Relavistic Time Dilation Test Fraud

SR's first postulate is that physics is the same
in all inertial frames. If the detector of the
Cesium atoms is in the same inertial frame as
the source of the atoms in a Cesium clock system,
all Cesium clocks should run at the same
rate, - i.e. you can't measure
time dilation of your own inertial frame.
If so, Cesium clocks should all stay synchronized
without offset, irrespective of their relative
velocities with other clocks, if SR is correct.

The fact that they stay synchronized after offsetting
then would seem to disprove SR. But since the net
offset is for the effect of clocks speeding up (due to
GR supposedly) and not slowing down, nothing can be
concluded about time dilation due to velocity.
Your claim that the data proves LR then is also
highly questionable.

I think the same argument above applies to GR as
well if the source and detector of the Cs atoms
in Cesium clocks are at the same elevation relative
to each other, since according to GR, free fall
frames are equivalent. Thus, any offsetting of
clocks would seem to discredit SR and GR, and
not the reverse.

It is doubtful though that anyone running a highly lucrative operation would give out sensitive
data freely to the public so any information regarding
the GPS may be just numbers crunched by SR and GR
technicians and most likely do not
correspond to the actual operation of the GPS clocks.

So I think using the GPS in support of SR GR or any other R is little
more than idle speculation. But using the assumption that the data you provided is correct, I would think SR and GR have both been falsified. And since you cannot find a difference between your LR and the other Rs, your theory is falsified as well.

<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 fact that they stay synchronized after offsetting then would seem to disprove SR.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Not so. SR has two postulates, and the second requires Einstein clock synchronization, which is not used in GPS. But if it were used, clocks would behave as SR predicts, and the second postulate (constancy of c in all inertial frames) would hold.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But since the net offset is for the effect of clocks speeding up (due to GR supposedly) and not slowing down, nothing can be concluded about time dilation due to velocity.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Incorrect. Adjustments are made pre-launch for both the potential (GR) effect and for the velocity (SR) effect.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Your claim that the data proves LR then is also highly questionable.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I made no such claim. I said we can't tell anything from GPS. But the six experiments measuring the speed of gravity falsify SR. That leaves LR as the only theory standing at the moment. That's very different from proving that a theory is correct.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It is doubtful though that anyone running a highly lucrative operation would give out sensitive data freely to the public so any information regarding the GPS may be just numbers crunched by SR and GR technicians and most likely do not correspond to the actual operation of the GPS clocks.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">GPS was declassified by Presidential Order in 2000 over the Air Force's objections. Now GPS data is widely available on the internet. While I was a consultant for the Army Research Lab, I was fortunate enough to get access to raw Monitor Station data before all that happened.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">using the assumption that the data you provided is correct, I would think SR and GR have both been falsified.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">GPS doesn't falsify anything, as I explained. It confirms the validity of the gamma factor in the Lorentz transformations to about 1% accuracy. -|Tom|-

Tom and 123...90,

I think that we all agree on the fact the SR cannot be tested with the GPS. In any case, we don't need SR to explain the clock slowing.

Define two inertial frames of reference having a constant relative velocity. Place two persons, Alice and Bob, in these two frames individually. Give them identical ingredients, plans, procedures and tools to make a cesium clock. When both have completed their cesium clock, they measure each others ticking rate. Since the relative velocity of the two frames is known, Alice and Bob are able to account for doppler shift etc. to observe the ticking rate of the other moving clock.

Now, the ticking rate of the two clocks will be identical, since by symmetry of the system, they cannot differ. This is simple logic. However, when the frames pass and Bob throws his clock into Alice's frame, the clock is accelerated out of Bob's calibrated frame of reference and gains a different energy state (kinetic energy) with respect to its frame of calibration. When Alice throws back the clock, it will speed up and return to the energy state it was in before the throwing occured. There is no need to rescale length and time to acount for this.

Now the fun part, suppose Alice recalibrated Bob's clock to her own clock's ticking rate before throwing back the clock to Bob, then the clock will slow down in Bob's frame of reference. So when Bob receives his clock, he knows that Alice did something to it, because it simply should have gained its original ticking rate.

This is precisely where SR, I think, is going wrong. It does not account for different energy states of objects. Thus, when clocks accelerate out their frame of calibration, slowing occurs. Very intuitively and logically.

Because SR is stubbornly saying that energy plays no role, it is forced to rescale length and time parameters. This is like saying that my Ferrari is not going fast enough, so let us compress the road.

It should be noted that the acceleration did induce the clock slowing, but only as to get the clock into a constant different energy state with respect to the calibrated frame.

Let H:R^n -&gt; R be a Hamiltonian, then whenever d/dt(H)=0, the clock rates will be stable, but when the energy changes in time, we can expect changes of the clock rate.

One nice thing, though, we don't need an absolute frame of reference. What we are saying is that the local preferred frame is the frame in which the calibration occured. So, the GPS clock slowing works nicely from this point of view. These things have been manufactured on earth, so as soon as we inject them into orbit, we do expect the ticking rate to change caused by the different kinetic energy state.

Any problems with the above mechanism?

<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 />The fact that they stay synchronized after offsetting then would seem to disprove SR.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Not so. SR has two postulates, and the second requires Einstein clock synchronization, which is not used in GPS. But if it were used, clocks would behave as SR predicts, and the second postulate (constancy of c in all inertial frames) would hold.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But since the net offset is for the effect of clocks speeding up (due to GR supposedly) and not slowing down, nothing can be concluded about time dilation due to velocity.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Incorrect. Adjustments are made pre-launch for both the potential (GR) effect and for the velocity (SR) effect.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Your claim that the data proves LR then is also highly questionable.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I made no such claim. I said we can't tell anything from GPS. But the six experiments measuring the speed of gravity falsify SR. That leaves LR as the only theory standing at the moment. That's very different from proving that a theory is correct.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It is doubtful though that anyone running a highly lucrative operation would give out sensitive data freely to the public so any information regarding the GPS may be just numbers crunched by SR and GR technicians and most likely do not correspond to the actual operation of the GPS clocks.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">GPS was declassified by Presidential Order in 2000 over the Air Force's objections. Now GPS data is widely available on the internet. While I was a consultant for the Army Research Lab, I was fortunate enough to get access to raw Monitor Station data before all that happened.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">using the assumption that the data you provided is correct, I would think SR and GR have both been falsified.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">GPS doesn't falsify anything, as I explained. It confirms the validity of the gamma factor in the Lorentz transformations to about 1% accuracy. -|Tom|-

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

Doesn't Einstein synchronization assume both the orbiting and
Earth clock to be in the same inertial frame so the clocks all run
at the same rate? But doesn't the fact that the Cesium clocks
in orbit actually count a different number of transitions than
the earth clocks show that the clocks in orbit and on Earth
are not in the same inertial frame? But since the clocks
themselves are self contained systems- all parts at rest with
each other- they should all be in the same inertial frames so
that each one counts the same number of transitions of Cs atoms,
according to SR's first postulate.
Apparently the facts contradicts the SR assumptions.

The existence of tick rate differences in the Cs clocks
in orbit from those on Earth would suggest that time dilation
is not a result of SR nor GR (which predicts none for inertial frames) but some other phenomena? .

<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 />the ticking rate of the two clocks will be identical, since by symmetry of the system, they cannot differ. This is simple logic.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This "simple logic" is wrong in both SR and LR. In SR, the mere existence of a relative velocity means that natural clocks in any other inertial frame tick slower and net time passes faster than in one's own frame. So the fact that both parties <i>think</i> their clocks are identical means nothing.

In LR, the effective density of elysium is greater for a clock moving through it than for one at rest in it. So the former ticks slower by all standards. (Waves propagate slower in a denser medium.)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">when the frames pass and Bob throws his clock into Alice's frame, the clock is accelerated out of Bob's calibrated frame of reference and gains a different energy state (kinetic energy) with respect to its frame of calibration.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Clocks "changing energy states" are indistinguishable from ones that never had such a change. Moreover, cyclotron experiments show that acceleration per se has no effect on clock rates.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">when clocks accelerate out their frame of calibration, slowing occurs. Very intuitively and logically.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Acceleration has no effect on clcoks, as orbital motion also shows. Only relative speed matters. This is intuitive and logical only if one has a working physical model for why changes occur.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It should be noted that the acceleration did induce the clock slowing, but only as to get the clock into a constant different energy state with respect to the calibrated frame.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Then why do clocks that never experienced such an acceleration have identical behavior?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Any problems with the above mechanism?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It is loaded with problems. Look, I don't like being forced to defend dead models. It's a bit like learning a dead language. I know from experience that you can keep coming up with paradoxes and proofs indefinitely. I did that myself for 25 years. Either you decide to learn to understand how relativists think, or you move on. I'm not very excited about continuing this exchange for the next 25 years. [] I already served my time. -|Tom|-

<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 />Doesn't Einstein synchronization assume both the orbiting and
Earth clock to be in the same inertial frame so the clocks all run
at the same rate?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No. Einstein synchronization is used to synchronize any two clocks to ensure that the speed of light will be measured as c in all frames. That is not an experimental or testable result, but a postulate that must be enforced.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But doesn't the fact that the Cesium clocks in orbit actually count a different number of transitions than the earth clocks show that the clocks in orbit and on Earth are not in the same inertial frame?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It would if velocity were the only effect acting. But gravitational potential affects clock rates too. -|Tom|-