Strange Claims About Relativistic Time Split From A Alternative Theories Thread

[A-wal]

:) You really think you can get out of this on a technicality of how google defines a word?

 

The point is that the speed of light was found to be constant and sr was based on that knowledge.

 

There's been plenty of experiments that show the speed of light IS the same in all inertial frames.

 

Stop trying to pretend that the consistency of the speed of light is assumed because of what sr describes!

[xinhangshen]

:) You really think you can get out of this on a technicality of how google defines a word?

 

The point is that the speed of light was found to be constant and sr was based on that knowledge.

 

There's been plenty of experiments that show the speed of light IS the same in all inertial frames.

 

Stop trying to pretend that the consistency of the speed of light is assumed because of what sr describes!

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.

Edited September 16, 2016 by xinhangshen

[A-wal]

Can you not see the irony here?

 

Every time I use reasoning to show that you're taking out of your arse you make the same stupid accusation because can't justify your false claims.

[xinhangshen]

Can you not see the irony here?

 

Every time I use reasoning to show that you're taking out of your arse you make the same stupid accusation because can't justify your false claims.

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.

Edited September 16, 2016 by xinhangshen

[A-wal]

There's nothing to defend because you haven't made any kind of valid refutation of sr. It describes the effects of a constant speed of light, something that was needed after experiments showed it to be constant. You're just completely ignoring that and claiming that it isn't constant.

I can't make a logical and well reasoned argument when the attempted refutation contains no logic or reason. The only response can be to say yes it is constant because that's what tests show and the only way that could have happen is if every test object were moving at the same velocity relative to the local aether despite at least two objects in every experiment having to be in significant motion relative to each other to perform the test so stop making stupid claims.

[xinhangshen]

There's nothing to defend because you haven't made any kind of valid refutation of sr. It describes the effects of a constant speed of light, something that was needed after experiments showed it to be constant. You're just completely ignoring that and claiming that it isn't constant.

 

I can't make a logical and well reasoned argument when the attempted refutation contains no logic or reason. The only response can be to say yes it is constant because that's what tests show and the only way that could have happen is if every test object were moving at the same velocity relative to the local aether despite at least two objects in every experiment having to be in significant motion relative to each other to perform the test so stop making stupid claims.

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.

[A-wal]

To discuss a paper describing the purely hypothetical effects of a non constant speed of light (something that's already well known) when we know from experiment that it is constant and I'm the one wasting peoples time?

[xinhangshen]

To discuss a paper describing the purely hypothetical effects of a non constant speed of light (something that's already well known) when we know from experiment that it is constant and I'm the one wasting peoples time?

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! 

[A-wal]

Here are the facts.

 

1. It was found by experiments that the speed of light is constant.

2. Special relativity is a description of the effects of a constant speed of light.

3. What you're describing are the effects of something that has been shown not be true.

4. Those effects are already well known.

 

What rational reason do you have for thinking that the speed of light isn't constant?

Where is the logic in describing something that's not only already well know but has also proven to be false?

[xinhangshen]

Here are the facts.

 

1. It was found by experiments that the speed of light is constant.

2. Special relativity is a description of the effects of a constant speed of light.

3. What you're describing are the effects of something that has been shown not be true.

4. Those effects are already well known.

 

What rational reason do you have for thinking that the speed of light isn't constant?

Where is the logic in describing something that's not only already well know but has also proven to be false?

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 

Edited September 19, 2016 by xinhangshen

[A-wal]

Careful using satellites, you've wandered into general relativity. From a purely sr point of view they don't need to be synchronised in the satellites frame and if they're synchronised in our frame then they can't be in another.

[xinhangshen]

Careful using satellites, you've wandered into general relativity. From a purely sr point of view they don't need to be synchronised in the satellites frame and if they're synchronised in our frame then they can't be in another.

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. 

[A-wal]

In synch relative to each other in our frame, in synch relative to each other in their own frame and in synch with us in our frame doesn't mean they're in synch with us in their frame.

