E = MC^2 BUT is there a conservation of Gravity?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

READERS:

It has been explained to this relativists over 100 times that what he keeps refering to as SRT is nothing more than a one way gamma calculation. Gamma is not SRT. SRT uses gamma.


There IS a differance. Nobody has said relativity and gamma are not real or is not used in GPS calculations. But there are no SRT calculations in GPS not only because no reciprocity is included but because of the use of local absolute rest referance frame where the orbit velocity is computed to the center of the earth, not other surface clocks.

The lack of reciprocity in GPS infact is physical proof falsifying SRT.

The GPS calculations I present in the link provided above shows that an SRT type relative velocity calculation produces an incorrect time dilation calculation.

The correct calculation is based on the GPS systems local absolute rest frames. Not SRT's relative veloicty between clocks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Once again, MacM tries to discredit relativity. He claims to have been working on his theories for 50 years. After all that time, you might expect him to realize that he is wrong and the mainstream scientists are right, but then faith based beliefs are seldom given up.

The GPS and relativity controversy was discussed in another Thread, with MacM making claims similar to what he posted here.

If you search the Web you will find more than one site which tells the true story. Contrary to the claims made by MacM, GPS uses relativistic corrections to maintain precision. The following site provides some details.

• http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

Some excerpts from the above site are as follows.

The above makes it plain as day that both Special and General Relativity calculations were used and necessary for to proper functioning of GPS, yet MacM claims the following

GPS verifies the validity of relativity, while MacM claims that it disproves Special relativity. Those interested in the knowing what is correct can do a Web Search using GPS and Relativity. You need not listen to myself, James R, or MacM. There are other sites besides the one I cited above, which I considered to be especially clear on the details without showing the actual relativistic computations.

 

You made this statement "BACK IT UP". Post data showing reciprocity of time dilation. Show us example data where GPS claims the earth clock is dilated relative to the orbiting clock due to relative velocity.

You can't because there is none and can be none. You are simply talking to be talking as though you know what you are talking about. In this case you clearly do not.

 

Perhaps you haven't noticed. I haven't tried, I have done it. If you think otherwise then perhaps you will be the one to post examples of time dilation reciprocity.

It is a shame that you seem to miss the point. You also make false statements regarding what I have said. I have stated GPS uses gamma functions and corrections. What it does not do is use Einstein's Special Relativity (other than the one way gamma calculations). It uses local absolute rest frames referances.

It is a shame that you think you can post a laymans description and believe that it out trumps official government data and other key GPS experts detailed descriptions. Your link is good for general PR but not science.

AHH yes please look at all the general discussion sites which do not present the detailed descriptions. Look at how they claim a simple gamma calculation proves SRT. Yet SRT is not a simple gamma calculation. SRT claims reciprocity between orbit and the surface clocks.

GPS proves there is no such reciprocity and hence SRT is falsified. But yes go look where they don't give specifics and only make general ( and false) referances to SRT.

You make me laugh Dino.

 

MacM: Until you receive your Nobel prize for discrediting Special Relativity, I will be the one laughing. I do not think you are stupid, but I marvel at your being unable to understand and accept Modern Physics.

Special Relativity has been accepted as valid for 100 years. It is incredible arrogance or ignorance on your part to think that you have shown it to be wrong.

Are men like Hawking, Feynman, Penrose, et cetera fools or charlatans? Do you have any explanation for their acceptance of Relativity?

I spent several years learning classical physics. It was consistent with my intuitive notions. It was difficult for me to accept Relativity and Quantum Theory when they were introduced to me. Both presented so many counter intuitive concepts.

I sympathize with people like you who recognize that Modern Physics is counter intuitive, but cannot accept the logic leading to the counter intuitive concepts. I still do not feel comfortable with Modern Physics. I am also uncomfortable with some results from probability theory, which is much easier to understand, but at the Blackjack table I go with the mathematics, not the intuition. If I had to design a system requiring relativist calculations, I would similarly go with the mathematics rather than the intuition.

 

That is either wishful thinking on our part or you are niave. I have actual accumulated time differential data between clocks with relative motion. ONE dilated clock vs the other is prima vacia evidence that reciprocity did NOT occur. You cannot continue to ignore the existance of recorded time dilation and the fact that that proves NO recprocity.

I will continue making my claim until you do more than just talk. Now post ONE sample case of data that supports your view. I have hundreds of thousands of cases (every case of relative motion experiments for time dilation) that support my view. Support yours and stop just talking.

That is funny. "One tiny thing"???? It is no tiny thing to claim what SRT claims.

"SRT" has not once been proven valid. Damn it, only ONE WAY gamma calculations have been shown valid. They do not constitute the whole of the SRT theory. If the theory is falsified in ONE TINY THING it is still false.

That does not mean it cannot be ammended and made correct.

What you don't seem to understand is supporting relativity is not the same thing as supporting Einstein's view of relativity. Gamma functions are relavistic functions. They in of and by themselves however are not SRT theory.

 

Funny. Something happened to my computer. All that data supporting reciprocity of time dilation that you posted has vanished. :bugeye:

One can be intelligent and yet a fool. Anyone that accepts reciprocity of time dilation as advocated by SRT frankly is a fool. Now prove me a fool and post data showing reciprocity exists. You have 100 years of "Successful" relativity testing. Show me the data that supports SRT's claims of reciprocity.

You need to learn the differance between "Counter Intuitive" and "Physically Impossible".

I am afraid it is not I that needs sympathy. Now if you have finished running off at the mouth about how right you are and how wrong I am.

Stop bullshiting and post data supporting your view that reciprocity of time dilation is physically real.

 

This makes your claim "Perception" and not physical reality. I have explained this to you to many times for you not to understand.

You need to understand "Physical" to understand that.

Look god damn it. I know this is the 3rd or 4th time I have told you to stop bumping your gums and post data that supports your claims. If you can't do that then shut the hell up about it.

Good, then we need to find or develope one that is actually consistant. SRT isn't.

But the gamma function is not the extent of claims made by SRT. SRT is a complete theory full of claims based the flawed assumption of no absolutes. That results in the unavoidable reciprocity which is totally unsupported and in fact demonstrated false. So claiming a gamma function is not the same as proving SRT.

Look why don't you just post the data requested. It is not my obligation to replace a flawed theory. It is your obligation to support your claims. Thus far you have failed to do that. Why? Surely if you could you would have jumped on the opportunity. Since you haven't I suggest we all have our answer.

More bullshit. Now support your claims or get out of the discussion.

 

If you are not going to actually back your view with facts I am not going to waste my time.

Now post data showing reciprocity of time dilation.

 

I haven't read the last few pages, so someone might have asked it already, but
If there are only two objects in the viewed system, then they both have the energy of E=mc² and the potential energy E=mgh, because they are in each others' gravitational fields. Now if one of the bodies should be somehow coverted to energy(photons), then the energy that is released is equal to the E=mc², but the potential energy of the other body is also lost in the process, since the photons don't have mass. Now where has this energy gone?
Is it that the potential energies of the two bodies are opposite and when one body no longer has mass, then its potential energy(E_p) is lost also and the other bodys potential energy that was lost, can be considered as being negative(-E_p), so that there was no change in net energy?

 

MacM: You are an incredible piece of work, to coin a phrase from my youth.

You are claiming that a theory (Special Relativity) which has been accepted for 100 years is erroneous. At least 5-10 men considered to be giants in the world of physics accept it as valid. You are asking me or James R. to prove that your view is wrong: Essentially asking us to verify Special Relativity.

The burden of proof on this issue is your responsibility, not ours. Write a serious paper on your view and get it accepted by a major journal. Have you ever tried to get your theories published in a serious journal?

I asked you the following.

Your reply was as follows.

Fascinating!!! Men considered to be intellectual giants by all familiar with their work are fools, but not you. Are you for real? Should anybody take eyou seriously? If I did not know better, I would think you were trying to be humourus rather than seriously challenging Special Relativity.

As mentioned elsewhere, I do not argue with any expectation of changing your view on this and various other issues posted in these forums. You are very much like a religious fanatic whose opinions are based on faith, not rational thought and evidence. I argue because it amuses me and also because I might prevent your leading others astray on fairly difficult subjects.

 

We sure have and as yet you have done nothing but make claims without producing any data or evidence supporting your claims. You have also not responded to the fact that measured time dilation is infact roof of the failure of the prediction by SRT of reciprocity.

If you can't support your arguements you should give up arguing.