Relavistic Time Dilation Test Fraud

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">One of the GPS clocks must return to earth to see what as happened to it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Why? The clock is under continuous observation, and returns to the same place every day. When clock and observer are back to their starting points, why can’t readings on both simply be compared? Any signal propagation delay would be the same for both starting and ending readings.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">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 gravitational 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.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

In LR, the gravitational potential field is the elysium or light-carrying medium. In "empty" space, its density is constant, so clocks A and B would have the same rates while at rest. However, a clock moving relative to the potential encounters more elysium per second than the clock at rest, which is effectively a greater density of elysium, which slows the propagation of light and the rate of ticking of the clock.

The discussion in the preceding messages seems to use some questionable premises that led to questions that would be hard to answer. With the premises revised at I just indicated, does this answer or eliminate the questions? -|Tom|-

<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>

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


Very astute. There can't time dilation in flat space.
Any dilation in the clocks would be due to differences
in gravitation.

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

Yes, brilliant. Set logic rejects a physical
interpretation of time dilation length contraction
of the Lorentz Transformations.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">One of the GPS clocks must return to earth to see what as happened to it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Why? The clock is under continuous observation, and returns to the same place every day. When clock and observer are back to their starting points, why can’t readings on both simply be compared? Any signal propagation delay would be the same for both starting and ending readings.

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

The earth is rotating and the local gravitational field is also changing (the planets and stars are also moving) so it's higly
improbable- alpha = 0 for all practical purpoes- for the clocks to return to identical initial conditions. Any differences in
path of the radio signals would yield "time dilation" effects.

Jan: 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.

Very good but this is only one side of the story. In metaphysics, there are two views regarding the problem of substance. One view is that physical objects are just bundles of their properties, the bundle theory. Under this view, you are correct.

Another view is that substances have properties and they are bare particulars when considered apart from their properties. There is an inherence relation between substances and their properties. In this other view, the substance theory, properies inhere in a substance.

With this small intro to the metaphysical problem, SR bridges the gap between the substance and phenomenal world in a very peculiar way by introducing the constancy of the speed of light. It solves the problem of the relation of properties to substances by introducing this constant. LR fails in this respect to propose an alternative.

What I'm trying to convey here is very specialized knowledge that those who appreciate it can understand why SR gained favor over LR. LR leaves us with a metaphysical gap of immense proportions. The worse metaphysical implication of LR is that objects are much more, over and above, the properties they inhere.

This is also a problem with the Meta Model. You take out speed of light constancy and you are left with a need to specify that property of space-time which permits time to flow and objects in relative motion to "know" which is really moving and which is not via some exclusive "living force". This leads to occult scientism and gnosticicism. Simple mathematical approaches to this theories avoid to face the metaphysical questions present.

Very few people appreciate how well SR is grounded in its metaphysics. Most naive approaches deal with the math and some experiments that claim falsifiability, whereas such thing cannot exist for both theories.

Anyone who takes away the constancy of the speed of light must be prepared to face many metaphysical questions that lead to some transcendental issues, at best. This is not to say that SR is not a "strange" construct, but its metaphysical underpinnings are less severe than those of LR.

So in conclusion, your argument is valid logically in SR but the postulates of SR make the changes apparent at the phenomenal level and provide a metaphysical ground for dealing with them at the substance level, where the equivalence relation applies. The argument is valid in LR but any differences are now due to physical interactions with no answer for their metaphysical ground.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by 1234567890</i>
<br />The earth is rotating and the local gravitational field is also changing (the planets and stars are also moving) so it's higly
improbable- alpha = 0 for all practical purpoes- for the clocks to return to identical initial conditions.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

GPS satellites are inserted into orbits that repeat the same ground tracks after 24 hours (one spin of Earth, two orbits of the 12-hour-period satellites). Planets and stars have negligible effect -- they are too far away.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Any differences in path of the radio signals would yield "time dilation" effects.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Any difference in path would change propagation delay only, which is factored out anyway. (If the correction for this were not exact, GPS couldn't work properly to triangulate and determine coordinates for unknown receiver locations on the ground.)

The point is that the clock rate changes are cumulative and eventually become far larger than any other effect. So there is no excuse for claiming they are not real. -|Tom|-