 

Also we're time dilated from their frame due to being in a stronger gravitational field. I'm not sure how exactly they're all synched up but I know they take relativity into account and the timing delays match perfectly.

[xinhangshen]

In synch relative to each other in our frame, in synch relative to each other in their own frame and in synch with us in our frame doesn't mean they're in synch with us in their frame.

 

Also we're time dilated from their frame due to being in a stronger gravitational field. I'm not sure how exactly they're all synched up but I know they take relativity into account and the timing delays match perfectly.

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. 

Edited September 20, 2016 by xinhangshen

[A-wal]

After a very quick search.

 

"To achieve this level of precision, the clock ticks from the GPS satellites must be known to an accuracy of 20-30 nanoseconds. However, because the satellites are constantly moving relative to observers on the Earth, effects predicted by the Special and General theories of Relativity must be taken into account to achieve the desired 20-30 nanosecond accuracy.

 

Because an observer on the ground sees the satellites in motion relative to them, Special Relativity predicts that we should see their clocks ticking more slowly (see the Special Relativity lecture). Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion.

 

Further, the satellites are in orbits high above the Earth, where the curvature of spacetime due to the Earth's mass is less than it is at the Earth's surface. A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away (see the Black Holes lecture). As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites appear to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground. A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day.

 

The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! This sounds small, but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond accuracy, and 38 microseconds is 38,000 nanoseconds. If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! The whole system would be utterly worthless for navigation in a very short time. This kind of accumulated error is akin to measuring my location while standing on my front porch in Columbus, Ohio one day, and then making the same measurement a week later and having my GPS receiver tell me that my porch and I are currently somewhere up in the air many kilometers away."

 

You're full of it!

 

You are a typical pilgrim of relativity religion, who believes relativity unconditionally no matter what evidence and logical reasoning are disproving it. 

You've provided nothing remotely resembling either evidence or logical reasoning, just a bunch of completely hollow arguments that don't stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.

 

I don't believe anything unconditionally and I think general relativity is almost completely wrong because gravitational free fall is not inertial and tidal force is the effect of acceleration, the same as felt by any accelerating object free from gravity.

[xinhangshen]

After a very quick search.

 

"To achieve this level of precision, the clock ticks from the GPS satellites must be known to an accuracy of 20-30 nanoseconds. However, because the satellites are constantly moving relative to observers on the Earth, effects predicted by the Special and General theories of Relativity must be taken into account to achieve the desired 20-30 nanosecond accuracy.

 

Because an observer on the ground sees the satellites in motion relative to them, Special Relativity predicts that we should see their clocks ticking more slowly (see the Special Relativity lecture). Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion.

 

Further, the satellites are in orbits high above the Earth, where the curvature of spacetime due to the Earth's mass is less than it is at the Earth's surface. A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away (see the Black Holes lecture). As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites appear to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground. A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day.

 

The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! This sounds small, but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond accuracy, and 38 microseconds is 38,000 nanoseconds. If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! The whole system would be utterly worthless for navigation in a very short time. This kind of accumulated error is akin to measuring my location while standing on my front porch in Columbus, Ohio one day, and then making the same measurement a week later and having my GPS receiver tell me that my porch and I are currently somewhere up in the air many kilometers away."

 

You're full of it!

 

You've provided nothing remotely resembling either evidence or logical reasoning, just a bunch of completely hollow arguments that don't stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.

 

I don't believe anything unconditionally and I think general relativity is almost completely wrong because gravitational free fall is not inertial and tidal force is the effect of acceleration, the same as felt by any accelerating object free from gravity.

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.

[A-wal]

So the aether (whatever the hell it's suppose to be) moves in exactly the way it needs to to make it seem like there is no aether and this is "direct evidence of its existence"? :)

 

Dude you're hilarious. Deluded, clueless and not worth anyone's time. I'm done.