xinhangshen

You should never be here!

What clues have you got from the above quotation? This quotation is just the pilgrim of relativity religion's belief, nothing to do with the fact that the clocks of GPS can be universally synchronized which has clearly disproved special relativity. On the other hand, the kinematic correction is just a direct evidence of the existence of aether. The velocity only relative to aether decides the slowdowns of clocks, as shown in the result of Hefele-Keating experiment. You can't use the velocities in any other inertial reference frame to calculate the slowdowns of clocks. It seems that aether close to the surface of the earth is completely dragged by the earth with both rotation and translation so that Michelson-Morley experiment can't show fringe shift, but the aether above the ground is less dragged by the earth with little rotation and full translation so that the different relative speeds make the differences of the displays of the clocks in H-K experiment. When it goes to the higher altitude of the earth, the aether seems only moving with the earth (translation only) without rotation so that all clocks on GPS satellites on different tracks behave almost exactly the same without noticeable differences.

All clocks in GPS are synchronized no matter whether they are on the ground or on satellites, no matter which inertial reference frame you use. That is, the time of GPS is absolute and universal. You are a typical pilgrim of relativity religion, who believes relativity unconditionally no matter what evidence and logical reasoning are disproving it.

Go to Wikipedia "Global Positioning System" item, it clearly states that the clocks are synchronized relative to each other. The gravitation effects have already been taken into consideration which simply needs a constant gravitation correction for all satellites because they have the same altitude. The rest effects are kinematic time dilation corrections, but special relativity has failed to address the relative time dilation issue.

OK, if you really want to join the debate, please answer the following question with evidences or strict logical reasoning: According to special relativity, clocks with relative velocities can never be synchronized in multiple inertial reference frames. How can clocks on GPS satellites be synchronized not only relative to the ground but also relative to each other? "The GPS concept is based on time and the known position of specialized satellites. The satellites carry very stable atomic clocks that are synchronized with one another and to ground clocks." - Wikipedia

That is exactly what relativity worshipers think. These guys are not rational any longer. They can't be convinced by any facts and logical reasoning. This discussion thread is not created for these people. Therefore, please leave this thread!

Then you are just wasting people's time because this thread is created to debate the points presented on my paper. You even don't know what we are debating here.

You are not debating with logical reasoning, but just shouting that "sr is right", "sr is right", ... No matter how many times you repeat, it won't help you defend sr.

It's clear now that you don't want to use logical reasoning, but everybody here tries to use logical reasoning to debate. So, you do not belong here.

You need to spend more time to learn English first because "postulate" is "a thing suggested or assumed as true as the basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief" according to Google.

A-wal, the constant speed of light is a postulate, not a fact. You should never use the postulate as a fact to disprove other people's reasoning.

Of course, sound speed follows Newton's velocity addition formula, so does light according to Galilean system. Please stop nonsense!

What are you talking about? All we are doing here is to disprove STR. How can you just use one word "reasonably" to assert it?

It seems that your intelligence can't distinguish between postulates and facts. Please be aware that the constant speed of light is only a postulate, not a fact!

In Galilean system, the speed of light is just the same as the speed of sound, which follows Newton's velocity addition formula. Like sound with air as its medium, light has also its own medium aether in Galilean system. It's not an assumption but a conclusion. If you can't understand the mechanism of light with aether, then you just can't understand sound with air. It's not the problem of the physics, but the problem of your limited intelligence.

There are two scenarios: 1) if M-M experiment shows no fringe shift when the setup moves at 0.6c relative to aether; 2) if M-M experiment does show fringe shift when the setup moves at 0.6c relative to the local aether. As there is no such an experiment done in the outer space yet, we don't know which one is the real scenario. In the first scenario, according to the formula on my paper, the Galilean length of x is equal to the relativistic length of x divided by gamma (i.e. the length is indeed contracted when moving against aether), then your right figure shows exactly Galilean result, while relativistic result uses c for all paths. There is no difference in fringe shifting between Galilean and relativistic results. Here relativistic time for the entire path is 2 and Galilean time for the entire path is 2.5 because Galilean time equals relativistic time multiplied by gamma at the origin. In the second scenario, then we should know the fringe in order to compare the results. They should be always the same. Here is the relationships between Galilean system and relativistic system: In an inertial reference frame stationary to the local aether, X = x T = t where capital letters represent variables in Galilean system and lower case letters in relativistic system. In an inertial reference frame with a velocity v relative to the local aether: X' = x'/γ T' = γ(t' + x'v/c2) With these relationships, all so called relativistic kinematic calculations can be finally converted to Galilean kinematic results. That is, all so called relativistic effects in kinematics can be explained by Galilean kinematics with the aether model.

