# Thread: Which clock is the one moving in special relativity?

1. Originally Posted by Layman
"Mansouri and Sexl did not do any experiments."

Well, that depends on what you want to call an "experiment," I guess.
No , it doesn't. Stop lying.

They analyzed a number or previously conducted experiments to see if the empirical observations made there would be confirmed by their model, which deviated from SR's premises.
No. it doesn't "deviate". You have no clue what a test theory is.

They were experimenting with models, you might say.
Stop lying, crank.

2. "No. it doesn't "deviate". You have no clue what a test theory is."

-----

Heh. Read the wiki article. A few more excerpts:

"An experiment to test the theory of relativity cannot assume the theory is true, and therefore needs some other framework of assumptions that are wider than those of relativity. For example, a test theory may have a different postulate about light concerning one-way speed of light vs. two-way speed of light, it may have a preferred frame of reference, and may violate Lorentz invariance in many different ways. Test theories predicting different experimental results from Einstein's special relativity, are Robertson's test theory (1949),[1] and the Mansouri–Sexl theory (1977)[2] which is equivalent to Robertson's theory.[3][4][5][6][7] Another, more extensive model is the Standard-Model Extension, which also includes the standard model and general relativity.

Contrary to Robertson, Mansouri–Sexl not only added additional parameters to the Lorentz transformation, but also discussed different synchronization schemes. The Poincaré–Einstein synchronization is only used in the preferred frame, while in relatively moving frames they used "external synchronization", i.e., the clock indications of the preferred frame are employed in those frames. Therefore, not only the two-way speed of light but also the one-way speed is anisotropic in moving frames.....

in special relativity the two-way speed of light is isotropic, therefore RMS gives different experimental predictions as special relativity. By evaluating the RMS parameters, this theory serves as a framework for assessing possible violations of Lorentz invariance....

In addition to those second order tests, Mansouri and Sexl described some experiments measuring first order effects in v/c (such as Rømer's determination of the speed of light) as being "measurements of the one-way speed of light". These are interpreted by them as tests of the equivalence of internal synchronizations, i.e. between synchronization by slow clock transport and by light. They emphasize that the negative results of those tests are also consistent with aether theories in which moving bodies are subject to time dilation.

3. Originally Posted by Layman
"No. it doesn't "deviate". You have no clue what a test theory is."

-----

Heh. Read the wiki article. A few more excerpts:

"An experiment to test the theory of relativity cannot assume the theory is true, and therefore needs some other framework of assumptions that are wider than those of relativity. For example, a test theory may have a different postulate about light concerning one-way speed of light vs. two-way speed of light, it may have a preferred frame of reference, and may violate Lorentz invariance in many different ways. Test theories predicting different experimental results from Einstein's special relativity, are Robertson's test theory (1949),[1] and the Mansouri–Sexl theory (1977)[2] which is equivalent to Robertson's theory.[3][4][5][6][7] Another, more extensive model is the Standard-Model Extension, which also includes the standard model and general relativity.

Contrary to Robertson, Mansouri–Sexl not only added additional parameters to the Lorentz transformation, but also discussed different synchronization schemes. The Poincaré–Einstein synchronization is only used in the preferred frame, while in relatively moving frames they used "external synchronization", i.e., the clock indications of the preferred frame are employed in those frames. Therefore, not only the two-way speed of light but also the one-way speed is anisotropic in moving frames.....

in special relativity the two-way speed of light is isotropic, therefore RMS gives different experimental predictions as special relativity. By evaluating the RMS parameters, this theory serves as a framework for assessing possible violations of Lorentz invariance....

In addition to those second order tests, Mansouri and Sexl described some experiments measuring first order effects in v/c (such as Rømer's determination of the speed of light) as being "measurements of the one-way speed of light". These are interpreted by them as tests of the equivalence of internal synchronizations, i.e. between synchronization by slow clock transport and by light. They emphasize that the negative results of those tests are also consistent with aether theories in which moving bodies are subject to time dilation.
You don't understand the stuff you quote, crank. This is because you don't understand even the basics physics.

