Notices
Results 1 to 17 of 17
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By Janus

Thread: How to solve the contradiction in special relativity?

  1. #1 How to solve the contradiction in special relativity? 
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    19
    We all know that the core of special relativity is that time is relative, simultaneity is relative and thus clocks can never be synchronized relative to more than one inertial reference frame to show the same time no matter how you correct them, but the reality is that all the atomic clocks on the GPS satellites, after corrections, are synchronized not only relative to the ground clocks but also relative to each other, that means, they are synchronized relative to all reference frames.

    Please be aware that the relativistic kinematic time dilation of an atomic clock on a GPS satellite is relative i.e. different relative to different inertial reference frame, which you can't correct to make the clock show the same time of all other inertial reference frames. Therefore, the correction of each clock is not relative but absolute (i.e. the same observed in all inertial reference frames) and thus it does not contain any of the relativistic kinematic time dilation. In fact, the correction of each clock is the lump sum of all influences of the atomic clocks including gravitation and its motion relative to aether - the medium of light which fills up the entire visible part of the universe. This correction is very similar to the correction of a mechanical pendulum clock with the pendulum exposed to the air, which will be influenced by both gravitation and its motion relative to the air. This proves that the relativistic kinematic time dilation does not exist in the atomic clocks on the GPS satellites at all.

    Some people may argue that the atomic clocks are not synchronized relative to all reference frames, but only synchronized relative to the ground reference frame i.e. the atomic clock on a GPS satellite and a ground clock are synchronized only when they are observed on the ground but unsynchronized when they are observed on the satellite. If this was true, then the difference of the two clocks observed on the satellite would grow with the increase of the number of the trips of the satellite around the earth, while these two clocks were still synchronized observed on the ground. As the two clocks only have two displays, where could the clocks keep such a growing difference observed on the satellite but have no difference observed on the ground? Obviously, no such a case can exist.

    Some people argue that these clocks are not in inertial reference frames and special relativity can't be used to describe them. This claim can't stand, because even in the non-inertial reference frames, clocks still can be synchronized relative to all the reference frames, how can that be a problem to get clocks to synchronized relative to inertial reference frames? Is it the acceleration magically making the miracle?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    303
    GPS clocks do not need to be synchronized, they only need to tick at the same rate as the clocks on the ground. Your word salad above is just that, a word salad, as usual.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by AndrewC View Post
    GPS clocks do not need to be synchronized, they only need to tick at the same rate as the clocks on the ground. Your word salad above is just that, a word salad, as usual.
    Of course, clocks on GPS satellites must be synchronized relative to both ground clocks and clocks on the other GPS satellites. Where did you get your point?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    303
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    Of course, clocks on GPS satellites must be synchronized relative to both ground clocks and clocks on the other GPS satellites. Where did you get your point?
    Nope, they need to be "syntonized", not "synchronized". Your new attempt at disproving relativity showcases your ignorance. Once again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by AndrewC View Post
    Nope, they need to be "syntonized", not "synchronized". Your new attempt at disproving relativity showcases your ignorance. Once again.
    Please present your logical reasoning!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    303
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    Please present your logical reasoning!
    You need to stop posting about subjects that you are grossly ignorant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Member Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    Of course, clocks on GPS satellites must be synchronized relative to both ground clocks and clocks on the other GPS satellites. Where did you get your point?
    The ground and GPS clocks only have to be synchronized with each other as measured in the ground frame. It is not necessary for the GPS clocks to be synchronized with each other in the frame of any of the GPS clocks. All measurements are made from the ground frame. And Relativity does not prevent us from arranging such a synchronization as measured from a single frame.

    Thus for example, if I have two rows of clocks, moving relative to each other, you can arrange it so that as measured from one row of clocks, all the clocks tick at the same rate and are spaced an equal distance apart and all the clocks in both rows are in sync with each other, like this



    However, if you switch to the frame of the other row of clocks, you get this:



    In this frame,the clocks in the two rows run tick at different rates, the clocks in the different rows are spaced at different distances apart and none of the clocks are synchronized to each other. The one thing both frames do agree on is that every time an upper row and lower row clock passes each other, they read exactly the same time.


    In this example, the frame of the lower row is like the ground frame in the GPS system from which we make our determination of position. We only care about where the GPS clocks we are querying are and what time they read according to the ground frame, we don't care what-so-ever as to what any of those GPS satellites would say the time the clock reading was on any of the other satellites.
    AndrewC likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    The ground and GPS clocks only have to be synchronized with each other as measured in the ground frame.
    ...
    In this example, the frame of the lower row is like the ground frame in the GPS system from which we make our determination of position. We only care about where the GPS clocks we are querying are and what time they read according to the ground frame, we don't care what-so-ever as to what any of those GPS satellites would say the time the clock reading was on any of the other satellites.
    Please read "Some people may argue that the atomic clocks are not synchronized relative to all reference frames, but only synchronized relative to the ground reference frame i.e. the atomic clock on a GPS satellite and a ground clock are synchronized only when they are observed on the ground but unsynchronized when they are observed on the satellite. If this was true, then the difference of the two clocks observed on the satellite would grow with the increase of the number of the trips of the satellite around the earth, while these two clocks were still synchronized observed on the ground. As the two clocks only have two displays, where could the clocks keep such a growing difference observed on the satellite but have no difference observed on the ground? Obviously, no such a case can exist. " in my initial posting!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    303
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    Please read "Some people may argue that the atomic clocks are not synchronized relative to all reference frames, but only synchronized relative to the ground reference frame i.e. the atomic clock on a GPS satellite and a ground clock are synchronized only when they are observed on the ground but unsynchronized when they are observed on the satellite. If this was true, then the difference of the two clocks observed on the satellite would grow with the increase of the number of the trips of the satellite around the earth, while these two clocks were still synchronized observed on the ground. As the two clocks only have two displays, where could the clocks keep such a growing difference observed on the satellite but have no difference observed on the ground? Obviously, no such a case can exist. " in my initial posting!
    Repeating the same crankeries doesn't make them true.
    1.The ground-based GPS clocks are set to 10.23 Mhz
    2. The satellite-based GPS clocks are set a 10.2299999999Mhz. at launch from the ground.

    This way:

    3. The frequency of BOTH types of clocks , when measured from EITHER the ground or from the sky are the SAME.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by AndrewC View Post

    3. The frequency of BOTH types of clocks , when measured from EITHER the ground or from the sky are the SAME.
    That is what exactly I tells in my posting, which has clearly denied special relativity that claims "time is relative" and "clocks can never be synchronized relative to more than one inertial reference frame no matter how you correct them".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #11  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    303
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    That is what exactly I tells in my posting, which has clearly denied special relativity that claims "time is relative"
    Time IS relative.
    GPS CONFIRMS that time is relative.
    GPS clocks are "syntonized", not "synchronized". You do not know the difference.
    You also need to stop lying and making crackpot posts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #12  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    303
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    "clocks can never be synchronized relative to more than one inertial reference frame no matter how you correct them".
    This is also false (like everything you post). Co-located clocks can be synchronized in any number of frames.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #13  
    Member Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    Please read "Some people may argue that the atomic clocks are not synchronized relative to all reference frames, but only synchronized relative to the ground reference frame i.e. the atomic clock on a GPS satellite and a ground clock are synchronized only when they are observed on the ground but unsynchronized when they are observed on the satellite. If this was true, then the difference of the two clocks observed on the satellite would grow with the increase of the number of the trips of the satellite around the earth, while these two clocks were still synchronized observed on the ground. As the two clocks only have two displays, where could the clocks keep such a growing difference observed on the satellite but have no difference observed on the ground? Obviously, no such a case can exist. " in my initial posting!
    No, the GPS clocks would not develop a growing difference. Since the clocks are following circular orbits, the non-synchronicity between the clocks in each clocks frame is not a constant. Depending on their relative positions One GPS clock will read another as running fast or slow, or being ahead of or behind self. After each clock completes one orbit and they return to the same relative positions they will find that they have exactly the same difference in time as they had before the complete orbit. During any other parts of the orbit, that difference will grow and shrink.

    Essentially it the equivalence of having two space ship traveling away at the same speed from the Earth, traveling the same distance from the Earth, returning to Earth, pass the Earth and heading out to the same distance from the Earth in the opposite direction and returning. You thus have two ships passing the Earth back and forth along mirror image trajectories. You can set the clocks so that every time they return to the Earth they read the same as Earth time. Thus every time the ships pass the Earth both Ship clocks and Earth clocks all read the same, during any other time the three clocks will disagree.

    In this case, for most of the time, for either ship, the clocks will disagree, but will always come together and agree on each Earth passing. The time differences do not accumulate and SR does not predict that they will.

    Neither does SR predict that GPS clocks would develop an ever increasing time difference. That conclusion is one of your own making due to your incomplete understanding of the theory and how one would apply it to this situation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #14  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    No, the GPS clocks would not develop a growing difference. Since the clocks are following circular orbits, the non-synchronicity between the clocks in each clocks frame is not a constant. Depending on their relative positions One GPS clock will read another as running fast or slow, or being ahead of or behind self. After each clock completes one orbit and they return to the same relative positions they will find that they have exactly the same difference in time as they had before the complete orbit. During any other parts of the orbit, that difference will grow and shrink.
    No, it's not true. Relativistic kinematic time dilation will be accumulated as long as the observed clock moving relative to the observer and never shrink.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #15  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    303
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    No, it's not true. Relativistic kinematic time dilation will be accumulated as long as the observed clock moving relative to the observer and never shrink.
    Err, you missed that he set up the scenario such that the two clocks follow the same trajectory thru spacetime. So, when they come together, they show the SAME total elapsed proper time since they started together. You need to stop posting rubbish.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #16  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by AndrewC View Post
    Err, you missed that he set up the scenario such that the two clocks follow the same trajectory thru spacetime. So, when they come together, they show the SAME total elapsed proper time since they started together. You need to stop posting rubbish.
    Please behave politely!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #17  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    303
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    Please behave politely!
    Not towards stubborn cranks who post rubbish.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •