# A Question for Relativists

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by MacM, Jan 14, 2005.

?

## Is SRT only correct as to Gamma for an Absolute Relative Velocity and not Relative '

2 vote(s)
100.0%

0 vote(s)
0.0%
1. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Note: the forum did not allow completing this long question.

"Velocity Between Clocks Where Either Clock May be Considerd at Rest".

This board has been swamped by challenges to Relativity, SRT specifically.

This issue arose in another thread and I feel it deserves specific attention and response from Relativists. The response can and should be enlightening.

My question is to see how Relativists answer this situation.

CASE:

A clock is placed into a geosynchronous orbit with earth. As we know GPS clocks are compensated for velocity but do so using the earth's pole as a reference point.

This scenario is simular but more distinct as will become obvious when considering the ramifications of the question.

1 - Question is, (with GR affects ignored) what is the relative tick rate of the orbiting clock with respect to earth surface bound clocks. Keep in mind that the orbiting clock has velocity just as GPS clocks have velocity.

2 - What is your explanation for the fact that if you apply the concept of Relativity's SRT where the orbiting clock is now considered to be stationary that there is no relative velocity between the orbiting clock and the surface clocks.?

SUMMARY OF PROBLEM:

1 - On the one hand you have a known case of velocity of the clock and it would seem that time dilation must be considered.

2 - The fact being that there is no relative velocity between clocks for SRT to function.

3 - Does not this raise the issue that Gamma may be valid as to motion but that SRT is invalid in it's overall concept of such affects being relative velocity between clocks and not absolute velocity of motion and not between clocks?

Last edited: Jan 15, 2005

3. ### YuriyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,080
2 - What is your explanation for the fact that if you apply the concept of Relativity's SRT where the orbiting clock is now considered to be stationary that there is no relative velocity between the orbiting clock and the surface clocks.?” This “fact” exists only into the head of author: there is no possibility in Nature to have any satellite on any “geosynchronous” orbit … at “no relative velocity between the orbiting clock and the surface clocks”. And SRT is innocent of that stupidity…

5. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Speaking of "Stupidity" perhaps you might like to justify this post by posting what the relative velocity is between surface clocks and the geosynchronous clock are.

Also see if you have the balls to go on record as to what the relative tick rate is between such clocks.

7. ### VernRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
695
What is a relativist?

Is it someone who accepts the observed phenomena of relativity; or is it someone who applies Einstein's theory?

Both are pretty solid, it seems to me, but they are two different things.

8. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
It generally is taken as one that advocates the absolute validity of Einstin's view of Relativity and discounts Lorentz Relativity or any modification of Special Relativity.

It can be taken to be on solid ground only in a partial view. That is its use of the Lorentz Gamma function seems valid but Einstien's application via SRT seems flawed on close inspection.

Hence the question regarding clock tick rate of a clock in geosynchronous orbit. You have velocity but not in relation to other clocks at the surface of the planet.

9. ### chrootCrackpot killerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,350
An even better question: What's a relavitist?

- Warren

10. ### PhysMachineMALLEUS SCIENTIARUMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
208
Part of the problem is that you have things moving in circles, i.e. accelerating, which actually creates a preferred reference frame, so SR no longer applies and you have to move to GR to really explain it.

11. ### YuriyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,080
"Speaking of "Stupidity" perhaps you might like to justify this post by posting what the relative velocity is between surface clocks and the geosynchronous clock are."

Speaking of stupidity: You made statement ("... the concept of Relativity's SRT where the orbiting clock is now considered to be stationary that there is no relative velocity between the orbiting clock and the surface clocks"); it is your duty to justify that allegation, not my to be able to say that this allegation is... a stupid one. Until you do that it will stay as ... a stupid one.

12. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Bingo. You are the first here to agree SRT does not apply. Others in the GPS thread argued the velocity adjustment was SRT. It isn't because it is a preferred reference frame.

That is it is not reversable according to SRT where either clock can be viewed as at rest.

However, your comment regarding GR is only partially correct. The fact is they also make a velocity adjustment. Since SRT doesn't apply my point has been that it is a Gamma adjustment for the orbiting clocks velocity but not in relation to surface clocks.

13. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Amazing Yuriy, you almost seem to not know what a geosynchronous orbit is. If you did you would know that it remains stationary overhead as the earth turns and it orbits. It is as though it is mounted at the end of a long rod anchored to earth.

Hence there is no relative motion between it and clocks on the surface of the earth. Yet it has velocity and will dilate. If you are only half as smart as you would like others to believe you are you will understand that you have dilation without SRT.

SRT only works because you normally only consider one half of a case, i.e. - only one clock at rest. When you attempt to reverse the scenario and declare the other clock at rest is when you run into multiple tick rate problems.

The geosynchronous clock scenario makes it clear any gamma adjustment for velocity is a function of the orbit velocity and not an SRT relative velocity between clocks since none exists.

Your attempt to hide behind "Prove it or I''ll consider it stupid", is stupid in of itself I am afraid.

You have repeatedly claimed you wanted to talk physics. Well talk physics. Give us an answer.

So does the clock dilate or not and if so what is your explanation since it has no relative velocity to the earth clock?

