Wow, I posted once and suddenly I get a 'stick it in your ear'. Yeah me! What I stated was pure and simple fact. Here's another fact: you'd rather just post links to papers you don't understand and act like a child than actually attempt to learn anything.
A few facts: 1. About math of SRT Britannica says: “Minkowski space is named for the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, who around 1907 realized that the theory of special relativity previously worked out by Einstein and Lorentz could be elegantly described using a four-dimensional spacetime, which combines the dimension of time with the three dimensions of space", and cites Monkowski himself: “The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.” – Hermann Minkowski, 1908. 2. About Sagnac effect: “This effect was first demonstrated in 1911 by Harress and in 1913 by Sagnac, so it is now often called the Sagnac effect.” 3.Compare now with MacM: “Sagnac introduced his experimental findings believing it invalidated SRT. That is historical fact. If you like it or not. It took some doing before relavistic mathematics were developed to show it could be accounted for maintaining the SRT view - not that we should have however”. Conclusion: Each testimony of MacM could be and very often is a lie or a falsification. Be aware!
By MacM on the Sagnac effect: "It took some doing before relavistic mathematics were developed to show it could be accounted for..." Beware of what Yuriy posts: His posts very often distort what was said and falsely accuse the poster of the mistake.
Are all the "300" km/sec findings all in the same measured direction? I guess I was asking os 'correlated with specific drection of the specific measurement?
MacM: Please list the main differences between Einsteinian and Lorentzian relativity for us, so we can compare the theories. Thankyou.
Lets all go through the great Yuriy's post, shall we.? 1 - I am only noting his spelling (possible typo's) in that in another thread he launched an attack on me personally regarding my intelligence and telling people to ignore me, etc., for far smaller typo's than he himself routinely makes. 2 - He has cut the more damaging parts from the quote. 3 - Apparently he doesn't understand that Hafele is on of the scientist that did the testing. The H&K Atomic Clock - Time Dilation Tests for the US Navy. Now if Yuriy doesn't consider him to be a sophisticated scientist, why would he have so much faith in the tests? 4 - He either doesn't understand the implications of this when considered in comparison to, at least three that I have seen, other scientists reports which came a decade later when they got their hands on the actual data and each independantly have said the data shows no time dilation. The fact that the Official Report was publised showing an almost accurate proof of time dilation predicted by Relativity and that data in that report includes data claimed to read one number but in some cases has the opposite sign (+/-) compared to the actual raw data, means only one thing "The report was faked". And yes the people are getting screwed because of it. Billions have been wasted on Relativity but not by Congress and the President knowing it or that some low level, low life's (Relativists) wanted to make history and doctored the test data. 5 - But the most telling thing about Yuriy's post is the absence or any response to the actual issue here which is the information I posted showing GPS does not include any SR adjustments between orbiting clocks and the earth based surface clock. That the clocks once calibrated on the ground before launch display absolutely no tick rate change due to relative motion between the two clocks. Funny he missed that small issue and chooses to attack the messenger. [post=717132]Here[/post]
MacM posted the following. The calibration before launch caused those clocks to tick at a different rate than Earth bound clocks. Once in orbit, the clocks were expected to be synchronized with the Earth bound clocks. The amount of the difference in tick rate was calculated using SR. As expected, the orbiting clocks stayed sycncronized with earth bound clocks. If before launch, the orbiting clocks had been calibrated to tick at the same rate as Earth bound clocks, they would not have stayed synchronized with the Earth bound clocks. The above indicates that the SR calculations were valid. It also indicates that MacM did not understand the prelaunch calibration or that he deliberately made a misleading post.
Wrong. You are only partially correct. It has already been established that the clocks have relavistic adjustment by virtue of being designed such the the orbiting clock will run 38.4 microseconds per day slow. But the reason is not relative velocity between clocks. 1 - The Official calibration link and the government manual link state quite clearly what is considered. 2 - What is considered is gravitational red shift and relative velocity to the central inertial frame of the earth stationary axis (not the clock). Further that this is being done as part of the velocity data instruments for calculating the orbit velocity. It is not linked to or synchronized to the surface clock 3 - The clocks are operated using a UT system. 4 - That the earth bound clock and orbiting clock not only remain synchronized but that there appears no relative motion to the earth clock affect. 5 - SR between clocks is not considered. There is no evidence of such an affect. 6 - The measurement and compensations are based on LR not SR by virtue of selection of a preferred referance frame, the earths axis.
