Einstein's Special Relativity Fails?

[Mac]

Hello, this is my first post here. I am very interested in the facts regarding the many failures of Special Relativity which seem to be generally ignored.

************************************************** ***************

Relativity is touted as being the most highly tested and proven theory in history. The facts are that all data todate, after 100 years of the theory only demonstrates a Lorentz Gamma Function and not Special Relativity.

The "Gamma function not only works in Relativity but in the "Absolute" space view as well; hence it does not distinguish itself between the two views.

But most importantly is the fact that data regarding time dilation shows a failure of Special Relativity (SRT) most clearly and it is merely ignored. That is SRT stipulates that all motion is relative and hence each of two observers always see themselves at rest and that it is the other that has motion.

This causes paradox's such as "Both" clocks must run slower than each other (called Reciprocity). That is more than merely "Counter Intiutive" (the escape goat phrase used by Relativists to avoid the issue) it is physically impossible.

The actual recording of time dilation of ONE clock is direct proof of the failure of Einstein's Relativity, not proof of it. GPS proves that the proper relativistic view is to use three, not two referances.

By using three referances it is established if one observer actually has a higher absolute velocity and it eliminates the "Reciprocity" problem or reversability claims of SRT.

GPS PROVES SPECIAL RELATIVITY INVALID

Proof: GPS satellites have a velocity (V1) of 3,874.5 m/s. A surface clock (at the equator) has an absolute velocity (V2) of 463.8 m/s and "0" m/s at the poles or Earth Center Frame.

The "Relative Velocity" between the orbiting clock and a clock at the equator is V3 = (V1 - V2) = (3,874.5m/s - 463.8m/s) = 3,410.7m/s.

Using Special Relativity in GPS one gets: 3,410.7/c = 1.1369E-5, squared = 1.2925E-10. Divided by 2 = 6.4627E-11.

Time loss would be 6.4627E-11 * 24 * 3,600 = 5.58378E-6 or - 5.58 micro-seconds per day.

HOWEVER: Using the absolute velocity of orbit of 3,874.5 m/s and NOT "Relative Velocity" per SRT one gets 1.2915E-5c, squared = 1.66797E-10. Divided by 2 = 8.33986E-11.

8.33986E-11 * 24 * 3,600 = 7.205E-6 or 7.2 micro-seconds per day due to orbit velocity.

For the earth surface clock I calculate V2 = 463.8 m/s = 1.546E-6c. Squared = 3.29E-12. Divided by 2 = 1.195058E-12 * 24 * 3,600 = 1.0325E-7 or -0.10325 Micro-seconds per day being only about 1% in the daily time loss may be disregarded.

Since it is known that GPS clocks are preadjusted for a collective decrease by -38.5776 microseconds/day due to the collective affects of an increase in tick rate due to General Relativity (Gravity affect) of +45.7776 microseconds/day and for -7.2 microseconds loss per day (which matches absolute velocity of orbit and not Special Relativity's "Relative Velocity between clocks" as Relativists would have you believe), GPS does not use Special Relativity. It uses the Lorentz Relativity's gamma function concept of absolute velocities and not Special Realtivity relative velocity.

Further since the velocites and calculations are based on absolute velocities relative to a common preferred rest frame the two components are not reversable as they are in Special Relativity where each can claim to be at rest. In this format the orbiting clock always has higher velocity and always is the clock which shows dilation.

This is what we physically observe and it is Lorentz Relativity's Gamma function but is not Einstein's Special Relativity; which inherently includes reciprocity.

And lastly while relavistic type affects are known facts, it is the details that make or break a theory. The details and claims of Einstien's Relativity is what makes it invalid.

In General Relativity it is claimed that gravity affects time and slows time in higher gravity fields.

Actually one should think more in terms of "Clock Dilation" and not "Time Dilation". That is there is no clock that actually measures something identified or called time. All clocks actually merely mark the time interval at some frequency by various energy processes.

A change in such clocks frequency no more alters time than having the battery in my timex getting low and my watch slowing down.

Take an atomic clock and a pendulum grandfathers clock and calibrate them and synchronize them in LA, at sea level. Now move them to Denver, Colorado. What happens?

