Relavistic Time Dilation Test Fraud

Dr Flandern, in your twin paradox article, you stated that the atomic clocks
were adjusted prelaunch and stayed synchronized afterwards regardless
of their relative velocity to the ground clocks. But in a post in this thread
you wrote that the clocks fall out of synch by as much as 7200 ns/day. Is this
updated information or did I misunderstand you again?

There can be no time dilation/length contraction effects if velocity is relative-
it is basic set logic as Jan demonstrated so clearly above. Any physical interpretation of the Lorentz transformations violate basic
set logic. Only way for time dilation (actually
clock malfunction) to occur is if A not equal
to B, i.e. A frame is assymetrical with B frame, e.g. one clock
shrunk absolutely relative to the other so that light travels a
longer distance between ticks, or other hidden variables.

An explanation using non-simultaneity won't cut it as well
since A and B are still symmetrical relative to one another.
A observing B is equal to B observing A anyway you slice it
when there is no priviledged frame.

1234567890,

I'm glad to see that you have understood what I was trying to say on SR. Two entities A and B in relative motion is a true pathological situation.

Suppose A is looking at B and sees clock B ticking slower. A writes: B < A

Likewise, B is looking at A and sees clock A ticking slower. B writes: A < B.

SR allows us to treat the cases as equally valid. Thus,

B < A and A < B implies B < B and A < A

This cannot hold. We have <i>reductio ad absurdum</i> (proof by contradiction). The supposition that observations of A and B are equally valid is thereby refuted.


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

<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 />1234567890,

I'm glad to see that you have understood what I was trying to say on SR. Two entities A and B in relative motion is a true pathological situation.

Suppose A is looking at B and sees clock B ticking slower. A writes: B &lt; A

Likewise, B is looking at A and sees clock A ticking slower. B writes: A &lt; B.

SR allows us to treat the cases as equally valid. Thus,

B &lt; A and A &lt; B implies B &lt; B and A &lt; A

This cannot hold. We have <i>reductio ad absurdum</i> (proof by contradiction). The supposition that observations of A and B are equally valid is thereby refuted.


"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, very well stated. Only way time dilation can exist in SR is if
the moving observer couldn't afford to buy a watch since then
he and the "stationary" frame observer could just make up a value for time in his "moving" frame rather
than actually having to prove it. In this case, Jan's, mine,
or Lorentz's transformation are equally valid, as long
as we keep some arbitrary value in frame A the same as A.
SR is invariance by mathematical assertion and not a true
physical or even logical consequence.

<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 />Is this updated information or did I misunderstand you again?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Sorry for the confusion. Here's the exact situation. An atomic clock counts hyperfine transitions of cesium atoms. The definition of an "international" atomic second is the time interval required for X such transitions to occur, where X is a specific number determined by experiment to give the best match to the astronomer's second previously in use, and is a number roughly equal to 10 billion.

When prepping a GPS satellite atomic clock for launch, we do not have the means to change the number of transitions that will occur in one second. Nature determines that. But we know from experience that, once launched, the rate of such transitions on the satellite clock as observed from the ground will be slower by 7200 ns/day. That would soon cause the satellite clocks to get far out of synch with the ground clocks. To prevent that from happening, we instruct the satellite clock to ignore the international definition and substitute a smaller value for X so that the clock will think that more time has elapsed by 7200 ns/day. Using that artificial definition, the satellite clock then stays in perfect synch with the ground clocks.

So yes, the satellite clocks are adjusted pre-launch to make the second shorter so that the clocks stay in synch with ground clocks when in orbit. And yes, they are actually ticking slower by 7200 ns/day when the "second" is defined the same way for satellite and ground clocks. The pre-launch adjustment is a "cheat" to make the system work simpler.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">There can be no time dilation/length contraction effects if velocity is relative-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This appears to use an implausible definition of "relative". The idea of a universal absolute reference frame is in poor standing because of the failure of credible experiments to detect it. But in LR, velocities are all relative to the local gravitational potential field, which is of course an arbitrary reference as far as the rest of the universe is concerned.

But the local gravitational potential field consists of entrained elysium, so it completely determines the speed and bending of light. Being "relative" therefore does not imply that velocities cannot have well-defined properties. -|Tom|-

<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"><i>Originally posted by 1234567890</i>
<br />Is this updated information or did I misunderstand you again?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Sorry for the confusion. Here's the exact situation. An atomic clock counts hyperfine transitions of cesium atoms. The definition of an "international" atomic second is the time interval required for X such transitions to occur, where X is a specific number determined by experiment to give the best match to the astronomer's second previously in use, and is a number roughly equal to 10 billion.

When prepping a GPS satellite atomic clock for launch, we do not have the means to change the number of transitions that will occur in one second. Nature determines that. But we know from experience that, once launched, the rate of such transitions on the satellite clock as observed from the ground will be slower by 7200 ns/day. That would soon cause the satellite clocks to get far out of synch with the ground clocks. To prevent that from happening, we instruct the satellite clock to ignore the international definition and substitute a smaller value for X so that the clock will think that more time has elapsed by 7200 ns/day. Using that artificial definition, the satellite clock then stays in perfect synch with the ground clocks.

So yes, the satellite clocks are adjusted pre-launch to make the second shorter so that the clocks stay in synch with ground clocks when in orbit. And yes, they are actually ticking slower by 7200 ns/day when the "second" is defined the same way for satellite and ground clocks. The pre-launch adjustment is a "cheat" to make the system work simpler.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">There can be no time dilation/length contraction effects if velocity is relative-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This appears to use an implausible definition of "relative". The idea of a universal absolute reference frame is in poor standing because of the failure of credible experiments to detect it. But in LR, velocities are all relative to the local gravitational potential field, which is of course an arbitrary reference as far as the rest of the universe is concerned.

But the local gravitational potential field consists of entrained elysium, so it completely determines the speed and bending of light. Being "relative" therefore does not imply that velocities cannot have well-defined properties. -|Tom|-

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

Thx for the clarification. From what I've read, they bundled
velocity and gravitation together as corrections to the orbiting clocks so this so-called "time-dilation" could be entirely due
to a misjudgment of the strength of gravitational field at that
elevation in space. The fact that GR corrections make up a majority of the total correction (45 microseconds vs 7 microseconds for SR) makes this assumption evem more pllausible. And unless they have actually stopped the satellites in orbit to test for this difference, it's impossible to conclude whether relative velocity had anything to do with the time dilation. From what I've read,
this hasn't been done.

Even more, I don't believe the information available to the public on the general specs of GPS, including the SR and GR corrections are accurate. I don't expect our Secretary of Defense nor any CEO of a corporation to give away sensitive trade secrets.

Finally, Jan all but proved the impossibility of time dilation as a real effect for objects in inertial frames in flat space, above. So, if a Cesium clock indeed runs slower when moving faster, it does not do so under SR nor any other R.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[123...:]The fact that GR corrections make up a majority of the total correction (45 microseconds vs 7 microseconds for SR) makes this assumption evem more pllausible. And unless they have actually stopped the satellites in orbit to test for this difference, it's impossible to conclude whether relative velocity had anything to do with the time dilation. From what I've read,
this hasn't been done.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Absolutely, I also think that clock slowing in the GPS is entirely due to gravitational interaction and SR does *not* play a part in this whatsoever.

I would like to see the real implemented corrections. Where do we get them?




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