Relavistic Time Dilation Test Fraud

Is it not that the GPS mereley needs to be synchronized just before launch? So that we just give it a faster "ticking" rate to compensate for its velocity with respect to earth when it is in orbit? Do we compensate for the diminished gravitational potential as well?



It only takes one white crow to proof that not all crows are black.

The effect is a real measured effect and not something added in by the theory to make the math work out-right? So, why would speed and not gravity be the cause? This effect must be related to redshift and that is related to gravity. 7200ns/day works out to about a .1ns/s or about .03 meter per second in redshift if my math is right. It would be better to bring one of the clocks back to Earth and see what the time on it is. Or redo the other experiment with better control.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[Jim:] The effect is a real measured effect and not something added in by the theory to make the math work out-right? So, why would speed and not gravity be the cause? This effect must be related to redshift and that is related to gravity. 7200ns/day works out to about a .1ns/s or about .03 meter per second in redshift if my math is right. It would be better to bring one of the clocks back to Earth and see what the time on it is. Or redo the other experiment with better control.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I would agree with you, Jim. One of the GPS clocks must return to earth to see what has happend to it. Merely theorizing doen't solve the question.

"It only takes one white crow to proof that not all crows are black."

Enrico,

I think that relativity is a non-issue in wide open space if we assume that space is void. Clock slowing is merely "apparant" due to the finite propagation speed light. It cannot be "real" since the gravitational potential is flat everywhere. In addition, because space is empty, no interaction of material entities with some background substance can occur at all. Hence, there is absolutely no reason for any "real" clock slowing to occur. More precisely, not one single entity can claim "real" clock slowing in flat space. Once again, in "flat" space, when two identical clocks seperate and return from their journey, they will be identical upon return, including their time readings. Hence, SR has been falsified. Q.E.D.

What's your view on this?

"It only takes one white crow to proof that not all crows are black."

Jan: What's your view on this?

I think you go one step further into the causality issues I mentioned. But it's not only SR that is falsified but also LR if you go that way. Length contraction and time dilation is common in both theories and this leads to a spatiotemporal relation that is beyond any comprehensible physical sense. It seems there has not been an effort to explain the physical nature of space-time such theories entail other than to claim they are correct based on some emprirical observations. I term such observations lacking a basis for declaring such inductions valid and associated spatiotemporal relations true. This does not dispute the real effects but only their relation to those theories.

I am inclined to say that what has been done with relativity is the fitting of a fairly simple mathematical model to some observations and this works in an accidental sense purely with other observations made under similar situations that are restricted by the same conditions.

As far as the GPS, it is curious that a constant correction is really necessary to be made on the clocks itself when the definition of time between events is a measure of relative interval and such constant correction could be made at the receiving end in the electronics of the receiver, and I doubt it is even necessary at all, since all it is measured by GPS is relative positions. I could understand the problem if there were an absolute reference or if GPS actually uses such reference and we do not know that. (recall GPS was in use by US army before it was released to the public).

Enrico,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[Enrico:] I think you go one step further into the causality issues I mentioned. But it's not only SR that is falsified but also LR <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Yes, seems like it. To start with SR, to my knowledge, time dilations and length contractions are taken to be real physical manifestations. However, this yields some strange situations since space is empty in SR. I'll elaborate this in a minute. LR, on the other hand, is a different animal and does assume a local background, the gravitational potential, that is.

Just to put my point accross on SR, for suppose we look at it in the following way. First define "&lt;" as the strict inclusion. Next define two entities A and B in flat space-time. Now, if A says something about the state of B then we know that B can say the same about A. Thus A &lt; B: all claims of A are in B. Conversely, if B says something about the state of A then we know that A can claim the same. Thus B &lt; A: all claims of B are in A. Basic set theory tells us that both can only hold if and only if A = B. Not surprising, all observed states of A must equal that of B and vice versa. Thus, any physical changes in time and dimension may *appear* to change to one observer, but these changes are pure reflections of one another. I can only conclude that any observed changes in state induced by relative motion cannot be real manifestations whenever A and B are treated on equal footing. Because SR treats space as an absolute void, it must encumber entities A and B with equal status. SR, therefore, explains apparant changes of state, not physical ones to my opinion. Tom, what is your argument?


Let us look at LR. For suppose we take the local gravitational field as a reference. Then we have a problem also because I assumed that space-time is flat, so that A and B experience the same gravitional potential. Thus, from this I conclude that A and B are also on equal footing: changes of state are merely observed, not physical, just like SR.

To sum up. If there are any real physical changes to entities A and B, let it be time and dimension, then they cannot have the condition A=B. Thus A and B cannot have equal status to their claims. So we may certainly have relativity-like behaviour, but there must be a component in the evaluation that enables us to differentiate between the status of A and B. For example, this is the case with GPS: the gravitational potential is different for the earth bound clock and the one in orbit. Since the clock slow physically according to experiment, I conclude that SR is not doing it. However, LR can be used since we can differentiate by means of the gravitational potential.

Tom, once again, your view is needed.

"It only takes one white crow to proof that not all crows are black."