BTW, is MacM confusing relative displacement with relative velocity. ? Not that it matters for his arguments, at least as far as I can tell...
I respect your post. However, you misjudge my view of Yuriy. I stated above "I know you are educated, you are not an ass but you are acting like one". Indeed he is. He is making false statement after false statement, calling me a liar and stupid when he is making stupid statements and clearly lying by virtue of his contrdictions in his own posts.
That is a shame indeed. Right or wrong it certainly leaves the impression that you and others do not have the correct answer to my question. So you side with Quarkhead regarding Yuriy. Interesting, anybody that reads this thread will see that he has repeatedly made claims that I have said something I did not say and then calls me a lair for denying it was said. All you have to do is read. He is a liar, not I. He is talking stupid not I. So pick your friends more carefully. Birds of a feather you know.
Please don't read to quickly. My postion is that every clock on the surface has a velocity as a function of it's latitude. A geosynchronous orbit clock has a velocity of orbit. The rate of angular rotation is the same, the velocity of orbit and surface velocity naturally differ but these are velocities relative to the common rotational axis and not each other and SRT is not used. Gamma is.
Pardon my bluntness but the only ignorance here is being shown by you. I have not said what you claim I said and my position is not as you claim it is. If you think you can completely distort the facts think again this thread stands for others to read and they will see your entire effort is to dodge answering the question raised. I'll be addressing you childish post regarding the V1 and V2 issue in my next post. You are all wet. That should tell them a lot.
Other than choosing the wrong side prematurely you seem to be a nice fellow. Hopefully you will see the merits of my case in my next post which shows the falicy of Yuriy's position.
Now to address the BS diatribe: I know the differance between angular velocity and velocity. I know the diameter (circumference) and rate of rotation establishes angular velocity and velocity of orbit. So why are you wasting your time pretending to teach.? Of course you can choose any referance. Nobody says you can't. But when you chose the rotational axis you have choosen a local preferred rest referance frame which is not reversable and which therefore is not an SRT frame of reference. According to SRT either observer can declare himself as being at rest and the velocity is relative between observers. Not some common third point which is at rest. That becomes Lorentz Relativity not SRT. You seem to not grasp this vital point of distinction. You have just wasted a half page of forum space stating the obvious. Now lets address the issue and stop talking BS. Lets apply your above solution to my case in point. V1 is the velocity of a clock on the surface of a hi-rotational spin pulsar. One recently was found to have a 600 Rps spin (the is 36,000 Rpm!). So don't bother commenting on my assumed values for illustration only. My pulsar is rotating at 10 Rps and has a diameter of 6,366 Km (circumference = 2E7m. That gives the surface velocity at the equator = 2E8m/s. V1 = 2E8/3E8 = 0.6666c. Gamma = 1.3333; 1/Gamma = 0.75. Hypothetically making the geosynchronous orbit such that it has a circumference of 2.6E7m and hence an orbit velocity of 0.866c and gamma = 2; 1/Gamma = 0.5 = V2. According to you (and correctly so but irrelevant) is there is a relative velocity differance of 0.2c. We shall call this V3. V3 produces a Gamma of only 1.02062; 1/Gamma = 0.9797959. GPS clocks are adjusted for V2 not V3. All your long winded and unnecessary preaching is irrelevant. Clocks at V1 have a tick rate of 0.75. Clocks at V2 have a tick rate of 0.5. That is one clock appears dilated vs the other by 0.5/0.75 = 0.6666 ticks per tick using the preferred local rest frame of reference. Your SRT V3 answer would claim 0.9797... A gross error. SRT is not used in GPS. Gamma is but is Lorentz Relativity based on absolute velocity of orbit using a local common rest reference which is not reversable. You cannot then claim the orbiting clock is at rest. One clock always has a higher velocity and undergoes the actual physical dilation. SRT using V3 claims either clock can be at rest and cause the other clock to become dilated by an equal amount. IT DOES NOT WORK. It is not what observation or test data shows. Observation and test data show LR rather than SR is a more correct view. SRT has the situation where both views co-exist in the same test time period and hence would require multiple tick rates of physical clocks. It does not and cannot be physical reality and has NEVER NEVER been shown to exist by physical data. The ONLY thing ever shown has been ONE clock dilate and that clock had a velocity greater than the observer clock. It is down right assinine to suggest that if I were the other observer I would cause the other clock to change it's accumulated time in the same test time period. All the hot air about simulteneity, etc., is just that, hot air used to try and mask the truth. The truth is in the physical observation and data, not the mathematical games. My view is what has been observed and data supports. Your view is not just hypothetical based on SRT mathematics but physically impossible for anyone wishing to step out of the rut you have yourself dragged into. Now try to address the issue and knock off your BS attacks.
