Personal Topic

[Moronium]

 

Anyway, it has been conceded that timekeeping devices seem to be affected by gravity and motion, but that has nothing to do with the concept of time being affected, which of course it cant.

 

  

I agree completely.

[Moronium]

Ive read and collected a number of published papers related to GPS and SR and GR seem to be the least mentioned aspect of the system. Sometimes not mentioned at all. I ve also read explanations as to why SR and GR if applied would introduce errors into the GPS system.  So its not a done deal.  What else you got?

 

 

SR is not used in the GPS, and it can't be.  The GPS uses a theory of motion which hinges on a preferred frame (the eci) a la Lorentz, in order to achieve the accurate results that it does.

 

Put another way, the GPS posits absolute motion (not relative motion) and absolute simultaneity (not relative simultaneity).

 

Within the GPS, the speed of light is NOT the same in each direction, and time dilation is not "reciprocal."

Edited February 10, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

Now then, clocks on earth are ticking at a different rate.  For every hour that passes, the discrepancy between earth clocks and satellite clocks would get greater, if not adjusted.  After a few days, the GPS would be off by many miles.

 

So how do the clocks get "synchronized?"

 

The GPS engineers recalibrate the clocks intended to go into orbit BEFORE they are ever sent into space, that's how.

 

So, how do they do that?  For purposes of calculating the difference in ticking rate due to speed, they use the LT.

 

Say, for instance, that the space clock will be travelling 10,000 mph faster than they would on earth.  OK, now let's just say that would imply that the satellite clock, if unadjusted, would only tick off 59 seconds for every minute that an earth clock would register.  So they calibrate the clock going into orbit to read that one minute has passed for every 59 seconds that it would otherwise record.

 

After that, the clocks are synchronized once they are in orbit.  And since their actual ticking rate has been adjusted, they STAY synchronized with earth clocks indefinitely, with no need for further adjustment.

 

The workings of the GPS all more complicated than that, of course, but that's the basic idea.

 

The point is that, without relying on the LT to make accurate predictions of time dilation, they could never build a working system/

Well that's the nice story for the lecture on Einstein.  But in reality, the satellite clocks are all synchronized with each other, (even though Einstein said this was impossible, cant synchronize moving clocks)  The times on the satellites could read anything, as long as they are all in agreement. No need to consult the earth based receiver or user time to get a GPS fix.

 

And as no two atomic clocks will keep perfect time, not even two identical clocks side by side in a lab, so those mobile satellite clocks need resetting often, sometime twice every day!

 

The reset signal is sent to each satellite from the master clock system on earth, as deemed necessary.

GPS as explained by academia in accord with Relativity is a gross distortion of what really goes on.

 

So still GPS is not extraordinary evidence, its hotly contested evidence that what it is. You need something really solid to sway me to accept the bizarre claim requiring the use of LT.

GPS is far from solid.

[Moronium]

You might like this part, Marco:  Lorentz (and the GPS) disposes of the concept of "spacetime."  There are 3 dimensions of space, and one of time.

[marcospolo]

SR is not used in the GPS, and it can't be.  The GPS uses a theory of motion which hinges on a preferred frame (the eci) a la Lorentz, in order to achieve the accurate results that it does.

 

Put another way, the GPS posits absolute motion (not relative motion) and absolute simultaneity (not relative simultaneity).

Ok, good, that an improvement over SR, in the use of absolute motion, and absolute stationary. 

 

But the little problem i have with frames is their use at all!

Sure you can use frames in order to compare relative positions and motions, but the way that frames are used today really annoys me.  They seem to think that an imaginary origin and Cartesian coordinate system, applied arbitrarily, can physically influence real matter and even time itself! This is really beyond the bounds or reason.

[Moronium]

 You need something really solid to sway me to accept the bizarre claim requiring the use of LT.

 

I would never think it's possible to persuade you of anything pertaining to physics.

[marcospolo]

I'm off now to do some archery with my mate, where we can discuss the pointlessness of modern Physics in depth. His reply to my ponderings is always "Meeh".

I find this helps.

[Moronium]

They seem to think that an imaginary origin and Cartesian coordinate system, applied arbitrarily, can physically influence real matter and even time itself! This is really beyond the bounds or reason.

 

I agree that they seem to think that, and I agree that it's absurd.  Btw, I added a little to the post cited here.  Did you see the rest?

Edited February 10, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

SR is not used in the GPS, and it can't be.  The GPS uses a theory of motion which hinges on a preferred frame (the eci) a la Lorentz, in order to achieve the accurate results that it does.

 

Put another way, the GPS posits absolute motion (not relative motion) and absolute simultaneity (not relative simultaneity).

 

Within the GPS, the speed of light is NOT the same in each direction, and time dilation is not "reciprocal."

That's interesting, must get more info from you on this later. But I don't like the use of LT.   Unless the hypothesis for the use of LT is better explained, I cant accept it.

[Moronium]

You might like this part, Marco:  Lorentz (and the GPS) disposes of the concept of "spacetime."  There are 3 dimensions of space, and one of time.

 

And, in that theoretical framework, "time" does not change.  Clocks slow down with speed, sure, but time is absolute.

[Moronium]

That's interesting, must get more info from you on this later. But I don't like the use of LT.   Unless the hypothesis for the use of LT is better explained, I cant accept it.

 

It is a mathematical relationship which proves to hold "true" in practice.  Like the pythagorean theorem, which you said you accept.  Or, once again, it's the same with Newton's universal law of gravity.  It holds true, mathematically.  But Newton himself said the "apparent" explanation was absurd (matter "attracting" matter at a distance).

