Relavistic Time Dilation Test Fraud

It is getting confusing. Some say the orbiting clock (OC) is running slow, while others claim it is running fast. It should run slow according to the earth bound observers, shouldn't it?

Actually, why would we use any of the specious models to account for clock slowing? What we could do is to launch a test clock and apply model identification methods to identify the slowing/speeding process. This way, we take arbitrary unmodelled phenomena into account and the accuracy is probably maximised.

According to the quoted data, the clock runs fast by 45 nanoseconds due
to GR and runs slow by 7 nanoseconds due to SR, resulting in a 38 net
correction prelaunch to the orbiting clocks. And supposedly, this theoretical
correction is within 1% of the actual clock operation. Their claim
is based on the "fact" that the prelaunch corrections allow the orbiting
clocks to run in synch with the ground clocks without further synching. (i.e. if
the clocks ran at the same rate, the prelaunch corrections would not
work).

There are lots of ambiguities regarding these claims of course. Notably,
how can they use the "fact" that clocks run fast as proof that it runs
slow? Unless they had stopped the satellites in orbit (chuckle), and
compared it with clocks running at that potential, clock slowing is
an untested claim. Dr. Flandern indicated that they could do this
by comparing clocks in the GLONASS satellites which have different
orbiting velocities but since they also orbit at a different height,
a comparison can hardly be made- the gravitational potential is not
precisely mapped out.

A more reasonable test would be to compare the clock rates of GPS clocks
that are orbiting at approximately the same height. But clearly, if the
orbiting clocks are running in synch with each other without further corrections,
relative velocity did not affect their rates since the orbiting clocks all
have different velocities relative to the earth clocks. Not to mention the
absurdity of how the orbiting clocks could know which inertial frame
to use for their clock rates.

The most that can be said scientifically
is that gravitational potential may affect the
rates of Cesium clocks. And since the mainstream model
for gravity is GR, this "fact" is then used as
a proof of GR. This is how SR and GR are proven
regularly in the scientific community. Nevermind
that the theories result in contorted
logic and physical nonsense. And nevermind that
if clock slowing did not occur, the GR "corrections"
would be off by at least 7 nanoseconds.

Surely, such an overly complicated explanation is not
the final word on clock malfunction? My old watches
run slow all the time for the simplest of reasons.

Hmmm,

Simplifying this stuff, sweeping away the logically correct/internally consistent but intuitively hopeless physical "explanations" of SR, is what LR is all about.

===

You can keep on complaining about how wrong SR is if you want to, but why? Those who have swallowed it are seemingly not open to discussion about an alternative. Especially not from someone that claims it is illogical or internally inconsistent. That just demonstrates (proves, actually) that you really and truely don't understand SR.

Those of us that know it (SR) is wrong in the physical sense (but still internally logical and consistent and correct in the mathematical sense) have moved on to LR and now have a way to visualize reality that actually makes sense. (This still doesn't guarantee that it is right, of course. But at least LR makes physical sense AS WELL AS making accurate predictions.)

Since I found out about LR and learned (er - began learning ...) the details of the differences and the similarities between it and SR, I've come to have a deeper understanding of both theories and of SR in particular. SR is not illogical, not inconsistent and not wrong mathematically. Never-the-less, it is also not a correct description of reality.

It seems that way to its supporters, however, because at or below light speed it is able to make very accurate numerical predictions of the outcome of an observation or experiment. (And that is what physics is to them. Just tack on any old physical justification - the stranger, the better it would seem. It doesn't matter as long as the numbers work. Ha.)

LR makes the same predictions over that same limited speed range. But unlike SR, it can be applied to speeds above c.

And LR can be used as a replacement "starting point" for GR. Using LR instead of SR in this way leads to similar simplifications in GR.

Some food for thought - hope it helps.
LB

123,

Those meager 7 nanoseconds are clearly an artifact of a perturbed GR model. You said it yourself, the potential has not been mapped perfectly, so claiming that SR has been proved is scientifically unjustified.