"Of course you can choose any referance. Nobody says you can't. But when you chose the rotational axis you have choosen a local preferred rest referance frame which is not reversable and which therefore is not an SRT frame of reference. According to SRT either observer can declare himself as being at rest and the velocity is relative between observers. Not some common third point which is at rest. That becomes Lorentz Relativity not SRT. You seem to not grasp this vital point of distinction." "V1 is the velocity of a clock on the surface of a hi-rotational spin pulsar. One recently was found to have a 600 Rps spin (the is 36,000 Rpm!). So don't bother commenting on my assumed values for illustration only. My pulsar is rotating at 10 Rps and has a diameter of 6,366 Km (circumference = 2E7m. That gives the surface velocity at the equator = 2E8m/s. V1 = 2E8/3E8 = 0.6666c. Gamma = 1.3333; 1/Gamma = 0.75. Hypothetically making the geosynchronous orbit such that it has a circumference of 2.6E7m and hence an orbit velocity of 0.866c and gamma = 2; 1/Gamma = 0.5 = V2. According to you (and correctly so but irrelevant) is there is a relative velocity differance of 0.2c. We shall call this V3. V3 produces a Gamma of only 1.02062; 1/Gamma = 0.9797959. GPS clocks are adjusted for V2 not V3. All your long winded and unecessary preaching is irrelevant. Clocks at V1 have a tick rate of 0.75. Clocks at V2 have a tick rate of 0.5. That is one clock appears dilated vs the other by 0.5/0.75 = 0.6666 ticks per tick using the preferred local rest frame of reference. Your SRT V3 answer would claim 0.9797... A gross error. SRT is not used in GPS. Gamma is but is Lorentz Relativity based on absolute velocity of orbit using a local common rest reference which is not reversable. You cannot then claim the orbiting clock is at rest. One clock always has a higher velocity and undergoes the actual physical dilation. SRT using V3 claims either clock can be at rest and cause the other clock to become dilated by an equal amount. IT DOES NOT WORK. It is not what observation or test data shows. Observation and test data show LR rather than SR is a more correct view. SRT has the situation where both views co-exist in the same test time period and hence qould require multiple tick rates of physical clocks. It does not and cannot be physical reality and has NEVER NEVER been shown to exist by physical data. The ONLY thing ever shown has been ONE clock dilate and that clock had a velocity greater than the observer clock. It is down right assinine to suggest that if I were the other observer I would cause the other clock to change it accumulated time in the same test time period. All the hot air about simulteneity, etc., is just that hot air used to try and mask the truth. The truth is in the physical observation and data, not the mathematical games. My view is what has been observed and data supports. Your view is not just hypothetical based on SRT mathematics but physically impossible for anyone wishing to step out of the rut you have yourself dragged into. Now try to address the issue and knock off your BS attacks." There can be only one comment: all that is the ravings of a mad-man and has nothing to do neither with Science, nor SRT, nor even with elementary Algebra, nor even with ... elementary logic. Why I re-posted all that stupid text? By a simple reason: to save it untochable. because soon, when he will recognize how many stupidity he revealed in that text, MacM will try to edit his text and will start blame us that "I never said that, you put words in my mouth", as it was already many times in this Forum. Let us have the untouchable testemony of his stupidity forever... I hope, Moderators will not erase this my post...no matter how strong MacM will ask them to do that.
And you sir are a worthless broken record. Pretend there is something wrong with the question so as to not address the facts. That is OK others are not so gullible and will see the truth inspite of your efforts to cloud this thread with Bullshit. And you sir are a fucking liar. I have not once altered a thread and claimed to not have done so. The thread where you "Cut (modified) and then Pasted" my post claiming I said things I never said still remains intact for all to see. If you like I will link them to it here. The only thing bigger than your list of mis-statements, false allegations and deliberate mis-quotes, is your unwarranted ego. Have a nice day asshole.
actually, I haven't even read your question. So you're right, I can't answer it! Haha I haven't decided about Yuriy yet. I side with QuarkHead about Mr McCoin. OK at least he probably believes that 0=0 follows from all valid identities.
I know your skills in mathematics but your post elludes me. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But I have to say that failure of Relativists to actually address this issue and reliance upon lies, misquotes, false innuendos and attacks is more signifigant than any failing on my part in the presentation of the issue. And so it goes. Readers make your own judgements.
Yuriy, QuarkHead, superluminal, please let me tell you a story about reference frames and geostationary satellites. You all seem to leave out the DETAILS. First, an Earth- Centered Inertial Frame (ECI). A line drawn through the center of the Earth along the Earth's axis of rotation is one end point in the ECI frame (Ea) and a geostationary satellite is the other end point (SV). The surface of the Earth would lie at another point along a straight line connecting the Earth-axis and the geostationary satellite, which I desiginate as (ES). There is NO relative velocity of Ea wrt SV, nor SV wrt ES. They are all stationary wrt each other. To show a DIFFERENCE in velocities between the Earth's surface and the geostationary satellite, another frame of reference is needed, usually one based on the Vernal Equinox, with the Earth's axis as one end point and the Vernal Equinox as the other end point. The ECI frame rotates within this frame of reference. THAT is how the velocity of the Earth's surface is determined, about 1700 km/hr at the equator. That frame is also the frame of reference normally used to calculate the velocity of the geostationary satellite. Of course, there is a difference in velocities between the Earth's surface and the geostationary satellite in the frame of reference including the Vernal Equinox, since both rotate within that frame, but there is none in the ECI frame where only the Earth and the satellite are considered. Yuriy, you failed to mention HOW you arrived at the rate of rotation of the Earth in your linked diagram. Without prior knowledge gained from the frame of reference including the Vernal Equinox (sun), you cannot calculate any relative velocity between the Earth's surface and the geostationary satellite, and NO time dilation. Another frame of reference is needed to determine the Earth's surface velocity or rotational speed, which involves the sun of course. Of course, there is a much more comprehensive frame of reference to use to calculate all velocities and locations within the visible universe, the International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF) adopted on Jan. 1, 1998. Within the ICRF, the Earth orbits the sun at 108,000 km/hr and the solar system orbits the center of the Milky Way at 900,000 km/hr. I don't remember the velocity of the Milky Way towards the local group of galaxies, but the number is huge, over one million km/hr if I remember correctly. The ICRF is close to an absolute frame of reference. Yuriy, your mistake was that you did not specify WHICH frame of reference you were using when stating there was relative velocity between the Earth's surface and a geostationary satellite. There is none if only those two objects are considered, which was my point before. Do you disagree with what I have posted? EDITED to correct orbital velocities within the ICRF
fo3, 2inquisitive, Guys, it is useless to discuss SRT with someone who do not want to study the basics of theory ... but is trying to criticize this theory! I wrote already in this Forum many times, other people told many times too, that the relative velocity - i.e. the velocity of one body in respect to another one - IS THE LORENTZ INVARIANT. It means that we do not have to mention any specific RF when you are speaking about the value of the relative velocity: in any RF it will be the same! But if we speak about velocity of some body, without emphasizing IN RESPECT TO WHICH RF, we make a huge mistake, because this notion remains absolutely non-identifiable. I know that MacM never will understand these simplest things, but you? What happened with you? Why you are repeating the same mistake again and again? May be you have a fun of that and we simply should ignore your posts with this mistake, at all?...
I think you got me wrong, I didn't mean to support MacM (nor you, because I simply know too little about all this, to give any useful comments on the subject. I'm supporting SRT not because I could prove it correct, but it just has answered all the questions and misunderstandings I've had, in a way that seems very obvious and logical after shown to me.). I was just pointing ot that the only thing between you and MacM here is, that MacM(and others) have stated that the geostationary satellite has no relative speed wrt to earths surface, and you say that it has. Everything else is a result of this disagreement.
Interesting how those of us that DO understand the problem and cite it most preciesly are labled and ignored and made claim that we are ignorant and do not understand. The facts are clear. You choose to ignore the obvious. You do what you accuse of of doing and seem to think nobody will notice. What a joke.
He says this because he must if he wishes to continue to ignore the obvious. He knows that we know there is different velocities at different radii along a rotating plane but he wants to pretend we don't understand that as a means of trying to make us look stupid. But he is absolutely in error when he claims relative motion between surface and geosynchronous orbits. It requires a third common point of reference to establish or measure that relative velocity. SRT is between the two clocks and not with regard to the local preferred rest frame which can be used to establish GPS, etc. As I have shown to apply Yury's relative velocity directly produces an incorrect gamma change in clock tick rates. He is totally incorrect on this issue. Understand that I am not saying Relativity is invalid. Gamma (which SRT uses) is a LOrentz concept, not einstein's. Einstein uses those mathematics but mis-applies them by making the velocity relative between the two observers where such veloicty can be reversed. The reality is that where there is relative velocity one clock is always at a higher velocity and such SRT reversal of rest frames is not valid and physically is incorrect, just as experiment and observation indicated. So this is not about Relativity perse' but whos's Relativity is more valaid.