4. Here is a question for you, Layman.

If we performed a version of the Hafele-Keating experiment on Mars, would the results be consistent when viewed from a frame at rest in relation to the axis around which Mars rotates? That frame is in motion in relation to a frame at rest in relation to the axis around which the Earth rotates.

How would that affect any so called aether theories?

Are you just invoking some neo-Lorentzian aether theory?

5. Originally Posted by Layman
Janus: I am new to this forum and have a number of questions about SR. At this point I have not read your entire primer, or all the posts in this thread, for that matter. I'm just kinda asking questions as i go. Early in your primer you say:

"Example, going back to our astronauts A and B. Assume that their relative velocity is towards each other (A see's B approaching him and B see's A approaching him)."

Question: When you say "sees," you don't mean that literally, right? Neither A nor B "sees" who is approaching who with their eyeballs or instruments, correct? What you really mean is that both A and B assume that they are motionless and that it is always the "other guy" who is moving. This assumption is mandatory in SR, correct?
One caveat about the primer: It originally contained a number of animations included to aid the examples. These were hosted by my ISP, I have recently changed ISPs and thus the images hosted by the old ISP are now gone. This makes the primer a bit disjointed now.

As far as astronauts A and B go. Generally what is meant is that each astronaut concludes that the distance between himself and the other is decreasing with time. He can also physically measure this by a number of ways. All that is of issue here is their relative velocity. It is not mandatory that either astronaut assume that he is motionless. He is allowed to make this assumption, but he is not required to. It generally more convenient to work from this assumption, but it is in no way something SR demands.

6. Here is a question for you, Layman.

If we performed a version of the Hafele-Keating experiment on Mars, would the results be consistent when viewed from a frame at rest in relation to the axis around which Mars rotates? That frame is in motion in relation to a frame at rest in relation to the axis around which the Earth rotates.

How would that affect any so called aether theories?

Are you just invoking some neo-Lorentzian aether theory?

1. You could call it "Neo-Lorentzian, I suppose, but you can leave the "aether" part out of it, Freek. Or call it RMS (Robertson-Mansouri-Sexl) if you want, but yeah, that's basically what's used to make accurate predictions.

It would work on Mars if the experiment was conducted on Mars. The findings seem to be, as Einstein said, that "all physics are local." For the theory to work it seems that the preferred frame chosen must be the center of the local dominant gravitational field--the eci for experiments on or near earth; the solar barycenter for calculations in the solar system; the galactic center for the Milky Way; on up to the rest frame of the CMB for universal calculations.

Such theories as sometimes called AST's---absolute simultaneity theories. They seem, to me at least, to have some strong advantages over SR, both philosophically and practically. I don't think any competent theoretical theorists would sneer at them, as less informed devotees of SR usually do.

7. Freek said: "Here is a question for you, Layman.

If we performed a version of the Hafele-Keating experiment on Mars, would the results be consistent when viewed from a frame at rest in relation to the axis around which Mars rotates? That frame is in motion in relation to a frame at rest in relation to the axis around which the Earth rotates.

How would that affect any so called aether theories?

Are you just invoking some neo-Lorentzian aether theory?"

-----

1. You could call it "Neo-Lorentzian, I suppose, but you can leave the "aether" part out of it, Freek. Or call it RMS (Robertson-Mansouri-Sexl) if you want, but yeah, that's basically what's used to make accurate predictions these days.

It would work on Mars if the experiment was conducted on Mars. The findings seem to be, as Einstein said, that "all physics are local." For the theory to work it seems that the preferred frame chosen must be the center of the local dominant gravitational field--the eci for experiments on or near earth; the solar barycenter for calculations in the solar system; the galactic center for the Milky Way; on up to the rest frame of the CMB for universal calculations.

Such theories as sometimes called AST's---absolute simultaneity theories. They seem, to me at least, to have some strong advantages over SR, both philosophically and practically. I don't think any competent theoretical physicist would sneer at them, as less informed, more naive devotees of SR often do.

Dr. George Smoot of Berkeley, who won a nobel prize for his research in connection with the CMB, has called the CMB frame the "cosmic rest frame." He argues that using a preferred frame does NOT violate the premises of SR because Einstein never said their was no such frame--only that if there was one he didn't think we would be able to detect it. But, either way, as soon as you start using a preferred frame to do your calculations you have essentially thrown SR out the window.

8. Janus said: "It is not mandatory that either astronaut assume that he is motionless. He is allowed to make this assumption, but he is not required to. It generally more convenient to work from this assumption, but it is in no way something SR demands."

----

Thanks for your response, Janus. The experts I read say otherwise with respect to this particular point, however.

In a practical sense, sure, you can always assume that you're the one moving when you're travelling in a car, airplane, or whatever. But, in order to employ the Lorentz transformation within the context of SR, I believe you are required (if you're in an inertial frame) to posit your frame as being motionless. Everything in the universe that is moving with respect to you (your frame) is deemed to be moving, and you must presume yourself to be at rest.

In order for the theory to work out, if I'm on a train, I must assume that I'm at rest and that the tracks, the earth, and everything on it is "moving." The guy by the tracks must do the same. If we agree that he is "stationary" and that I am "moving" then when I calculate, I find that the speed of light will no longer be constant, with respect to me, etc.

SR claims that "all inertial frames are equally valid," but that's not the case in practice. In SR, you are not allowed to "prefer" another frame to your own.

9. Originally Posted by Layman
If we agree that he is "stationary" and that I am "moving" then when I calculate, I find that the speed of light will no longer be constant, with respect to me, etc.
Crackpot rubbish. You can't calculate your way out of a paper bag.

SR claims that "all inertial frames are equally valid," but that's not the case in practice. In SR, you are not allowed to "prefer" another frame to your own.
What does all this have to do with your inability to learn basic relativity? You are unable to learn basic time dilation.

10. Heh, Andrew. Puzzle me this, eh?

According to the LT, as between two inertial, relatively moving clocks, which one will be slow? It will be the clock that is moving, right?

11. Let me make it simple for you, Andrew. A wiki article on time dilation says this: "Special relativity indicates that, for an observer in an inertial frame of reference, a clock that is moving relative to him will be measured to tick slower than a clock that is at rest in his frame of reference. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

Do you agree with this statment?

"if a second observer accompanied the "moving" clock, each of the observers would perceive the other's clock as ticking at a slower rate than their own local clock, due to them both perceiving the other to be the one that's in motion relative to their own stationary frame of reference.

Do you agree this is what SR posits?

"... they both see the other person moving through time slower (you will always see your own clock running normally, in all circumstances)."

Q: According to relativity, two moving observers always see the other moving through time slower. Isn’t that a contradiction? Doesn’t one have to be faster? | Ask a Mathematician / Ask a Physicist

Assuming inertial frames, do you agree with what this physicist says about SR?

14. You don't even have to do any calculations to understand that my claim is correct, Andrew. Let's take an example:

An observer on earth sees a spaceship travelling at whatever speed is required (somewhere around .87c as I recall) to generate a gamma factor of 50%. He assumes that the spaceship is moving and that therefore the times and distances on that ship have been reduced by 50%. With me, so far?

Now let's say that I'm on that spaceship travelling at a uniform speed of approx. .87c. I know SR and how the Lorentz transforms work. I also know I am moving relative to earth, because that's where I was blasted off from. So I say to myself: "I'm the one moving, relative to earth, not vice versa, therefore I know my times and lengths have shrunk by 50%."

Using instruments in my frame of reference, I measure the speed of light in my frame to be exactly C. But, since I'm the one moving, I also know that my measurements are distorted. So I correct for those distortions. As soon as I do that, I will find that, in my frame light no longer travels at C. I measured it to be C, but that was done with distorted instruments, so my "measurement" is incorrect.

Get it?

15. Originally Posted by Layman

"if a second observer accompanied the "moving" clock, each of the observers would perceive the other's clock as ticking at a slower rate than their own local clock, due to them both perceiving the other to be the one that's in motion relative to their own stationary frame of reference.