The atomic clock speeds up, the GF clock slows down. Has gravity affected time or just affected clock processes?
************************************************** **************

[TeleMad]

Originally Posted by Mac

Hello, this is my first post here. I am very interested in the facts regarding the many failures of Special Relativity which seem to be generally ignored.

They're probably ignored because they're rubbish. I didn't get past even the very first 'failure' of special relativity before finding the counter argument busted.

Mac: But most importantly is the fact that data regarding time dilation shows a failure of Special Relativity (SRT) most clearly and it is merely ignored. That is SRT stipulates that all motion is relative and hence each of two observers always see themselves at rest and that it is the other that has motion.

This causes paradox's such as "Both" clocks must run slower than each other (called Reciprocity). That is more than merely "Counter Intiutive" (the escape goat phrase used by Relativists to avoid the issue) it is physically impossible.

Wrong. Why this is wrong hinges on the nonsimultaneity...

"There seems to be a big problem with time dilation: "Moving clocks run slow", but who's to say which clock is moving? If clock B sees clock A move by and concludes that clock A is "running slow", why can't clock A claim to see clock B go by and conclude that B is "running slow"? It can! There's no contradiction, because of another remarkable implication of the principle of relativity: Two events that are simultaneous (i.e., that occur at the same time) in one frame of reference are not simultaneous in another frame moving relative to the first. It is this relativity of simultaneity that allows two observers in relative motion to see each other's clocks "run slow", without contradiction." (Einstein's Relativity and the Quantum Revolution: Modern Physics for Non-Scientists: 2nd Edition

If you want a fuller explanation, buy the source: a video lecture series by Professor Richard Wolfson of Middlebury College available at www.teach12.com, and watch lecture 10: Escaping Contradiction: Simultaneity is Relative.

[TeleMad]

Originally Posted by Mac

Actually one should think more in terms of "Clock Dilation" and not "Time Dilation". That is there is no clock that actually measures something identified or called time. All clocks actually merely mark the time interval at some frequency by various energy processes.

A change in such clocks frequency no more alters time than having the battery in my timex getting low and my watch slowing down.

You make it sound as if time proceeds absolutely normally but an altered watch or wallclock creates the illusion of time being dilated. That's not the case. All processes of biology, chemistry, and physics are affected by relative motion - it is TIME itself that is dilated.

That time dilation is not limited to just human-made mechanical time-keeping devices can be seen in experiments involving muons: their 'internal, natural clocks' run at different speeds relative to ours when (1) they are descending from the skies at near the speed of light, and (2) when they are 'at rest' in a lab. This difference in the passage of time due to relative motion affects the muons' half-life as observed by us, and wouldn't you know it, the difference fits in precisely with the predictions of special relativity.

[TeleMad]

Originally Posted by Mac

Take an atomic clock and a pendulum grandfathers clock and calibrate them and synchronize them in LA, at sea level. Now move them to Denver, Colorado. What happens?

The atomic clock speeds up, the GF clock slows down. Has gravity affected time or just affected clock processes?

That seems pretty silly to me.

1) If taken to be a literal experiment, it can't be done. The grandfather clock is driven by a very massive (relative to the cesium atoms of an atomic clock) pendulum and during the winding trip of hundreds of miles it will experience forces applied to it as the vehicles rounds turns, stops and starts, etc. This alone will throw the synchronization of the two clocks off, invalidating the experiment.

2) If taken as a thought experiment, you’ve provided nothing. What underlying principles are you claiming demonstrate your point? You’ve given none.

And in fact, you argument is wrong. Gravity does dilate time and this has been demonstrated experimentally.

”To an observer looking toward a region of strong gravity, the effect is to see time running slower in that region. This is called gravitational time dilation.

1. In a very sensitive experiment at Harvard in 1960, physicists used nuclear radiation to verify gravitational time dilation, effectively measuring differences in the rate of time over a distance of a mere 74 vertical feet.

The source goes on to list 3 other ways it’s been verified.

If you want a fuller explanation, buy the source (which I gave above in my first post in this thread) and watch lecture 14: Curved Spacetime.

[UncleAl]

Hello, this is my first post here. I am very interested in the facts regarding the many failures of Special Relativity which seem to be generally ignored.

There are no - not a single one - experimental failures of Special Relativity. Internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning inconsistencies of a purely mathematical logical nature) automatically lead to contradictions in number theory, itself, and arithmetic, since the mathematics of Minkowski geometry is equiconsistent with the theory of real numbers and with arithmetic.

Your "examples" are General Relativity. There are no - not a single one - expeirmental failures of General Relativity. SR is GR with Newton's G set to zero.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...iv/airtim.html
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com...clock_math.pdf
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
Hafele-Keating Experiment

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html
Mathematics of gravitation

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...1-4/index.html
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/phys...periments.html
Experimental constraints on General Relativity

http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...3-1/index.html
Relativity in the GPS system (weak field)

Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...3-5/index.html
http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries (strong field)

More GPS,
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076.pdf
http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20...s-1meter-3.ASP
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state....Unit5/gps.html

There was only one published error in

Annalen der Physik 4 XVII 891-921 (1905)

http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/physics_wor...1905_error.htm
http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people...relativity.pdf
Longitudinal and transverse mass

[Mac]

Originally Posted by TeleMad

They're probably ignored because they're rubbish. I didn't get past even the very first 'failure' of special relativity before finding the counter argument busted.

Hardly. You might try to be specific since your post is unsupported rhetoric.

Wrong. Why this is wrong hinges on the nonsimultaneity...

Hardly once again. You clearly only mimic what you have read and assume is valid. You aren't talking physics here. To be "Relative Motion" REQUIRES that the two prospective views are concurrent within the same time intervals.

Further when you get jpast you tendancy to speak rhetorically and actually address the physics issues you will find that the accumulated time on a clock (which may be shifted by "Relativity of Simultaneity" isn't even the issue.

To accumulate different amounts of time in a given test period requires that the clocks physically tick at a different rates. These rates are concurrent in the same time intervals. So your "arguement bust" is without merit.

Making statements is easy now support them. Post ONE case of recorded "Reciprocity" which is inherent and required by Special Relativity. There is none. Special Relativity has not once been supported. What is supported is merely the Gamma Function. Relativity is valid but not Einstien's Relativity but a form of Lorentz is.

GPS proves this fact. If you are unfamiliar with how GPS actually works I'm posting a good referance.

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...es/lrr-2003-1/

Instead of making the same old appeals to authority and innuendo suppose you explain why relative veloicty between clocks in GPS would yield an incorrect time dilation correcton factor.

Like I said I'm here to talk physics, not argue dogmatic statements.

If you want a fuller explanation, buy the source: a video lecture series by Professor Richard Wolfson of Middlebury College available at www.teach12.com, and watch lecture 10: Escaping Contradiction: Simultaneity is Relative.

It would appear that I am not the one that needs to do a bit of reading. My understanding of Relativity is what permits me to see what you do not see, since you merely seem to read and memorize.

Before you start calling another's post rubbish you should at least have a viable counter arguement. You have provided none.

[quantum quack]

I wonder how non-simultaneity can be proven as a physical pheno?

Is there any way that non-simultaneity can be proven apart from mathematical abstractions?

[TeleMad]

Mac: You clearly only mimic what you have read and assume is valid.

Nope, I accept what has been explained to me by a Ph.D. - in fact, numerous, well known, Ph.D.s - and makes sense.

But while you bring it up...I guess we could accept the word of a nobody like you over the multiple trained physcists who actually work in the field, but that would be foolish. Let's see, YOU are right and ALL contemporary physicists, and those for the past 100 years, are all wrong! Yep, that's just GOT to be what's going on here! ROTFLMAO!!!

Tell me, are you a Young Earth Creationist too? Your arguments have a certain YECish quality about them.

Mac: You aren't talking physics here.

Sure I am. Sorry if physics is so unfamiliar to you that you don't even recognize it when you see it.

Mac: To be "Relative Motion" REQUIRES that the two prospective views are concurrent within the same time intervals.

No it doesn't. Have you ever read anything on physics??? Here, let me take the time to type this out for you so that you might get to see it: if nothing else, pay attention to the last highlighted part.

"A basic premise of Newtonian mechanics is that there is a univeral time scale that is the same for all observers. In fact, Newton wrote, "Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external." In his special theory of relativity, Einstein abandoned this assumption. According to Einstein, time interval measurements depend on the reference frame in which they are made.

