Satellite testing of relativity (split from measuring distance to satellite)

[Bjarne]

Indeed, so far there has been no direct detection of gravitational waves. They have been implied by careful study of this energy loss. That is the energy loss is quite consistent with that expected to be carried away by gravitational radiation.

 

But the way we think we can detect these wawes is so fare not consistent with the theory

 

Easily if we cannot detect what is carrying away this energy.

Only if the theory is correct

 

In the context we are discussing it is a serious question. And one that is solved in the context of gravitational radiation, but we all accept that some other explanation would be needed if gravitational radiation is not realised in nature. So right now, the best explanation we have is that gravitational radiation carried away this energy.

 

Good to here you is open minded.

 

Absolute rubbish. If you have a theory that explains this energy loss and does not invoke gravitational radiation then please publish it. People will be very interested.

 

I am afraid the problem is that the price can be a little higher than many are willing to pay

 

 

Being quite blunt, given some of your questions here, I am not convinced of these flies!

Would the ruler change due to different influence of gravity ?

 

Here follows a thought experiment....

 

‘A’ live in the basement of a skyscraper, ‘B’ at the top of the same building.

 

Both have measured the time it took a photon to travel 13 billion. from the very first star and to us..

 

But A’s clock (deeper in the gravitational field) is as we know ticking slower than B’s clock.

 

B would argue that it took the photon one minute longer to reach us – than the time A has measured.

 

Simply because B’s clock is ticking faster than the A’s watch. The difference is in reality less, but it means nothing , its the same point.

 

We accept that the speed “c” is the same for both A and B.

 

When both A and B know the time and speed, A and B can only conclude that either the distance to the star that emitted photon is significantly different, which is utopia, because the universe is not likely to change shape depending on the observer who observes a process .

 

Otherwise, the conclusion can only be that A’s ruler (in the basement) must have changed (become longer) proportional to the stretch of time.

 

Only in this way A and B both can agree that ‘c’ is the "same" for both (even though ‘c’ is not comparable the ‘same’..)

 

Or what do you think ?

 

Don't you think such logical dilemmas prevent us from discussing rational ?

 

If logic thinking is against the theory of relativity, it is the logic thinking that is the problem, - never the theory of relativity.

And therefore a discussion is fast helpless stucked

[Strange]

 

because the universe is not likely to change shape depending on the observer who observes a process .

 

Except, we have discovered that measurements of both space and time (as well as many other properties, for example, energy) are observer dependent.

 

Your discomfort with the way the universe works is not very relevant.

[ajb]

But the way we think we can detect these wawes is so fare not consistent with the theory

I do not think there is any fundamental problem with the experiments not yet getting a clear signal of gravitational radiation. We will have to wait and see what happens over the next few years.

 

 

 

Would the ruler change due to different influence of gravity ?[/size]

I am not sure there is a meaningful way to answer that. I mean do you propose to check what happens to a ruler?

 

The notion of time dilation in the context of the Schwarzschild solution (and maybe similar solution) makes sense due to the time translational invariance of the solution. There is no such thing for spacial translations and so I am unsure how you could meaningfully define 'gravitational length contraction'.

 

Also, as we always have local inertial frames any local experiment would just yield the standard results of special relativity. In particular, the rules looks the same length to any observer (locally) at rest with respect to the ruler.

 

 

If logic thinking is against the theory of relativity, it is the logic thinking that is the problem, - never the theory of relativity.[/size]

This is a false statement. We can apply logic but if our premises are wrong the conclusions we draw are also likely to be wrong.

 

What you need to do is preform calculations of observables in general relativity and then show that the predictions do not match the observations. Otherwise your objections are just philosophical or worse just based on misunderstandings in the first place.

[imatfaal]

 

But the way we think we can detect these wawes is so fare not consistent with the theory

 

Only if the theory is correct

 

Good to here you is open minded.

 

I am afraid the problem is that the price can be a little higher than many are willing to pay

 

 

Would the ruler change due to different influence of gravity ?