Do you agree this is what SR posits?
This is what I explained to you in post 69, crank. Now, in classic crackpot style, you are pretending that this is what you meant all along, aren't you?

16. Originally Posted by Layman
You don't even have to do any calculations to understand that my claim is correct, Andrew. Let's take an example:

An observer on earth sees a spaceship travelling at whatever speed is required (somewhere around .87c as I recall) to generate a gamma factor of 50%. I assume that the spaceship is moving and that therefore the measuring instruments on that ship have been reduced by 50%. With me, so far?

Now let's say that I'm on that spaceship travelling at a uniform speed of approx. .87c. I know SR and how the Lorentz transforms work. I also know I am moving relative to earth, because that's where I was blasted off from. So I say to myself: "I'm the one moving, relative to earth, not vice versa, therefore I know my times and lengths have shrunk by 50%."

Using instruments in my frame of reference, I measure the speed of light in my frame to be exactly C. But, since I'm the one moving, I also know that my measurements are distorted. So I correct for those distortions. As soon as I do that, I will find that, in my frame light no longer travels at C. I measured it to be C, but that was done with distorted instruments, so my "measurement" is incorrect.

Get it?
Got it: you have NO clue, you are a hardened crackpot. Contrary to your deep rooted misconceptions, your measurements/instruments are NOT "distorted".

17. Originally Posted by Layman

"... they both see the other person moving through time slower (you will always see your own clock running normally, in all circumstances)."

Q: According to relativity, two moving observers always see the other moving through time slower. Isn’t that a contradiction? Doesn’t one have to be faster? | Ask a Mathematician / Ask a Physicist

Assuming inertial frames, do you agree with what this physicist says about SR?
I agree with everything the physicist says about SR in that answer. What is it that you do not agree with?

18. Originally Posted by Layman
Heh, Andrew. Puzzle me this, eh?

According to the LT, as between two inertial, relatively moving clocks, which one will be slow? It will be the clock that is moving, right?
BOTH are moving, motion is relative, crank.

19. Freek said: "I agree with everything the physicist says about SR in that answer. What is it that you do not agree with?"

I'm with you, Freek. I agree with everything he says about protocols in SR, too. I've already said the same myself, only to have Andrew say, as he does in every post, that I'm a crank who doesn't understand time dilation.

20. Originally Posted by Layman
Freek said: "I agree with everything the physicist says about SR in that answer. What is it that you do not agree with?"

I'm with you, Freek. I agree with everything he says about protocols in SR, too I've already said the same myself, only to have Andrew say, as he does in every post, that I'm a crank who doesn't understand time dilation.
You are not only a crank, you are also a pathological liar. Your posts contradict you.

21. Andrew said: "BOTH are moving, motion is relative, crank."

The question was about the LT, Andrew, not any particular state of affairs. Maybe you should haul that smart ass of yours to reading comprehension school sometime, eh?

Funny that you purport to be a relativist and yet claim to discern absolute motion (even if it wasn't the question), though, eh?

"BOTH are moving...."

22. Originally Posted by Layman
Andrew said: "BOTH are moving, motion is relative, crank."

The question was about the LT, Andrew, not any particular state of affairs. Maybe you should haul that smart ass of yours to reading comprehension school sometime, eh?

Funny that you purport to be a relativist and yet claim to discern absolute motion (even if it wasn't the question), though, eh?

"BOTH are moving...."
Troll

23. By the way, Freek, I also agree with the statements I excerpted from the wiki article. Apparently Andrew does not, since he disputed my response to Janus, which said basically the same thing as the wiki article.

I guess I should add that I don't necessarily agree that the statements I quoted represent the actual state of affairs. I didn't quote them for that purpose. I quoted them to clarify what SR, as a theory, requires, that's all.

24. Janus, I have another question for you if you're still here (or come back).

The post of mine which you just quoted and responded to (along with another) was, I'm sure, made the the thread dedicated to the discussion of your primer.

However, I no longer see either post made by me in that thread. Where did it go? Where did you see it?