Last edited: Jan 15, 2005
14. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Well "CrackPot Killer", your attempt at humor disguised as being obtuse fails. One is not able to correct typo's in the title of a thread. But the question stands if you choose to address it. It was infact spelled correctly in the text body BTW.

FYI:
********************************************
http://www.homoexcelsior.com/omega.db/datum/philosophy/relativist/7624

relativist /
2. A physicist who specializes in the theories of relativity.

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

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-1998-1/node4.html
********************************************

So you are a Relativist and don't even know it? :bugeye:

We would appreciate a more scientific response - If you have one.

Last edited: Jan 15, 2005
15. ### PhysMachineMALLEUS SCIENTIARUMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
208
Unfortunately nobody cares what the result of this thread is in the first place, since physics isn't a democracy. The fact is, GR and SR have explained physical phenomena better than any other theory ever devised. Which means that if you want to overthrow it it takes more than a bunch of people with no notion of what the theories actually say bickering about the theories and an internet poll to get rid of it.

As one of my professors has said, if you don't like a theory, come up with something better. The problem here is that something better would almost have to be more accurate than measurements to supplant the theory in the first place.

16. ### chrootCrackpot killerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,350
GPS satellites aren't geosynchronous, dummy.

- Warren

17. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
This thread shows the unfortunate lack of curiosity by those that should have the most. Nobody has claimed to overthrow anything. Nor have you addressed the issue. Since you obviously can't,that suggests I am right and you have to rely on this sort of unresponsive reply.

Now I have already said the Gamma function has been reasonably verified. What has not been veriified (NOT EVEN ONCE) is the complete set of claims of SRT.

It is not incumbent upon me or anyone else to replace a flawed theory with a superior one. But I do believe I have raised a most important question regarding the validity of this one. That is the extent of my obligation.

If you are a hot shot scientist then perhaps you might care to address the issue.

If not butt out.

Last edited: Jan 15, 2005
18. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Unfortunately, I have never said they were - Dummy. Now give a scientific response or admit you have none.

19. ### YuriyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,080
What I can say?
Only the one: MacM, your last post to me reveals (one more time) that we deal not with stupidity, but with stupidity in N power…
1. It can be only you who, knowing me more then two years, being on my web sites, knowing who I am and what I did and do in Physics, could assume that I do not know what the geostationary orbit is!
2. I always knew that you are so ignorant that do not know even the basics of kinematics. For your education: to be on geostationary orbit with radius R satellite has to have the speed in R/Re times more then the point of the Earth surface under it! (See the picture, that is drew specially for you). So any satellite in GPS has a velocity in regard to points of Earth! And you still speak as an expert of GPS! Amaizing…

20. ### YuriyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,080
One more time:
You MacM was and still remain a liar and dishonest man. Just here you lie and even abuse a good guy who tried to bring your attention on your mistakes - chroot. He told you: "GPS satellites aren't geosynchronous, dummy." You responded: "Unfortunately, I have never said they were - Dummy".
That is direct lie. You just have said right in that thread: "Amazing Yuriy, you almost seem to not know what a geosynchronous orbit is. If you did you would know that it remains stationary overhead as the earth turns and it orbits."
So nothing will change you - you will remain a liar forever...

21. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Yuriy, I know you are educated and I know you know better than this. You are putting words in my mouth. I never said GPS was geosynchronous.

Wake up.

You are not a dumb ass but you are surely acting like one.

Now I have a clock in geosynchronous orbit. What is it's tick rate? Do you claim it dilates or not?

BTW your PICTURE does not open on my computer. I get "Invalid Color"?

Last edited: Jan 15, 2005
22. ### YuriyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,080
"Yuriy, I know you are educated and I know you know better than this. You are putting words in my mouth. I never said GPS was geosynchronous.
Wake up. You are not a dumb ass but you are surely acting like one."

Everytime you are trying to avoid admition of your stupidity you ... start mentioning ... asses...

Do not try to escape of your stupid posts you did here: nobody puts any words in your mouth. Nobody said that you said "GPS was geosynchronous". We all know that GPS satellites are on the 12-hours orbits... We only remaind you that because any satellite has the speed in regard to Earth it should experience the Einstein's time dilay... including GPS satellites, no matter what RF you will count as ... "preffffferable"
What you said is :
"Amazing Yuriy, you almost seem to not know what a geosynchronous orbit is. If you did you would know that it remains stationary overhead as the earth turns and it orbits. It is as though it is mounted at the end of a long rod anchored to earth. Hence there is no relative motion between it and clocks on the surface of the earth."

And this is stupidity and shows your ignorance! See picture or attached pdf file to my previous post...

Last edited: Jan 15, 2005
23. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
GOD DAMN IT. READ WHAT I WROTE ASSHOLE. I NEVER SAID GPS WAS GEOSYNCHRONOUS. I MADE NO MISTAKE AND YOUR BS TO TRY AND SHIFT THIS THREAD TO BS SIMPLY SHOWS YOU CANNOT ANSWER THE QUESTION.

I HAVE NOT LIED. I DO NOT LIE AND YOU ARE AN INSUFFERABLE JACKASS.

NOW TALK PHYSICS IF YOU KNOW HOW. ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION.