# Thread: To prove Special Relativity is wrong

1. 1. The physical time is the displayed time of a physical clock.
2. The displayed time of a physical clock is an invariant of inertial reference frames.
3. If all clocks are set to have the same displayed time and same frequency in one inertial reference frame no matter whether the clocks are stationary or not, their displayed times will be always the same observed on all inertial reference frames.
4. Therefore, the physical time is absolute, universal and independent from any inertial reference frame.
5. The time of Special Relativity is not absolute, universal but depends on the inertial reference frame.
6. Therefore, the time of Special Relativity is not the physical time.
7. Therefore, Special Relativity is wrong.

Clocks on GPS Satellites:
Let's have a look at the clock of a GPS satellite. Many people believe that the clock on the satellite is identical to the clock on the earth before a correction and the correction is to correct the effect of time dilation. But I think it's just the opposite.

After the correction, the clock on the earth and the clock on the satellite have the same displayed time observed on an inertial reference frame at the observing moment attached to the earth. These two clocks will also show exactly the same displayed time observed on an inertial reference frame attached to the satellite at the observing moment, because of the invariance of the displayed time of a clock on all inertial reference frames. That is, the two clocks are strictly in symmetric positions after correction. Therefore, they become identical after the correction. Therefore, there is no time dilation between the two clocks.

Thus, the correction is not to correct time dilation but to correct the errors caused by other factors.

2. Originally Posted by xinhangshen
.

Thus, the correction is not to correct time dilation but to correct the errors caused by other factors.
Prove it.

Classical case of crankery , belongs in Trash, not in the main forum.

3. Hi there, the time of the clock is only relevant to its inertial frame. I could have a different clock that initially was synchronised but later after a trip showed a different time. Which clock would be "correct"?

4. My clock tells me the time I set it to. For a while. Sometimes it stops, sometimes it is fast, sometimes slow, I am not strong enough to throw it at the speed of light, but the theory is probably not about a physical clock, but the way time and space interact.

5. Originally Posted by xinhangshen
1. The physical time is the displayed time of a physical clock.
2. The displayed time of a physical clock is an invariant of inertial reference frames.
3. If all clocks are set to have the same displayed time and same frequency in one inertial reference frame no matter whether the clocks are stationary or not, their displayed times will be always the same observed on all inertial reference frames.
You were doing okay up to #3. Relativity says that if the clocks in #3 are identically constructed, and moving relative to one inertial reference frame, they will not have the same tick rate as clocks which are stationary in that one inertial frame. Thus, relativity says the moving clocks will go out of synch from the stationary clocks, as measured by that one inertial frame.

Furthermore, relativity says that the synchornised clocks which happen to be stationary in that one inertial frame may not be synchronised according to a different inertial frame. So, even if you tamper with the frequency of the moving clocks to force them all to display the same times according to the original inertial reference frame, other inertial frames may still say that they are not synchronised to each other.

6. xinhangshen, Special Relativity is not wrong, it is a well established and very well tested theory. We test it every time we use a particle accelerator.

You seem to have some deep rooted misconceptions about both Special Relativity and the experimental evidence that supports it. Also, you have shown both here and at thescienceforum.com that you either do not listen to, or do not understand the explanations that many different people have given you.

This forum is for established science only. Threads like this one will always end up in the trash can.

Moderator Note: xinhangshen, according to the rules of this forum (which you implicitly agreed to when you signed up) you are not allowed post your anti-relativity nonsense here. Feel free to ask questions about any part of Special Relativity you do not understand, or ask questions about why Special Relativity is so established, but any more posts from you claiming it is wrong and you will be suspended. Repeat offences will result in a permanent ban. Also, you will not argue with this moderation in this thread. If you have any problems with what I am saying here, you can either report this post or send a private message either to myself or any of the other moderators here.

7. Originally Posted by JTyesthatJT
You were doing okay up to #3. Relativity says that if the clocks in #3 are identically constructed, and moving relative to one inertial reference frame, they will not have the same tick rate as clocks which are stationary in that one inertial frame. Thus, relativity says the moving clocks will go out of synch from the stationary clocks, as measured by that one inertial frame.

Furthermore, relativity says that the synchornised clocks which happen to be stationary in that one inertial frame may not be synchronised according to a different inertial frame. So, even if you tamper with the frequency of the moving clocks to force them all to display the same times according to the original inertial reference frame, other inertial frames may still say that they are not synchronised to each other.
You are right that according to Special Relativity, the identical clocks will have different frequencies if they move at different speeds. Now I don't want to prove whether this is true or not. What I want is to calibrate the clocks moving at different speeds to have the same displayed time and same frequency observed in an inertial reference frame. Is it feasible? Sure, it is feasible because we can adjust the frequencies of the clocks to make them have the same frequency observed in one reference frame.

Once these clocks initially have the same displayed time and same frequency observed in an inertial reference frame, they will have the same displayed time all the time when they are observed in the inertial reference frame.

According to #2 (i.e. the invariance of the displayed time), they will have the same displayed time observed on any other inertial reference frame too. That is, all these clocks will have the same displayed time observed in all inertial reference frames. Then we can use that displayed time as a measure of the physical time. Thus the physical time is independent from any inertial reference frame, i.e., absolute and universal.

8. Originally Posted by xinhangshen
You are right that according to Special Relativity, the identical clocks will have different frequencies if they move at different speeds. Now I don't want to prove whether this is true or not. What I want is to calibrate the clocks moving at different speeds to have the same displayed time and same frequency observed in an inertial reference frame. Is it feasible? Sure, it is feasible because we can adjust the frequencies of the clocks to make them have the same frequency observed in one reference frame.

Once these clocks initially have the same displayed time and same frequency observed in an inertial reference frame, they will have the same displayed time all the time when they are observed in the inertial reference frame.

According to #2 (i.e. the invariance of the displayed time), they will have the same displayed time observed on any other inertial reference frame too. That is, all these clocks will have the same displayed time observed in all inertial reference frames. Then we can use that displayed time as a measure of the physical time. Thus the physical time is independent from any inertial reference frame, i.e., absolute and universal.
Nonsense.

In inertial frame A, an observer considers themselves to be at rest. They measure frame B to be moving at 0.866c relative to themselves. From frame A, frame B will be time dilated by a factor of 2. The observer in frame A will calculate the clock in frame B to be running at half the speed of his own clock.

So, now we get frame B to set their clock to run at twice the speed. This means that frame A will now calculate the clocks in both frames to be running at the same rate. The clocks now have the same frequency when observed in an inertial reference frame - and that inertial reference frame is frame A.

But an observer in frame B will calculate that the clock in frame A is now running at 1/4 of the speed of his own clock! Frame A was time-dilated by a factor of 2 in relation to frame B before frame B adjusted their clock to run fast. So after that adjustment, frame A will now appear to be time-dilated by a factor of 4, according to the observer in frame B!

So your claim is obviously false.

Now we introduce frame C, which is moving at 0.99c relative to frame A. Frame C will be time-dilated by a factor of 7 relative to frame A.

What is the speed of frame B, relative to frame C? It is NOT 0.866c. So the adjustment of the clock in frame B, which made his clock appear to run at the same speed as the clock in frame A when observed from frame A, will not make the clock in frame B appear to run at the same speed as the clock in frame C when observed from frame C. And as frame A hasn't adjusted their clock at all, it will definitely not appear to have the same frequency as a clock in frame C when viewed from frame C.

So, once again, your claim is obviously false.

And if frame C sets his clock to run at 7 times the speed as normal, in order that it appears from frame A to run at the same speed as the clock in frame A, then from frame C, the clock in A now appears to be running 49 times slower than the clock in frame C!

I repeat - you should be asking questions about Special Relativity, not making false assertions about it.

9. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

I repeat - you should be asking questions about Special Relativity, not making false assertions about it.
Just to let you know the site is up again (for the moment anyway) -as is the scienceforums.com I think you may have said the site needed to die anyway (someone did) so this may be a pure curiosity.

No idea if you will get the message either....