25. Originally Posted by Layman
Janus, I have another question for you if you're still here (or come back).

The post of mine which you just quoted and responded to (along with another) was, I'm sure, made the the thread dedicated to the discussion of your primer.

However, I no longer see either post made by me in that thread. Where did it go? Where did you see it?

26. Moderator Note:

Everyone must remain civil and there is to be no more name calling or trolling from either side. Attack the argument, not the person making it.

27. Freek said: "Please do not comment in any other thread than this one."

Why do you ask me that? Is it because Andrew has shrilly called me crazy, a crank, a crackpot, a liar, ignorant, etc., so many dozens of times that you think must be right?. I've said nothing in this thread that hasn't already been said, many times, by highly respected physicists. Does merely disagreeing with your personal interpretation of relative motion make me a "crank?"

28. Originally Posted by Layman
Freek said: "I agree with everything the physicist says about SR in that answer. What is it that you do not agree with?"

I'm with you, Freek. I agree with everything he says about protocols in SR, too. I've already said the same myself, only to have Andrew say, as he does in every post, that I'm a crank who doesn't understand time dilation.
Q: According to relativity, two moving observers always see the other moving through time slower. Isn’t that a contradiction? Doesn’t one have to be faster? | Ask a Mathematician / Ask a Physicist

So you agree with these quotes from the article you posted:

Physicist: They definitely both experience time dilation. That is to say, they both see the other person moving through time slower (you will always see your own clock running normally, in all circumstances). The short resolution to the “paradox” is: if you’re flying past each other, and never come back to the same place again to compare clocks, what’s the problem? You may both observe the other person’s clock running slower, but that’s not a contradiction in any “physical sense”.
I stated this earlier, that if both observers remain in inertial frames forever and neither of them turns around and comes back, that both would consider the others clock to be "running slower", and that no experiment could prove otherwise, and that this is not a actually paradox (or contradiction) as it has not involved comparing clocks brought to rest to in relation each other and finding a paradox, and so on and so on.... but you argued that it could logically not be true.

Of course if you do meet up again, then you’ve got the “twin paradox”, which still isn’t a problem (or a paradox). One of the most frustrating things about the universe is that there is no such thing as “absolute time“, which would allow you to say “who’s right”. If you could ask the universe “what time is it?” the universe’s best answer would be “that depends on who’s asking”. The universe is kind of a smart ass.
So in my "four brothers" example, where I asked who is correct, Alice or Bob, the answer is that you cannot say only one of them is right. Both are correct, from their frame of reference.

Just as there is no "absolute time" there is no absolute frame of reference - there is no "god's eye-view" of all events. You have to pick a specific frame from which to base your calculations and measurements. NO... not a "preferred frame", just any specific frame. From ANY frame of reference, all calculations and measurement make perfect sense and there are NO contradictions or paradoxes.

It is only if you try to take a completely UNPHYSICAL "god's eye view" that you find contradictions and paradoxes. Your objections to the idea that, to both observers in relative INERTIAL motion, the clocks in the other frame are "running slow", are based on you trying to use a completely unphysical frame of reference - one that doesn't exist.

You can make measurements and calculations of both moving clocks from your own, third, frame. You will get the correct answers using SR. You can ask Alice what the answers are from her frame, using SR and she will give you the correct answer from her frame, and you can ask Bob what answers are from his frame and using SR he will give you the correct answers from his frame. Everyone has the right answer, from their own frame of reference.

If you try to compare these answers WITHOUT making the requisite transformations between the frames involved, you get contradictions. NOT because SR is wrong (it is not wrong), but simply because you are mixing frames of reference.

The reason for these contradictions you perceive is not because SR is wrong. It is because neither space nor time are absolute. They are both RELATIVE. Special Relativity is totally logically consistent, internally.

Please re-read the article you posted that I just linked above. Hopefully it might click with you.

I should note here that there is nothing actually wrong about Lorentzian Ether Theory either. It works just as well as (but not better than) Special Relativity. It gives (contrary to what you might think) EXACTLY the same results as SR. The problem is, however, that LET is far more complicated than SR, as it is based on a hidden frame where measurements are "real", but nobody can ever know what that frame is, so nobody can ever know if they are in that frame.

The reason LET is not used is simply because of Okham's razor - we adopt the simplest theory that achieves exactly the same results - Special Relativity.

Now I would urge you to go away and study Special Relativity a little more, as it seems you have some deep misconceptions about it, judging by your posts.

I would also point out that, seeing as SR is well tested and confirmed, and your objections to it are based on misconceptions, that this forum is not the place to argue against it.

29. Originally Posted by Layman
Freek said: "Please do not comment in any other thread than this one."

Why do you ask me that? Is it because Andrew has shrilly called me crazy, a crank, a crackpot, a liar, ignorant, etc., so many dozens of times that you think must be right?. I've said nothing in this thread that hasn't already been said, many times, by highly respected physicists. Does merely disagreeing with your personal interpretation of relative motion make me a "crank?"
Your posts are limited to this thread because you are not merely disagreeing with MY personal interpretation of relative motion, you are arguing against science, full stop. These principle are not my personal interpretation, they are the scientific consensus. This forum is not the place to argue against the scientific consensus, it is a place to discuss the consensus view in order to help people understand it.

If you want to argue against the scientific consensus view, go somewhere else.

And, no, you cannot argue that SR is not the scientific consensus, either.

That's it. End of story.

http://www.thephysicsforum.com/annou...ing-forum.html

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
8. This forum is reserved for the discussion of established science only, and does not permit the posting of "personal theories", or of any material which is obviously in contradiction to current scientific consensus, into the main sections. Such posts will be moved to the "Personal Theories" subforum, or to the trash can. It is the responsibility of the moderator and administrator team to appropriately categorize forum posts.

31. There's a whole lot I could say in response to your dogmatic monologue, Freek, but I won't try to do so at this time. Let me ask you one thing though.

Do you concede that the theory HK used to make accurate predictions was NOT SR, but instead an alternative theory of relative motion which relies on the establishment of a preferred frame?

If not, why not? Do you think that any theory which employs the LT has to be "special relativity."

32. Originally Posted by Layman
Do you concede that the theory HK used to make accurate predictions was NOT SR, but instead an alternative theory of relative motion which relies on the establishment of a preferred frame?

If not, why not? Do you think that any theory which employs the LT has to be "special relativity."
They used both General and Special Relativity, nothing else.

See for yourself:

http://www.personal.psu.edu/rq9/HOW/...redictions.pdf

33. Originally Posted by Layman
Do you think that any theory which employs the LT has to be "special relativity."
If you read my "dogmatic" post properly you would know that I do not think that, having seen my comment about Lorentzian Ether Theory.

34. Originally Posted by Layman
Freek said: "Please do not comment in any other thread than this one."

Why do you ask me that? Is it because Andrew has shrilly called me crazy, a crank, a crackpot, a liar, ignorant, etc., so many dozens of times that you think must be right?. I've said nothing in this thread that hasn't already been said, many times, by highly respected physicists.
No physicist has ever mentioned anything like the rubbish you have been posting.

35. Originally Posted by Layman
There's a whole lot I could say in response to your dogmatic monologue, Freek, but I won't try to do so at this time. Let me ask you one thing though.

Do you concede that the theory HK used to make accurate predictions was NOT SR, but instead an alternative theory of relative motion which relies on the establishment of a preferred frame?
Rubbish, HK is fully explained within the framework of GR. Hafele paper made a mishmash of GR and SR, which is unfortunate, a much cleaner explanation uses GR only. Before you even get started, ECI is not a preferred frame. It is just a convenient frame used to analyze the total elapsed proper time of the westward/eastward and Earth-bound clocks. This is taught in GR intro classes. You would benefit from one.

36. Freek said: 'They used both General and Special Relativity, nothing else.

See for yourself:

http://www.personal.psu.edu/rq9/HOW/...redictions.pdf

-----

Nothing in that paper says what you say it says. HK did NOT say these used SR to make their predictions, which is good, because they didn't. They note that SR predicts time dilation, and it does (as do other theories). On the contrary they talked about an analysis of motion from the frame of the ECI. Time dilation has indeed been experimentally verified. I will say more in my response to Andrew's post.