 

Here follows a thought experiment....

 

‘A’ live in the basement of a skyscraper, ‘B’ at the top of the same building.

 

Both have measured the time it took a photon to travel 13 billion. from the very first star and to us..

 

But A’s clock (deeper in the gravitational field) is as we know ticking slower than B’s clock.

 

B would argue that it took the photon one minute longer to reach us – than the time A has measured.

 

Simply because B’s clock is ticking faster than the A’s watch. The difference is in reality less, but it means nothing , its the same point.

 

We accept that the speed “c” is the same for both A and B.

 

When both A and B know the time and speed, A and B can only conclude that either the distance to the star that emitted photon is significantly different, which is utopia, because the universe is not likely to change shape depending on the observer who observes a process .

 

Otherwise, the conclusion can only be that A’s ruler (in the basement) must have changed (become longer) proportional to the stretch of time.

 

Only in this way A and B both can agree that ‘c’ is the "same" for both (even though ‘c’ is not comparable the ‘same’..)

 

Or what do you think ?

 

Don't you think such logical dilemmas prevent us from discussing rational ?

 

If logic thinking is against the theory of relativity, it is the logic thinking that is the problem, - never the theory of relativity.

And therefore a discussion is fast helpless stucked

 

 

 

You are confused again - measurements of c in GR are local; this is what is invariant. Calculations of the speed of travel of a signal - ie light travelling a calculated finite distance outside a local area of the measurer can vary.

[Bjarne]

A video that points out the GR is classical and not quantum, and places limits on it, just like any theory.

The video shows quantum relativity make the problem "infinity" worse

 

 

 

What are these other theories?

 

To be honest it’s much too early to discuss that right now, -. based on the last weeks experience here at the forum, - because this a consequences of a consequence, and must be discussed in the educational right order

 

 

 

If you can find an experimental reason to modify relativity, show it to us. If you have such a modification, present it. You mention the Lorentz transforms having different consequences, but you stop short of saying precisely what these are. IOW, all blather and no science.

 

In a different thread last week I already explained it

 

1.

ISS and Galileo 5 and 6, - will all be used for scientific test measurements , which will result in evidence, - that verifys that SR only can be understood correct in an absolute motion reference frame, and hence that SR must be modified. The current interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment is wrong. The result of the ISS test will be time dilation that SR cannot account for..

 

2.

In addition to that, the same test measurements can deliver the hard evidence that proves that both ISS and Galileo 5 and 6 are losing altitude that the theory of relativity or perturbation (etc.) cannot account for.

This will demonstrate both that an unknown speed depending braking force must exist, responsible for all perihelion precession anomalies that applies for all elliptical orbits , included Mercury’s Perihelion precession anomaly.

 

Therefore we shall sooner or later expect that 2 major aspect of the theory of relativity must be modified.

 

Unfortunately I cannot find much data release from ESA regarding Galileo 5 and 6, orbits, - such as altitude elliptic inclination or orbit inclination, but estimation can easy be made already, based on the available data, to demonstrate this mathematical.

 

I know time dilation test will be measured on both ISS and the Galileo. I assume and hope that orbit stability also will be measured.

If this is the case we are now in a countdown period that soon mean goodbye to the idea that GR is the cause of gravity.

It is all so naturally to understand these predictions, but I have a strong feeling that even though it’s a huge theory behind these statement, - that not violate any theory or aspect of any theory, that is supported by hard evidence, - new thought is automatically rejected as utopia, because Einstein cannot be wrong. This is a shame..

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry … There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. Our political life is also predicated on openness. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think, free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress.

You are confused again - measurements of c in GR are local; this is what is invariant. Calculations of the speed of travel of a signal - ie light travelling a calculated finite distance outside a local area of the measurer can vary.

So you are saying that A and B's ruler both are comparable the same length, if we assume they could compare them even though they are at different gravity altitude.

