SR actually says. You seem to have a simular problem as James R and that is reading comprehension or in fact reading what you are commenting about. I have also pointed out what you and no other physicist has ever been able to refute SR is falsified becasue of it's addvocation of spatial distance contraction.
Clearly you didn't understand what I said because I said nothing like that. I gave an explicit example of how two people can move with non-zero relative velocity and end up measuring the same amount of time. You might need to brush up on your formal training a bit in order to understand.
You embarass yourself here. Those that follow my threads know very well I have said the same thing hundreds of times. So for you to come on here and pretend to be talking down to me shows your ignorance about my views and understandings.
That's your excuse for avoiding doing anything quantitative because you know if you leave the realm of arm waving whining you'll fall flat on your face.
In summary I will remind everyone that you have FAILED to respond to the physics challenge I have presented and you attempt to pull a James R routine by diverting attention to personalities and making false statements about what I have said, believe or understand.
I stand by my statements until anyone posts valid physics rebuttal that to go 1/2 the distance, in 1/2 the accumulated time , at the same speed, means the clock has NOT changed tick rate and hence MUST still be ticking in sync with the resting clock such that they MUST accumulate the same amount of trip time and no time dilation could exist.
Since that is inconsistant with emperical data it falsifies SR's spatial length contraction which flasifies SR.
Now wise guy with all your mathematics can you handle a bit of 3rd grade arithmatic? All your high level qualifications have absolutely no bearing on this issue. It is not about SR mathematics. It is about very straight foward physical relationships. Now address this correctly or admit you have no valid response and stop the personal vilification nonsense.
If you persist you will start to receive what you sow. Bottom line, I am very
UNimpressed by your knowledge or ability to address simple physics issues. So I have to wonder as to your actual training or if you are one of those that can read and hang on others coat tails but can't think for themselves types.