Relavistic Time Dilation Test Fraud

Tom,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Actual GPS takes each satellite clock and each ground clock on the rotating Earth and synchronizes each one to an imaginary, instantaneously co-located clock in the Earth-centered inertial (ECI) frame. Then none of the imaginary clocks have any relative motion. This obviously requires that the ECI frame is a preferred frame in the LR sense, and the result is a form of "universal time" as provided for in LR. None of this seems relevant to the present discussion because LR has no time dilation or length contraction or any lack of remote simultaneity or events occuring in other frames "now" from the past or future.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


The problem with SR, how I see it, is that is has shunned the notion that forms exist without observing them. For example, when you close your eyes, then you can picture a distant galaxy and say "now". You know that it exists simultaneous with your thought. Of course, if you want to observe the state the galaxy is in when you say "now", you will have to wait for the light to reach you. In any case, that particular galaxy exists at the time "now", irrespective of observation. Most of all, no motion induced resurrections or deaths occur at remote places, which is just ludicrous; also, no emperical fact exists to justify this.

From this point of view, the clock slowing has nothing to do with rescaling the time as we know it. When we say "now", the GPS clock exists, undeniably, but any sort of communication with the satellite cannot be achieved faster than "c". The slowing is induced by <i>interaction of forms</i> IMO, and certainly not a mere result of relative uniform motion through an absolute void space that has no properties.

I really do not understand why it is a crime to have fundamental problems with the concept of simultaneity. It is surprising that the established physics community does not have the same problem. Perhaps they are untrue to themselves?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jan</i>
<br />Tom,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Actual GPS takes each satellite clock and each ground clock on the rotating Earth and synchronizes each one to an imaginary, instantaneously co-located clock in the Earth-centered inertial (ECI) frame. Then none of the imaginary clocks have any relative motion. This obviously requires that the ECI frame is a preferred frame in the LR sense, and the result is a form of "universal time" as provided for in LR. None of this seems relevant to the present discussion because LR has no time dilation or length contraction or any lack of remote simultaneity or events occuring in other frames "now" from the past or future.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


The problem with SR, how I see it, is that is has shunned the notion that forms exist without observing them. For example, when you close your eyes, then you can picture a distant galaxy and say "now". You know that it exists simultaneous with your thought. Of course, if you want to observe the state the galaxy is in when you say "now", you will have to wait for the light to reach you. In any case, that particular galaxy exists at the time "now", irrespective of observation. Most of all, no motion induced resurrections or deaths occur at remote places, which is just ludicrous; also, no emperical fact exists to justify this.

From this point of view, the clock slowing has nothing to do with rescaling the time as we know it. When we say "now", the GPS clock exists, undeniably, but any sort of communication with the satellite cannot be achieved faster than "c". The slowing is induced by <i>interaction of forms</i> IMO, and certainly not a mere result of relative uniform motion through an absolute void space that has no properties.

I really do not understand why it is a crime to have fundamental problems with the concept of simultaneity. It is surprising that the established physics community does not have the same problem. Perhaps they are untrue to themselves?



<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Einstein thought the Lorentz transformation was the only
way to satisfy a constancy of the speed of light for all
inertial frames. He took this to mean that the scaling
factors used in the transformation are physically real.
Obviously, it was a mathematical artifact of the Lorentz
transformation since if we used a different transformation
that doesn't involve rescaling the time axis, there would
have been no time dilation. Since there's no reason to prefer
one transformation over another if they obtain the same
results, you end up getting a different physical reality depending
on the geometry you use. That's the danger of using math
to model reality.

The problem with the Lorentz transformation version of reality
is that when symmetry is imposed, it leads to physical nonsense.
Einstein though that relativity of simultaneity would solve
this problem but it didn't. So he went on to develop GR.

Some focusing is in order reguarding the main point here. You are all talking about frequency shifts that need to be allowed for in the GPS so why not say frequency and use SI units rather than terms like ticks of a clock or transformations per second? The clocks are all emmitting photons at the same frequency and recieving photons with a frequency shift. All this stuff about relativity is pointless to the topic of frequency shift. The photons are all sent the same and recieved shifted. Its not that difficult to understand is it?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />Some focusing is in order reguarding the main point here. You are all talking about frequency shifts that need to be allowed for in the GPS so why not say frequency and use SI units rather than terms like ticks of a clock or transformations per second? The clocks are all emmitting photons at the same frequency and recieving photons with a frequency shift. All this stuff about relativity is pointless to the topic of frequency shift. The photons are all sent the same and recieved shifted. Its not that difficult to understand is it?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

In the article I read about how Cesium clocks operates, the frequency of the microwave radiation used to excite the Cesium atoms
corresponds to the number of Cesium atoms that reach the detector
in 1 second, so the shifting of the frequency absorbed is directly related to the number of transitions detected.

I read a lot of stuff about atoms that indicates they emmit photons at a very precise frequency and that is how elements and molecules in space and in labs on Earth are identified. They always emmit photons of the same frequency no matter what is done to them. So, I don't see how a little change in velcity will effect the emmission frequency whatever it is. What is observed is another matter and there is good data indicating the frequency shifts while the speed of light remains constant.

123,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The problem with the Lorentz transformation version of reality
is that when symmetry is imposed, it leads to physical nonsense.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

That is why it is impossible to answer why the GPS clock slowing occurs from an SR perspective. The clock in orbit is equally justified to request a clock bias of the earth bound clock before launch. Instead of adjusting the rate of the orbiting clock, we might as well increase the rate of the earth bound clock. No, says SR, the orbiting clock has experienced acceleration. But then don't incorporate SR in the GPS setup: The situation of enquiry does not agree with the premise of SR.