Relavistic Time Dilation Test Fraud

In that article, you noted that LR's explanation of the twin's paradox
involves the Earth twin being in a preferred frame. However, you went
further to show that the twin's paradox can be resolved using SR,
using time slippage (aka relativity of simultaneity). If both LR and
SR come to the same conclusions, why should we prefer LR over SR?
Those 11 experiments you listed as supporting LR then become just
as valid under an SR interpretation under time slippage.

So, who is being clueless here? I'm saying that SR observers
are all wearing watches made in China- the ones where hours
and minute hands are all the same size, that these suckers
are all giving each other the wrong time of day, that we should
replace them with real watches from the Swiss that have
a long minute hand and a short hour hand. You're saying
that we should buy gas at Shell and not Chevron because they have a free car wash.

Tom,

Since you are experienced and have listened to many relativists over the years, how do relativists explain the GPS clock slowing from an SR perspective? How do relativists justify the correction of the orbiting clock only, despite the symmetry of SR? One would expect that the clock in orbit is equally justified to increase the ticking rate of the earth bound clock due to its motion relative to the earth bound clock?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by 1234567890</i>
<br />If both LR and SR come to the same conclusions, why should we prefer LR over SR? Those 11 experiments you listed as supporting LR then become just as valid under an SR interpretation under time slippage.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No experiment using light-speed or slower phenomena can tell the difference. However, something that propagates FTL in forward time is impossible in SR, but allowed by LR. So the 11 experiments testing the relativity of motion make no distinction between theories. But the six other experiments that show gravity and Coulomb force propagating FTL in forward time falsify SR in favor of LR.

I prefer LR over SR because SR is not experimentally falsified. See details in my "Foundations of Physics" paper with Vigier.

Why do you keep avoiding the question about your own position? -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jan</i>
<br />how do relativists explain the GPS clock slowing from an SR perspective? How do relativists justify the correction of the orbiting clock only, despite the symmetry of SR? One would expect that the clock in orbit is equally justified to increase the ticking rate of the earth bound clock due to its motion relative to the earth bound clock?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">SR is based on two postulates. They are not testable, but must simply be adopted if SR is right. If those postulates are enforced on GPS, then SR "works" as advertized -- but at a horrible cost.

Specifically, suppose we do not correct clock rates before launch, and do not use the Earth-centered inertial frame as a preferred frame. Then for each satellite-receiver pair, we must determine clock corrections that will make the speed of light the same in both directions. (Such corrections can always be found.) Under those conditions, the instantaneous co-moving satellite inertial frame and the instantaneous co-moving receiver inertial frame will behave like any two classical inertial frames, with each seeing the other's clocks ticking slower.

The "horrible cost" is that clock corrections would be different for each satellite-receiver pair, and would be time variable even for a single pair. So GPS would become impractical to operate. But technically, this does not falsify SR. It merely illustrates the relative simplicity of LR. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jan</i>
<br />how do relativists explain the GPS clock slowing from an SR perspective? How do relativists justify the correction of the orbiting clock only, despite the symmetry of SR? One would expect that the clock in orbit is equally justified to increase the ticking rate of the earth bound clock due to its motion relative to the earth bound clock?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">SR is based on two postulates. They are not testable, but must simply be adopted if SR is right. If those postulates are enforced on GPS, then SR "works" as advertized -- but at a horrible cost.

Specifically, suppose we do not correct clock rates before launch, and do not use the Earth-centered inertial frame as a preferred frame. Then for each satellite-receiver pair, we must determine clock corrections that will make the speed of light the same in both directions. (Such corrections can always be found.) Under those conditions, the instantaneous co-moving satellite inertial frame and the instantaneous co-moving receiver inertial frame will behave like any two classical inertial frames, with each seeing the other's clocks ticking slower.

The "horrible cost" is that clock corrections would be different for each satellite-receiver pair, and would be time variable even for a single pair. So GPS would become impractical to operate. But technically, this does not falsify SR. It merely illustrates the relative simplicity of LR. -|Tom|-

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Why do you say that Sr's postulates are not testable but we can assume them to synchronize the GPS clocks? That's like saying gravity is not testable but we can assume it when we drop something from a tower. Aren't you testing the postulates by doing the synchronization?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by 1234567890</i>
<br />Why do you say that Sr's postulates are not testable but we can assume them to synchronize the GPS clocks? That's like saying gravity is not testable but we can assume it when we drop something from a tower. Aren't you testing the postulates by doing the synchronization?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">A more representative analogy would be all of us agreeing to synchronize our watches by simultaneously setting them to 10:00 p.m., even though we have no idea what time it really is. SR postulates are like the assumption that our starting time is really 10 p.m. We can adopt them and use them even if they do not represent reality.

In GPS, given two different ways to synchronize the clocks (LR's way and SR's way), no test is available to determine that either method is "wrong". We can only say that LR's way is simpler. Only something propagating FTL in forward time is beyond what SR can explain with any possible synchronization. But GPS does not offer anything new in that regard that is not already offered more accurately in other experiments. -|Tom|-