Sorry for late reply, but I have been off sciforums for a while. Actually, the sum was 25.5 micoseconds per day, 10% to 11% of which was due to gravitational effects (GR). If that figure includes both effects, then the SR time dilation alone would have been about 28 microseconds per day before subtracting the fast running GR clock effects.
It has been necessary to deleted approximately 10 posts of personal argument and flaming from this thread. If this continues, the thread will be closed.
MacM: You are adamant that the GPS system works due to LR and not SR/GR. So, explain for us how the results of LR differ from SR/GR. In other words, how can we be sure that LR was used, and not SR? It seems to me that the numbers obtained by both theories are the same, yet you keep harping on about how SR cannot be used, while LR can and is. The only reason you have given so far is an incorrect one. You say that SR does not allow us to choose a reference frame centred on the Earth's axis. That is completely false. In SR, you can work in any frame of reference you find convenient, including the frame of the Earth's axis, if you wish. Question 1: Show us why SR doesn't work in GPS, MacM. What is the prediction, in this particular situation, in which LR is different from SR, and LR works while SR does not. Please explain, if you can. In your recent posts you seem to admit that gravitational time dilation is a real effect which must be taken into account. That effect is a GR effect. And SR is a subset of GR. So, if GR is right, so is SR. Question 2: Please explain why GR is wrong, and what alternative theory you prefer to explain the gravitational time dilation effect in the GPS system. Please explain why GR happens to give the correct answer for the time difference between satellite and Earth clocks, given that GR is wrong. In reponse to your posts.... It is not clear which frame you are talking about here. But the Earth-axis frame is not prohibited by SR. Nor is any other frame. If you want to make that claim, let's see you back it up. UTC is achieved by some guy in Greenwich setting up a clock. It is not a physical principle, as I have explained. Answering your questions: SR has no "preferred" frames. It also has no "absolute" standard of rest. So, the answer to this is no. What's a frame "between" two things? Your question makes no sense. Please read my thread on "What is a reference frame?" and get back to me. I'm not very familiar with LR. You tell me. Again, I don't know. You tell me. It doesn't "require" you to switch reference frames at all. But it certainly allows you to switch to any frame you like. I don't know. You say it is. Did LR precede SR? You tell me. Anyway, who cares? What does it matter? It doesn't help resolve the issue as to whether LR was invented before or after SR. The issue, as you will recall, is whether the GPS system shows that SR/GR is right, or not. Please try to stay on topic. The GPS system is calibrated using SR/GR. Moving to you next post... Which parts of LR do you doubt? Please be specific. Don't dodge the question. Why does the GPS system work, MacM? Which theory explains why it works? Or is it just a lucky accident? Roll up! Roll up! Folks, watch as MacM does his world-famous Texas Two Step. If GR is correct, so is SR. SR is part of GR. LR is not part of GR. No reference frame is prohibited by SR. I said I don't subscribe to your definition of the term "reciprocity". You can probably find the word used in some articles on relativity, but the way it is used is not the way you use it. Thus, your reciprocity is not part of relativity. In relativity, the term "reciprocity" might sometimes be used as a substitute for "symmetry", but that's about it. You add all kinds of qualifications and extraneous rubbish to the concept which is not part of the actual theory. Your reciprocity is entirely your construction, and is not a part of Einstein's theory of relativity. Great! I will wait with baited breath for another string of articles which do not say what you claim they say. Your straw-man versions of what I write bear no resemblance to what I actually wrote, as can be seen here. No. It does not require such frames. It does allow them, if you want to use them. From the point of view of the Earth, satellite clocks tick 45 ns fast due to GR, and 7 ns slow due to SR, making them tick a net 38 ns fast. From the point of view of the satellites, the Earth clocks tick 45 ns slow due to GR, and 7 ns slow due to SR, making them tick a net 52 ns slow. You can't make a GF clock as accurate as an atomic clock, due to the different mechanisms of operation, so your assumption is impossible. That's right. All clocks are affected equally by relativistic effects, and you can't do anything about that. But you can eliminate a lot of other things which can affect a clock, which is what makes a GF clock a measurably worse clock than an atomic clock. See my point? A good clock, as I said before, is only affected by time, and not by other influences. GR effects are affects on time, not affects on clock mechanisms. They affect all clock mechanisms equally. So you say. But you provide no support. You're just declaring things, as usual.
My comments have not been directed ar GR only the differance between LR and SR. The choice of frames makes it LR not SR. In LR one observer (earth's axis) is declared a locally absolute rest referance. That is prohibited in SR. I have already said you can chose the earth's axis in SR but when you do you must also be able to show clock timing from the reeversed view oint. Please tell us how the GPS will perform if we assume the orbiting clocks are station and it is the earth that is moving. According to SR the earth clocks must now run slower. We have just built an LR system that keeps proper synchronization between clocks. But if we attempt to assume the SR view of the orbiting clocks being at rest that synchronization fails since the earth clocks will now be required to run slower. The system is no longer synchronized. You don't have that problem in LR. In LR you cannot switch frames. I just did above. False. GR may or may not be correct. But there is in fact an appartent gravity affect but that is not at issue here. I have not been discussing GR nor have I said it is wrong. It may well be but that is for another topic. The issue is between LR and SR views as to which one is supported by the physical evidence. Do not attempt to alter my point. I have said at least 2 - 3 time in this thread you can chose the earth's axis if you choose but you cannot impose the SR view that either observer can be assumed at rest. The problem simply become more direct and obvious when you choose the relative velocity between clocks using SR. I don't know why you continue to insist that you have been explaining things. I posted the article(s) and made references to the establishment and use of the UTC system. I have no misunderstandings about what that system is. Even though you would like to imply so. However, it is the simultaneous synchronization of all clocks that is your problem since you had said earlier in the two clock discussion that my timers or precalibrated monitors could not be used to synchronize clocks to local proper time. That is in fact exactly what GPS is doing. What I attempted to show in that discussion using the precalibrated monitor clocks was the fact that the SR view of reciprocity (reversability) (interchangability) of views is invalid. GPS verifies that fact. Correct and GPS is based on the LR view of the earth's axis as being a local absolute rest referance. So GPS cannpt be claimed to prove SR. It is based on an LR referance frame. Don't be obtuse. It gains you nothing. Ever hear "it takes two to tango?" You do not get a relative velocity without at least two referance points. If those points have relative velocity then you have two frames of referance. SR requires that those referance frames be interchangeable. That is the error. I know yo already know.
MacM: I group here the latest string of statements from you which have offered no support. These are MacM "Fiat Declarations". All statements collected here are direct quotes from your previous post. I challenge you to provide sources which support any of these statements. On other matters... I already covered this. I made the point that the GPS system is designed to work on Earth, which is why the calibration is designed to give correct results on Earth. The satellites do not make measurements; the people on Earth make measurements. I guess the point is too subtle for you. If GR is correct, so is SR. SR is a subset of GR. If GR is correct, so is SR. SR is a subset of GR. You are wrong. Wrong again. GPS works just fine with SR. You have previously agreed specifically that two objects with different velocities can exist in the same reference frame. I guess you've now conveniently forgotten our previous discussion on that matter. You're reverting back to your old views, as usual. Please read my "What is a reference frame?" thread and re-educate yourself. Your memory clearly needs a jog. I have never claimed, and do not claim now, to be an expert on Lorentzian ether theory. When I tell you I do not know something about it, you can take it that I really do not know. Why would I lie about not knowing something? Your paranoid conspiracy mentality is a barrier to useful discussion. It is only you who has trouble considering more than one frame. If SR and LR use the same formulae, then how do you know if GPS uses LR or SR? Both would predict exactly the same thing. You have yet to establish that LR is used, and not SR. What's to describe? The clocks are set up so that, to Earth observers, they appear synchronised. They are not set up to appear synchronised to the satellites. It is the people on Earth who want to determine their positions, not the satellites. LR and SR use the same formulae, according to you. How could one be "superior" to the other? You have given nothing to show that LR is used, and not SR. GPS neither requires, nor uses an "absolute local rest frame". That is false, as the record shows. SR does not require "equal affect when switching frames", which is precisely why your "reciprocity" is not part of SR. Can I expect those articles any time soon, or was your comment that you would provide them also "wasted"? No. All I have claimed is that GPS uses SR/GR. I have not once attempted to "prove" SR in this thread. I don't know what makes you think that I am continually trying to prove SR. SR is a well-established fact. It's you who has the difficult matter of "proof" ahead of you. You might like to start by trying to prove that SR is wrong. Oops! You already tried that, several times, without success. This part of the discussion is obviously too difficult for you to follow, as evidenced by your desire to rehash the same point which I rebutted earlier. I won't waste my time pursuing this one any further, since you have demonstrated your total lack of capacity in this regard.
And I would challenge you to prove otherwise. Don't think we didn't notice how you said "I know nothing about LR tell me the differance". When I do you then come back and say each of these points is false. Well you are totally incorrect. Each of these points are a differance. I guess it is to subtle for you to understand that if Relativity is a physical reality its affects must occur if you arfe trying to measure or not. Now take your "SR" calibrated (only according to you) system and show that you can assume the view of the orbiting clock and the system still work. You cannot because SR has reciproticty (symmetry) which makes the earth clcok run slower than the orbiting clock when you do that. Sorry. SR does not work. It is not a system in physical realilty. It is a mathematically consistant circle jerk and that is all. Bull. Wishful thinking. SR is false based on GPS. That means it is all wrong. Just as SR uses the LR formula for time dialtion and produces the same calculation but is still invalid, GR kmay produce the a correct result in this case but still be valid. However, this thread is about SR not GR. Lets stick on topic. False. So from the man that says he knows nothing about LR, we can assume this reply is from an expert. If you say this is wrong then post bonafide information which shows the choice of frames in LR is not based on declaring one as being a local absolute rest frame. Your statements do not make it so. You must still show us how the clocks remain synchronized when we change frame views. You can't it doesn't work. SR is a false concept. No I'd rather stick to this thread and the facts and not allow you to create diversions which are untrue. No your flip-flopping is the barrier. You claim to know nothing then make absolute statements that what I tell you is false. YOu can't have it both ways and talk out of both sides of your mouth. You either know jor you don't. It is assinine to say you don't know and then for you to declare I am wrong. If you think I am wrong then post bonafide information showing that. Your word clearly is not good enough here. I challenge that statement. It is not my jproblem. Lets see you show clock synchronization after switching views in GPS. Come on, you say there is no problem, show us how GPS works switching frames under the rules of SR.
The following paper pretty much says it all and tells it like it is. That is not to mean that the Relativists will accept this discrediting. http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep6/ep6-mull.htm But to say the least this pretty much says what I believe in any case and you can stop asking and stop making up things as to what I believe. Note the resolution to the H&K question and GPS frame.
Yeah, so yet again... what is your actual complaint? It's not with the numbers, because they are the same as GR. It's not with the two dilated reference frames, because that's explained by the twin/triplet paradox... So what exactly is it? You made the statement "It seems GPS actually favors Lorentz over Einstein"... and have yet to back it up, and seem to be avoiding every attempt to get you to do so. now your trying to tell us that SR can't have the Earth as a specified reference frame... completely ignoring that we are trying to tell time/distance in the Earth's reference frame.
Sorry but this is so bizzar that it can't be responded to. You are going in circles. Of course we are telling time and distance in earth's referance frame. But for GPS to be an SR based system which is physical reality you must now be able to switch frames and have the clocks remain synchronized. They won't and since that mathematically reqires that the clocks would need to exist with two different time basis it is proven a false idea. You do still claim that in SR if one switches frames and the orbit clock is assumed at rest that the earth clock must run slower do you not? GPS is nothing more than my calibrated "Monitor Clock". It is precalibrated to maintain the local proper tick rate of the other clock. It was further shown that that system is not switchable between frames. Therefore SR is not physically possible.