It is strange that orbiting clocks are identically biased once, and stay in sync with the earth bound clock, yet SR should sync-out the orbiting clocks with respect to each other. The real fun with SR is that the slowing should be real, not apparant, so we do not really need to observe the slowing: it really exists.

Suppose we engrave the biased clock rate in granite and send this granite rock into orbit with the biased clock. Since no relative motion is present between the engraved rock and biased clock, the tick rate on the clock's display should equal the engraved number, always. Physical laws are everywhere the same according to SR.

Next we equip the earth bound clock with gigantic binoculars, so it should read the orbiting clock's display and see the same clock rate: The orbiting clock should run slower. However, the granite rock has stayed the same and its engraved number should not change with respect to the biased orbiting clock since it is stationary with this clock.

I'm really surprised why people do understand SR. []

Like LB said, we all know that "Special" Relativity is physically untenable. Let us explore better alternatives.

<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 />Those meager 7 nanoseconds are clearly an artifact of a perturbed GR model.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The correct figure is -7 microseconds/day (actually, -7200 nanoseconds per day) for the velocity correction, which arises from SR or LR. Separately we get a +46 microseconds/day (actually +45,900 ns/day) potential correction arising from GR. The sum of the two is +38,700 ns/day, as observed.

Actually, 123's latest remarks contained several incorrect or confused concepts, making a response difficult -- especially because we have already covered these matters before. 123 refuses to accept SR's premises because they defy common sense (true), then argues that SR is illogical (also true without its premises). Test for the student of logic -- What's wrong with this picture?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You said it yourself, the potential has not been mapped perfectly...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">What do these words mean? The potential field is just GM/r. Any deviations would be immediately detected. Artificial satellites do see tiny deviations indicating Earth is oblate, not spherical, and other shape distortions. But none of that matters for the gross potential effect, which is huge by comparison. For purposes of this discussion, it is "mapped perfectly".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Suppose we engrave the biased clock rate in granite and send this granite rock into orbit with the biased clock.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">What do these words mean? You appear to be attempting to define some sort of "absolute time". According to SR, no such thing exists. So your thought experiment is rendered meaningless. It is trivially false in SR, which says your premise is impossible; and trivially true in LR, which already has a "universal time" that all clocks can be compared against.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Since no relative motion is present between the engraved rock and biased clock, the tick rate on the clock's display should equal the engraved number, always. Physical laws are everywhere the same according to SR.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I take it, then, that your granite clock solidifed with a permanent reading of 2:00 p.m. and never advances. [}] Otherwise, you must choose between an "absolute time" clock in defiance of the SR postulates, or a "universal time" clock in accord with LR. The latter was the subject of my "GPS/Twins" article.

123 also wanted the velocity and potential effects separated, and that too was done in the Vessot rocket experiment. A rocket with an atomic clock was shot straight up and allowed to fall straight down. This gave it a large potential-change effect but zero transverse speed. The clock changes were still in accord with the 1916 predictions of GR/SR. C.O. Alley also did an aircraft experiment with a plane circling for many hours at a constant altitude, which showed the predicted velocity effect with essentially no potential effect.

Clearing away the cobwebs requires understanding what the many experiments really show (as sometimes contrasted with what the experimenters claim) and finding a physically sensible model that explains all experiments and makes testable predictions. We now have all those ingredients for anyone who cares to notice. -|Tom|-

Tom,

Absolutely, my example is flawed to the core. [] However, this is a direct consequence of SR: it has no logical foundation to built on. It is impossible to think of a physical scenario that captures the essence of SR.

At any rate, the GPS, rocket launches, plane journeys, particle accelerators, muon lifetimes and other experiments only provide circumstantial evidence of SR. Not one of them is solely dealing with its premise.

Indeed, since the Lorentz Transformation does not sustain invariance of curves other than x(t)=c*t should be enough evidence that we are doing something silly with the theory when applying it to arbitrary space-temporal events regarding electromagnetic radiation.