37. Andrew said: "Before you even get started, ECI is not a preferred frame. It is just a convenient frame used to analyze the total elapsed proper time of the westward/eastward and Earth-bound clocks."

This is incorrect, Andrew. It (the ECI) is being used to establish the "master clock" in the GPS. It is ONLY that frame that can be used to accurately synchronize the clocks. It is the "preferred" frame because all clocks are analyzed to with respect to how they compare to the clock there, not to each other. Using a satellite clock or some random clock on the earth's surface as the "master clock" would not work. The clocks are "externally synchronized," as Mansouri and Sexl use that term.

In the GPS the time dilation is not determined by comparing each individual clock to another. ALL clocks are compared to the ECI clock. The clock at every location, on earth, in space, moving or stationary, is contrasted only with the "standard time" established by the ECI clock. As far as time dilation due to speed is concerned (ignoring gravitational dilation for now), the question is only what is the speed of any given clock relative to the master clock, NOT some (or any) other clock. This type of synchronization if forbidden by SR. SR is not used in the GPS, although the LT certainly are. The GPS uses a theory of motion which posits absolute simultaneity, not relative simultaneity.

38. Originally Posted by Layman
Andrew said: "Before you even get started, ECI is not a preferred frame. It is just a convenient frame used to analyze the total elapsed proper time of the westward/eastward and Earth-bound clocks."

This is incorrect, Andrew. It (the ECI) is being used to establish the "master clock" in the GPS.
You need to stop making up rubbish and trying to pass it as science.

In the GPS the time dilation is not determined by comparing each individual clock to another. ALL clocks are compared to the ECI clock. The clock at every location, on earth, in space, moving or stationary, is contrasted only with the "standard time" established by the ECI clock.
There is NO "ECI clock". Do you know why?

SR is not used in the GPS, although the LT certainly are. The GPS uses a theory of motion which posits absolute simultaneity, not relative simultaneity.
You need to stop making up rubbish and trying to pass it as science.

39. Here's a (rather lengthy) excerpt from an article on the topic. I will admit that his paper is long on assertion and short on demonstrative evidence, but the concepts are discussed in some detail, and the mathematical proofs underlying the claims are available elsewhere:

"GPS uses a physical model built on physical asymmetric clock retardation as a function of velocity with respect to a unique frame, namely, the ECI (Earth Centered Inertial) frame. As described above when discussing Lorentz clock retardation, GPS uses the velocity of the satellite clocks with respect to the ECI frame and the velocity of the earthbound clocks with respect to the ECI frame to determine how much each clock has slowed relative to a clock at rest in the ECI frame and then computes the ratio of those rates to compare the expected satellite clocks rates to the earth clock rates.1 As discussed above, even though one is using an equation that looks like Special Relativity time dilation and one is using velocity "relative" to the ECI frame, one is NOT actually using Special Relativity time dilation. If one actually just used Special Relativity and measured the relative velocities of the GPS clocks, one would not get the same output as GPS gives. Furthermore, if all available, relevant, relative velocities were used, one would get multiple conflicting estimates."

------

New technology such as GPS has been able to clearly show us what the preferred frame is (locally) and proper time accumulations shows us the data not only from A’s point of view but also from B’s point of view. The data shows that there is NO symmetry for proper time accumulation physics - NO symmetry for what’s happening physically AND NO symmetry even for what’s observed by A & B.

In GPS, the data clearly shows that the Special Relativity model does NOT correctly describe what’s happening physically and specifically it cannot be used and is not used in GPS. An equation is used that looks like Special Relativity's time dilation equation, but it's used in a way that is inconsistent with Special Relativity and instead consistent with Lorentz Relativity. Because the equation that is used looks like Special Relativity's time dilation equation, some still erroneously claim that Special Relativity is used in GPS....