Einstein devised the following thought experiment to illustrate this point. A boxcar moves with uniform velocity [from left to right], and two lightning bolts strike its ends, as in Figure 26.7a, leaving marks on the boxcar and the ground. The marks are left on the boxcar are labeled A' [at the back, left end] and B' [at the front, right end], and those on the ground are labeled A and B. The events recorded by the observers are the light signals from the lightning bolts.

Let us assume that the two light signals reach the observer at O [who is on the ground half way between the two strikes] at the same time, as indicated in Figure 26.7b. This observer realizes that the light signals have traveled at the same speed over distances of equal length. Thus, the observer at O concludes that the events at A and B occurred simultaneously. Now consider the same events as viewed by the observer on the boxcar at O' [who is located in the middle of the boxcar]. By the time the light has reached the observer at O, the observer at O' has moved [to the right], as indicated in Figure 26.7b. Thus, the light signal from B' has already swept past O', whereas the light from A' has not yet reached O'. According to Einstein's second postulate [which states that the speed of light is the same, c, for all observers in uniform motion], the observer at O' must find that light travels at the same speed as that measured by the observer at O. Therefore, the observer at O' concludes that the lightning struck the front of the boxcar before it struck the back. This thought experiment clearly demonstrates that the two events that appear to be simultaneous to the observer at O do not appear to be simultaneous to the observer at O'. In other words:

Two events that are simultaneous in one reference frame are in general not simultaneous in a second frame moving with respect to the first. That is, simultaneity is not an absolute concept.
(College Physics: Fifth Edition, Raymond A. Serway & Jerry S. Faughn, Harcourt College Publishers, 1999, p862-863)

If you need help understanding that, just let me know.

[Mac]

Originally Posted by TeleMad

You make it sound as if time proceeds absolutely normally but an altered watch or wallclock creates the illusion of time being dilated. That's not the case. All processes of biology, chemistry, and physics are affected by relative motion - it is TIME itself that is dilated.

In theory only. There is simply no solid evidence that is the case. Don't raise the issue of cosmic muons because particle decay is random statistically and is subject to external enfluence - i.e. changes in energy etc. Not to mention they too "disprove" Special Relativity because just as with all clock experiments ONE side dilates and "Reciprocity" does not occur. "Reciprocity" is a requirement of the TWO observer view artifically created by Einstein.

If there were onl two objects in the universe then one could not determine respective component veloicties in the relative veloicty between the two but the facts are that there are just a few more than two referance points from which we can asscertain such issues.

Just as GPS uses the obrit velocity to the center of the earth and does not use relative velicty directly to surface clocks, it can be seen that the orbiting clock has a higher "Relative Absolute Velocity" vs "Relative Velocity" in respect to any surface clock and can never be viewed as at rest and the surface clock having all the motion.

That time dilation is not limited to just human-made mechanical time-keeping devices can be seen in experiments involving muons: their 'internal, natural clocks' run at different speeds relative to ours when (1) they are descending from the skies at near the speed of light, and (2) when they are 'at rest' in a lab. This difference in the passage of time due to relative motion affects the muons' half-life as observed by us, and wouldn't you know it, the difference fits in precisely with the predictions of special relativity.

I am very much aware of all such data. But unfortunately you simnply chose to see it as supporting Relativity when if you actually try to apply such data to Special Relaivity in its full content (including reciprocity), it clearly disproves it and only proves "Gamma".

It is just that cosmic muons and particle accelerators are special cases where a two point calculation is right.

The muon has a velocity relative to the center of the earth and the earth clock has no veloccy to the center of the earth. Just as particles in accelerators have velocity relative to the magnets and the observers clocks have no velocity to such magnets.

This becomes clear in a case such as GPS where both components have velocity to some third point - Earths Center. The gamma of orbit divided by the gamma of the surface velocity produces an "Effective" gamma which is physically correct and emperically proven.

Velocity between any surface clock and an orbiting clock (except for on at the earth's axis or center) will not compute the proper time dialtion using simple minded relative veloicty.

So lets deal with some facts and forget the rhetoric.

[TeleMad]

Originally Posted by quantum quack

I wonder how non-simultaneity can be proven as a physical pheno?

Is there any way that non-simultaneity can be proven apart from mathematical abstractions?

Sure, see the quote I posted above.