Yes, the speed of light can be measured, but the measured one is defined by Galilean length and Galilean time, though in the measurement system stationary with local aether the measured results of relativistic speed of light and Galilean speed of light are the same.

Do you know that the speed of light can be defined by both Galilean system and relativistic system? The Galilean version of the speed of light is not a constant while the relativistic version is constant. You can use the relationships between Galilean system and relativistic system I presented on my papers to do the conversions. The two definitions of the speed of light are mathematically equivalent. Both Galilean and relativistic systems are logically intact. The clocks on GPS satellites are adjusted to Galilean time (faster than the corresponding relativistic times on individual satellites) because they are all synchronized to the ground clocks while relativistic time can never be used to synchronize clocks with relative speeds. We are all using Galilean time and relativistic time is just an artificial variable introduced to produce an artificial constant speed of light.

I have found the mathematical relations between Galilean spacetime and relativistic spacetime (see my papers available through the links in my previous posts). Every relativistic spacetime point within light reach can be uniquely mapped to a point of Galilean spacetime, and every point of Galilean spacetime within light reach can be uniquely mapped to a relativistic spacetime point. They don't produce any differences in kinematics. That is, the result of any kinematic problem calculated based on relativistic spacetime can be finally converted to the result in Galilean spacetime with the mathematical relationship I presented on the papers, which will be exactly the same as the result directly calculated based on Galilean kinematics, and vice versa.

Now I have realized that there is no logical contradiction in the kinematics of special relativity if we strictly use relativistic time and length everywhere, just as use Newton's kinematics with Galilean time and length everywhere. In fact all inertial reference frames can be described by both coordinate systems: one is based on Lorentz Transformation (called relativistic system) and the other is based on Galilean Transformation (called Galilean system). Relativistic system is mathematically equivalent to Galilean system. But the two coordinate systems result in two different interpretations of time, length and the speed of light: for relativistic system, time and length are relative but the speed of light is absolute, and for Galilean system, time and length are absolute but the speed of light is relative. Both interpretations are logically intact. That is, to describe the motions of objects (i.e. in kinematics), using relativistic system will produce exactly the same results as using Galilean system if we use strictly their respective definitions of time and length. The major advantage of using special relativity is that it creates a set of electromagnetic equations invariant in inertial reference frames. If these equations are not correct, then special relativity is meaningless because of the difficulty in handling its relative time. According to special relativity, times of clocks with relative velocities such as those on GPS satellites flow at different rates and can never been universally synchronized. Because the time is relative in special relativity, there is no clear sequence of time flow in the universe so that we will never be able to correctly record history in relativistic time. The advantage of Galilean coordinate system is that length and time are invariant in all inertial reference frames. Thus, time keeping becomes straightforward. For example, all clocks on GPS satellites show Galilean times that are synchronized not only relative to earth but also relative to each other no matter what relative velocities between them though in the synchronization process, the calculation of the speed of light should strictly follows Newton's velocity addition formula. With the absolute Galilean time, we have a clear sequence of time so that all historic events in the universe can be recorded in order. In the Galilean coordinate system, many modern physics theories are not developed yet, though so called relativistic theories of modern physics may completely wrong. Up to now, all clocks we use in the world are universally synchronized. Thus, we are all using absolute Galilean time. It is a mistake to use our current universally synchronized time as relativistic time with relativistic theories to describe physical phenomena.

The situation is that the two clocks are identical relative to their own reference frame. We don't need to synchronize them. We just want to know the time shown on the received image of clock B. If clock B has not been adjusted, the image should show 3:15. Therefore, observer A will also see that clock A runs slower than clock B. That is, clock B is faster than clock A observed by both observers, that contradicts special relativity. Therefore, special relativity is wrong.

You are just muddling the debate. Please discuss my thought experiment which is to create a contradiction for special relativity.

You just don't understand what an event is. An event is the coordinates of a point in the four-dimensional spacetime, which does not have distance. Distance can only exist between events. In the reference frame of observer A, the distance between event 1 and event 2 is exactly the same as the distance between 2 and event 3 because location A is fixed in the reference frame of observer A.

A-wal, in the reference frame of observer A, the image of clock A reaching observer B and the image of clock B leaving observer B happen at exact the same location and same time, and the speed of observer B does not have any role here. The distance from A to B is the same as the distance frame B to A. The speed of light is also the same in both directions. Therefore, the times spent on the way for the images are exactly the same.

A-wal, you just admitted in a previous post that the path for the image of clock A traveling from A to B is exactly the same as the path for the image of clock B traveling from B to A observed in the reference frame of observer A.