# 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. ### YuriyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,080
This is my last answer on those questions: any time you will repeat them I will refer you here.
1. The idiotic formula you just gave us
Vn = Ve * ( 1 - (Vo - Ve)2/c2)1/2
Never was used by anyone except you…
2. If you mean time dilation formula
t’ = t * ( 1 - (Vo - Ve)^2/c^2)^1/2
applied to calculation of the SRT time-dilation effect for clock on Earth in respect to the clock in ECI reference frame – then “Yes”, it gives 5.58 micro-sec/day dilation. But nobody ever did any adjustment of Earth clock for this dilation. It simply is used at calculations of needed position due to GPS data.
BTW: Once again: nobody was using “the pole of earth's axis is used as a local preferred rest frame”. Such a system in GPS exists only in your head and … tongue. GPS is using ECI reference frame. What it is and how it is used people here explained to you many times…
3. “Preferred reference frame” is term created by …you and never was used in GPS project.
4. As I already answered you, dilation of 7.2 micro-sec/day is following of formula
t’ = t * ( 1 - Vo^2/c^2)^1/2
and is an exact prediction of SRT for dilation of orbiting clock in respect to ECI-clock.
5.
In procedure of definition of position due to GPS system BOTH values are used: 7.2 micro-sec/day for pre-launched correction of the orbiting clocks, 5.8 micro-sec/day is used at calculations of actual position due to GPS data.
6.
There is no LR in Nature, in Physics, in History of Science. You and other members of crank-Museum create this term. Both calculations are done by SRT.

3. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
You may not have written it down in formula form but you insisted that the fact that the orbit has velocity and that the surface has velocity the the correct procedure of SRT using relative velocities and that is what you would get. Since that is wrong, you and SRT are wrong.

Once again your knowledge and understanding of GPS is shown flawed.

***********************Extract ***************************

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/node2.html

Almost all users of GPS are at fixed locations on the rotating earth, or else are moving very slowly over earth's surface. This led to an early design decision to broadcast the satellite ephemerides in a model earth-centered, earth-fixed, reference frame (ECEF frame), in which the model earth rotates about a fixed axis with a defined rotation rate, . This reference frame is designated by the symbol WGS-84(G873) [19, 3].
******************************************************
And so I have repeatedly said. SRT uses the Lorentz Gamma function and both LR and SR use the same math so one gets the same answer. But that is not the whole of SRT. You are commiting fraud to claim it is and that it alone supports SRT. SRT is unsupported in that you cannot reverse the procedure and declare the orbiting clock as being at rest. In SRT all motion is "Relative" and reciprocity applies. You cannot apply reciprocity to GPS because it uses a locally preferred rest frame, which is the LR view, not SR view.

GPS proves gamma but does not prove SRT.

False

No LR. Now that is interesting. You really are out in outer space.

http://geo.hmg.inpg.fr/arminjon/INTRO.html

http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/4785.html

http://nobelprize.org/physics/educational/relativity/transformations-2.html

Last edited: Feb 9, 2005