JqmesR, please, explain me what is off topic that is named "GPS and Relativity": 1. Information that GPS has proven that SRT is Wrong? or 2. Information that HAVY falsified Official Report about GPS-results? or 3. USA Conernment and Congress still are spending billions on the support of SRT Physics? or 4. That many of these on our Forum we found out due to efforts of MacM?
Funny James R. I know you know (or at least I assumed you would. You actually might not considering you seem to never look beyond the pages of Relativity). So: 1 - The initial LR at least was a ether based concept. The concept of just what that ether might be like has certainly changed since the initial theory - which preceeded SRT. 2 - LR uses a preferred frame. That means its features do not have the reciprocity feature found in SRT. That eliminates the reciprocity problem where both clocks must be seen to run slow depending of observer view. In LR only one clock will be affected relative to the preferred frame. 3 - LR does not have a theoretical v = c limit. That limit becomes one of pragmatic issues of actually reaching and exceeding v = c. 4 - #3 eliminates the Velocity Addition Formula. I'm sure there is a great deal more but these are the primary ones I am aware of and consider to be valid in my own work. 5 - GPS uses the LR method of selecting a preferred frame, being the central axis of the earth. The system is operated via a system of UT. There is no relative velocity calculation between clocks. And no sign of such relavistic affect in actual practice.
Absolutely. You noticed that his post had nothing to do with the issue at hand nor my comments about Sagnac. I can't decide if he is deluded or does that on purpose. But regardless of motive most of his posts are worthless. They are mere recitations of SRT from the book.
AND? I posted papers which did include one by two recognized scientists that had calculated exactly that for a Quasar ejection. If you recall they did not claim that as fact but that something was wrong with Red Shift Theory. But that was not the only issue raised I also posted a list of 100 FTL objects and there was a long discussion where it was claimed that mathematically it had been proven by Relativity that this was all an illusion, blah, blah, blah. However, please do not forget that I returned with a lengthy indepth paper study of the issue which showed (8) different causes for apparent FTL observations. The one claimed by Relativists actually only accounted for 1/2 % of such observations. Futher if you recall. I raised the issue about "Blue Shift". You and others phoo phooed me on that issue. In the final analysis, most of the FTL observations were still not accounted for by any known principle. Further the failure of the "Illusion Solution" to be effective had to do in large part with the absence of "Blue Shift". Are you sure you would like to revive that issue?
Finally! Let us recognize now what for we all spend so much time and efforts. We spend all our time and efforts here arguing with guy, who believes that: 1. The entire World is fulfilled with resting Ether (because it is only the case when one can appeal to the “absolute reference frame”. If Ether is moving in some places, i.e. can flow as a fluid, there is no “absolute reference frame” again); 2. There are material things in our World that are or can move with speed v>c; 3. The Lorentz Transformations are false (because Einstein’s rule of addition of velocities is a direct consequence of the Lorentz Transformations and otherwise); My congratulations to all of us and to me too: we were involved into discussion with … (you name whom). From now on I never will argue with MacM about SRT, I will only emphasize direct lies he will produce lavishly… And to JamesR: These ideas are, which you prefer to keep on the first pages of Forum forever only because one guy is multiplying his posts day and night?
You missed one tiny little thing, Yuriy. The GPS system suggests that the speed of light is NOT always isotropic (constant) with respect to the moving observer.
2Inquisitive, They all miss an even more important issue. Suppose we have an extra-ordinary swiss grandfather clock operating with an ultra precise pendulum. The fact is if we put our GF Clock and an atomic clock side by side and calibrate them to maintain absolute relative accuracy. Guess what happens if we carefully move them to a higher altitude? The atomic clock increases speed. The GF clocks slows down. GR does not affect time. It affects processes. Clocks do not measure time they are processes. The whole of Relativity is unfounded for purposes it is advocated.
"The atomic clock increases speed. The GF clocks slows down. GR does not affect time. It affects processes." - one more lie. If T is true and L is lie then ...+T+T+T+L+T+T... = L (the theorem of Logics). But "GR does not affect time" = L