 

The chances  of some guy winning the jackpot in the lottery are extremely low, but some guy will win it, improbable as it might seem to him.

 

Why the LT should "hold true" is one question.  If they hold true, and enable accurate predictions, is a separate question.  You seem to think the questions are inseparable.

Edited February 10, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

It is a mathematical relationship which proves to hold "true" in practice.  Like the pythagorean theorem, which you said you accept.  Or, once again, it's the same with Newton's universal law of gravity.  It holds true, mathematically.  But Newton himself said the "apparent" explanation was absurd (matter "attracting" matter at a distance).

 

The chances  of some guy winning the jackpot in the lottery are extremely low, but some guy will win it, improbable as it might seem to him.

 

Why the LT should "hold true" is one question.  If they hold true, and enable accurate predictions, is a separate question.  You seem to think the questions are inseparable.

Well this is no lottery we are discussing here. If Lorentz developed his transform equation based on his shoe size divided by the girl next doors bust dimensions, then multiplied my the square of the first number he thought of between 13509 and 43908766, then for you, as long as the results seems to align with what we experience, they math is good.

 

For me, I like to hear a sound argument explaining the rationale and logic process behind the theory.

 

The LT math is based on incorrect application of geometric relationships of right angled triangles. The explanation as to how that relates to light is missing, and contrary to what we know light does.

As far as the results of applying LT, it seem to only work in situations that I call fictitious in the first place.

The scenarios set up a false reality, that will require the use of the LT math to fix up the error created especially for demonstrating said fix.

Create the problem, ( a non existing problem at that) then offer the solution for the problem you invented.

[Moronium]

For me, I like to hear a sound argument explaining the rationale and logic process behind the theory.

 

The LT math is based on incorrect application of geometric relationships of right angled triangles. 

 

Welp, there's a very long article, chock-full of mathematical manipulations, pertaining to the LT, if that's what you're looking for, Marco:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

 

For what it's worth, it says, among many other things, that "For relative speeds much less than the speed of light, the Lorentz transformations reduce to the Galilean transformation," if that provides any insight.

[marcospolo]

Welp, there's a very long article, chock-full of mathematical manipulations, pertaining to the LT, if that's what you're looking for, Marco:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

 

For what it's worth, it says, among many other things, that "For relative speeds much less than the speed of light, the Lorentz transformations reduce to the Galilean transformation," if that provides any insight.

Ah, Wikipedia, the source for everything approved by the custodians of truth.

 

Ive looked at it all. I don't agree with any of it.

But easier to digest is the many excellent video lectures available on youtube, by notable professors at universities such as Yale, as well as Fermilab, Leonard Susskind at Stanford, Khan academy etc. all have videos on every aspect of Relativity.

 

I have watched them all, working through the examples line by line, but find errors in every one of them, which prevent one progressing to the conclusion. Its mathematical garbage.

There is no logical or rational way to derive the LT equations, its based on errors of geometry and logic.

Edited February 10, 2019 by marcospolo

[Moronium]

I'm not sure about this, but I think the Galilean transform is all that's needed in Lorentz's "real" world, i.e., the one that emerges when "true" states of time and motion are calculated.

 

But in that world, the "relativity principle" disintegrates (depending on how you interpret the issue of whether the laws of physics are "the same").

 

In the "apparent world," i.e., the one which is revealed by (inaccurate) measurements, time varies.  Galilean transforms presume that the time in each frame is invariant.  The LT are basically a way to predict how things "appear" to us.

 

In its pure form, the time in LR does not change.  If the ticking rate of a moving clock slows down (which it does) with speed, that can still be explained in terms of the "real" time.

 

For example:  Let's say that I'm on a moving train and that (contrary to the prohibitions of SR) that I conclude that I am moving, not the guy standing by the tracks.  That would imply that my watch has slowed down.  Knowing that it is unreliable, and knowing the LT, I can calculate the "real time."  If I do that, then I, just like the guy standing by the tracks, will agree that two strikes of lightning hitting opposite ends of the train at the same time, were indeed "simultaneous," even though I don't perceive them to be with my raw visual senses.

 

That may not make much sense, I don't know.  I'm not sure how else to put it.

Edited February 10, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

In its pure form, the time in LR does not change.  If the ticking rate of a moving clock slows down (which it does) with speed, that can still be explained in terms of the "real" time.

 

 

Here's another example of what I'm trying to say.  Let assume that my watch runs at half-speed, and that I know it.  On the phone, I agree to meet you at a certain place in "an hour."  Despite my screwed up watch, we can still arrive simultaneously, if I just make the necessary adjustments.

 

I will time myself to get there when my watch shows that a half (not full) hour has passed.  Not that complicated, really.

 

A mistake would be for me to think that my watch was accurate and was running at the same rate as yours.  In that case I would arrive an hour after you did. That's a mistake I would make if I defined "time" as "what a clock measures," a la Einstein.

 

Edited February 10, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

One fundamental difference (perhaps THE fundamental difference) between Lorentz and Einstein is this:

 

Lorentz fully realized that one clock running at a different rate than another would give each a different impression of "what time it is."  Each would have his own idiosyncratic "local time" (what Einstein called "proper time").

 

Lorentz regarded this "local" time to be a pure mathematical fiction, not the "true" time, but he found the concept useful  as a shortcut for making calculations.

 

Einstein basically took Lorentz's concept of local time, and said that local time was the "true time."

Edited February 10, 2019 by Moronium