Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ken G
I see that you are indeed claiming that SR will be in error when compared with experimental results, I did not realize that you were making that claim. There is a wealth of observational data to the contrary of your claim. Take reciprocity-- experiments have been done with two observers in different frames, and sure enough their results are entirely understandable within the context of having the same concept of their relative velocity.
|
Please post ONE such example.
Quote:
|
Super accurate clocks on GPS satellites, compared to similar clocks on the ground, are an example of this. If there were a problem at the accuracy level you quote (5e-7), we would know this. Indeed, down to 1e-11 or better relativity works quite well (generalizing SR to include gravity).
|
The 5E-7 deviation would be detectable if done specifically to find it. GPS is hardly an example of how to find it in that GPS moves in a generally circular orbit and hence any absolute motion becomes +v + (-v) and nulls out of the accumulative data.
Not sure your understanding of GPS is accurate. The orbiting clock is prelaunch calibrated to a net decrease in tick rate by 38us/day. GR affects cause an increase of 45us/day while the orbit velocity affect would cause a 7.2us/day loss.
More importantly the orbit clock does not find the surface clock as ticking slower due to relative vleocity. Also, did the H&K pilots find their expectations (according to SR) that the surface clocks had accumulated less time than their airborne clocks?
FYI: GPS uses absolute motion of orbit by using the ECI frame (Earth Centered Inertial) as a referance. Further relative velocity gamma calculation of a clock at the equator vs the orbiting GPS results in -5.8us/day, not the emperically dervied -7.2us/day figure.
GPS is only correct because it does not use SR but uses absolute velocity of orbit to a preferred common rest frame the ECI.
Quote:
|
I'm really not clear on why, if we have v=d/t and v'=d'/t', that you wish to claim d=d' when that does not hold for either t or v. What do you think is so special about d, anyway?
|
It is not a matter of d being special. One would have thought "t" was special but data shows that is not the case. The point is taking an unbiased assessment of data and understanding there is no basis to conclude spatial contraction is real but in fact that it is more rational to believe that the moving frame will calculate a different velocity.
Have you actually taken a deep breath and a few seconds to consider the fact that the trip time is fully accounted for by the dilated tick rate of the clock being used to time the trip and therefore there is no physical room mathematically for contraction to have occured?
No, contraction, is clearly a mere mathematical construct based on equivelance of proper times between frames where such times are not universally equal. (That has been demonstrated by emperical data of moving clocks). It is an assumption based on the moving observer concluding mathematically d = vt' and not d = v't'.
One must look beyond this option and see what the consequences are. The consequences of the SR view are difficult to accept as reality.