People who are not familiar with the points discussed above, still erroneously think that GPS uses Special Relativity. However, for velocity dependent proper time effects, GPS uses the Lorentz physical model which is the antithesis of Special Relativity. The confusion is aided by the two theories using equations where the math looks identical. Both theories are based on the Lorentz Transformation (LTs) equations, but the two theories interpret those equations completely differently. In Lorentz Relativity, there is a unique preferred frame and the LTs can only be used to transform from the unique, preferred frame to a non-preferred frame - Lorentz Relativity also uses a true inverse of the LTs to transform from non-preferred frames to the unique, preferred frame. Hence, in Lorentz Relativity, the use of the LTs are asymmetric and describe the physical differences between the unique, preferred frame and the non- preferred frames.

------

The Lorentz Relativity model of using absolute velocity with respect to the preferred frame precisely matches the high precision GPS data for every section of all 24 satellite orbits.....In contrast, using the Special Relativity model and its construct of relative velocity between the satellite clocks and the earthbound clocks would fail miserably with Special Relativity predicting that the satellite clocks were both faster and slower than the earthbound clocks. Further, just using the predictions from the earthbound observer one would still get data that was wildly different than the GPS data as the satellite changed its direction relative to an earthbound clock.

if we choose a “3rd party” inertial frame other than the ECI frame, we will not match the GPS data at all. Let’s pick an inertial frame that has the same constant velocity as the tangential velocity of a satellite at point A. Special Relativity would then predict that the velocity effect would make the satellite’s clock FASTER NOT SLOWER than the earth clocks below.

-----

Like GPS, the Hafele-Keating experiment used a physical model built on physical asymmetric clock retardation as a function of velocity with respect to a unique frame, namely, the ECI (Earth Centered Inertial) frame. As described above when discussing Lorentz clock retardation, the Hafele-Keating experiment use the velocity of the airborne clocks with respect to the ECI frame and the velocity of the earthbound clocks with respect to the ECI frame to determine how much each clock has slowed relative to a clock at rest in the ECI frame and then computes the ratio of those rates to compare the expected airborne clocks rates to the earthbound clock rates. As discussed above, even though one is using an equation that looks like Special Relativity time dilation and one is using velocity "relative" to the ECI frame, one is NOT actually using Special Relativity time dilation. If one actually just used Special Relativity and measured the relative velocities of the airborne clocks, one would not compute what the data results were

I don't expect Andrew or Freek to even read this article, let alone reflect on it, but other posters might so I took the time to post it. It is just one of many "dissident" articles which make the same or similar points.

I have only posted a fraction of the article, and it does a relatively good job of summarizing the history of theories of relative motion and presents the counter arguments most often made by SR adherents. The article starts out with this introduction:

"We have the mainstream, relativist physics community who KNOW that Special Relativity is correct and who dismiss any criticism of Special Relativity out of hand. Conversely, we have many in the dissident physics community who contend that Special Relativity is WRONG and has no value. Both sides have a lot of good points so let’s look at blending the two together."

40. Originally Posted by Layman

I don't expect Andrew or Freek to even read this article, let alone reflect on it, but other posters might so I took the time to post it. It is just one of many "dissident" articles which make the same or similar points.
We don't chase down every piece of crackpot rubbish that you post, this is a mainstream science forum not a platform for your fringe ideas. Enjoy sitting in Trash.

"We have the mainstream, relativist physics community who KNOW that Special Relativity is correct and who dismiss any criticism of Special Relativity out of hand. Conversely, we have many in the dissident physics community who contend that Special Relativity is WRONG and has no value. Both sides have a lot of good points so let’s look at blending the two together."
I knew I have "met" you before, I recognized the style, you are famous, you are Nick Percival. Enjoy camping in Trash, this where you belong.

41. Layman,

This forum is not a place to promote fringe theories, and as such your posts on this subject aren't welcome here.

Whilst you were merely asking questions, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, as you are obviously labouring under a number of misconceptions about SR, which have left you with an extremely twisted view through which you are filtering everything said to you. I do not expect you will change your view, so I am closing this thread.

You are not to bring up this subject again on this forum.

Page 2 of 2 First 12
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Forum Rules