I take it that means you decided to ignore the twin paradox explanation? This isn't about GPS, this is your same old complaint.
No it is about you wanting to change the subject and to pose questions rather than answer them. The question is simple. Can you switch frames in the GPS system and have the clocks remain synchronized?
Here is an informative source on the GPS system. I have highlighted in bold a number of points pertinent to the current discussion. Source: http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html Extracts follow.
More references: http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/article_prep.html http://www.aticourses.com/global_positioning_system.htm http://physics.syr.edu/courses/PHY312.03Spring/GPS/GPS.html There are hundreds more informative sites just like these ones. For a good, authoritative source, see in particular, Ashby's article, in the first link above, which is widely referenced, and was also published in the peer-reviewed physics journal Physics Today.
James R, Yes I have read your first link. I see some persons choose to ignore the implications of claiming SR in the system. That is to be expected. Now read from an author who's career has been the development of GPS and in particular what he has to say about Ashby. Author: http://egtphysics.net/author/ronh.htm GPS: http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm More GPS:http://egtphysics.net/index.htm Click on Mechanisims upper left menu. Note the absence of Sun GR affects in some applications. *************************Extract *************** The requirement that the sun’s gravitational potential not be applied to clocks resident or moving in the earth’s inertial frame gives very strong support to the MLET theory. But even more significant, it clearly invalidates the SRT. The clear invalidation of SRT should have at least one desirable effect. Specifically, it should make the intellectual climate more open to alternative theories. *****************************************
MacM: Most of your latest response has no useful content, and consists of nothing more than a series of repeated assertions by you. It is hardly worth responding to, but I will do you the courtesy of responding anyway. I also want to clear up a few possible misconceptions. I have read a little on LR, but do not claim to be an expert. All I have asked you to do is to provide some sources which support your claim that LR is either used, or works in the GPS system, whereas SR does not. So far, you have completely failed to back up your claims. I have never claimed that effects do not occur when you are not measuring them. This is a straw man. Work for what? What is your aim here? This is just another series of declarations with no evidence. At least you admit it is mathematically consistent, though. You're making progress! This is interesting. Do you now deny that SR is completely contained in GR? If so, you've shown that you really don't know what you're talking about. I have made a totally uncontroversial statement here, which even you should be able to agree to. I said that if GR is right, so is SR. To agree to that, you don't need to agree that GR is correct, but you do have to appreciate the fact that SR is built into GR. But, strangely, you don't even seem to agree to that simple statement. Anybody who knows anything at all about GR knows that it is a general theory which builds upon the special case which is special relativity, and completely incorporates SR as a special case. But you, who claims to know enough to refute relativity, seem to disagree with even this basic point. Your credentials to debate this topic just keep getting worse. I didn't say I know nothing. I said I'm not an expert. There is a difference - one that you will never admit, of course, since you think you're an expert on relativity, for some bizarre reason. I don't care what LR says, frankly. I merely state that the GPS system was designed on the basis of GR and SR - Einstein's theories. You haven't presented any evidence that that is incorrect. I have never claimed clocks remain synchronised in different reference frames. In fact, GPS clocks need to be calibrated to make sure that they stay synchronised in one particular reference frame. This is how the system works. Done. See the references I have provided, for a start. Nobody's word will be good enough for you, if they support relativity, I am sure. GPS does not require an absolute rest frame. I believe you are wrong about this. If you have evidence that you are right, please provide it. I agree. What of it? SR has been thoroughly verified in thousands of experiments. To claim it is a hoax is to display the mindset of a paranoid conspiracy theorist. Prove it.
Why hasn't Mr Hatch's argument been published in a peer-reviewed journal, MacM? Wait, wait, don't tell me. Because of the International Scientific Conspiracy of Relativists, right?