Or are you saying the stretch of time happens propotional to the stretch of the ruller ?

Or are you saying, we don't know ?

Edited January 21, 2016 by Bjarne

[ajb]

Or are you saying, we don't know ?

 

Are you suggesting that a ruler will change is observed length depending on where it sits in a gravitational well?

 

If so, try to calculate something meaningful in the Schwarzschild geometry. The general claim is that, although you can calculate various things, none of these really corresponds to a meaningful notion of 'gravitational length contraction'. Thus, we are a bit confused by what you mean by the 'stretch of the ruler'. You will have to define the notion carefully and argue that it has some physical meaning.

[swansont]

The video shows quantum relativity make the problem "infinity" worse

Yes. It's a limitation of GR — it doesn't work on very small scales. Works great in other situations. Just like other theories, it has its limits of applicability.

 

 

You're still dodging the question about the parts of GR that are accepted just because Einstein said so.

 

To be honest it’s much too early to discuss that right now, -. based on the last weeks experience here at the forum, - because this a consequences of a consequence, and must be discussed in the educational right order

So, as ajb noted, this implies these are not theories out there in published form.

 

In a different thread last week I already explained it

 

1.

Both ISS and Galileo 5 and 6 scientific test measurements will deliver the hard measurable evidence, - that verifys that SR only can be understood correct in an absolute motion reference frame, and hence that SR must be modified. The current interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment is wrong. The result of the ISS test will be time dilation that SR cannot account for..

And yet you still have not presented any kind of equations, calculations or numerical results that we could compare with existing systems. We have to just take your word that new results will show your idea to be right.

 

Why won't you present the predictions for the Galileo satellites, and do the same for the GPS system?

 

 

 

Therefore we shall sooner or later expect that 2 major aspect of the theory of relativity must be modified.[/size]

 

Unfortunately I cannot find much data release from ESA regarding Galileo 5 and 6, orbits, - such as altitude elliptic inclination or orbit inclination, but estimation can easy be made already, based on the available data, to demonstrate this mathematical.

Then stop stalling and do it. Do it for GPS as well, whose orbits are pretty well known. Enough with the assurances that something big is going to happen. What are your predictions?

[Bjarne]

Yes. It's a limitation of GR — it doesn't work on very small scales. Works great in other situations. Just like other theories, it has its limits of applicability.

 

Agree

 

 

You're still dodging the question about the parts of GR that are accepted just because Einstein said so.

 

These aspect of relativity that we soon will understand was wrong.

 

Let’s say that in 2018 we know...

 

1. SR can only be correct understood in a absolution dark flow motion reference frame.

2. The cause of Mercury’s Perihelion Anomalies is now evidently solved, whereby the cause of gravity is still a force and only a force as Sir Isaac Newton through it to be, Einstein did not solve the cause of gravity.

This should answer your question.

 

So, as ajb noted, this implies these are not theories out there in published form.

 

Depend what you mean by "published form"

And yet you still have not presented any kind of equations, calculations or numerical results that we could compare with existing systems. We have to just take your word that new results will show your idea to be right.

 

Time dilation is easy.

But the 2 Galileo orbits is due to the elliptic orbits good to show the speed braking force is in action.

This need complicated and time consuming calculations, because the 'period' will interact with the already existing acceleration and deceleration period all orbit have.

Furthermore ESA have released vey little data. And finnally will ESA at all test orbit stability ? - if not time can easy be wasted ?

 

 

Why won't you present the predictions for the Galileo satellites, and do the same for the GPS system?

 

I refer to what I just wrote above; I can do estimations, no problem.

But as you can test yourself little data are available.

I think that because GPS have daily time synchronizing going on, it is simply impossible to trace any dilation anomaly

Because it will then be necessary to have all the adjustment ESA does available, and that will be a gigantic work to put together again.

This is why I many time have pointed out that 100% scientific test must have first priority.

Waste of time can easy be an option.

 

 

 

Then stop stalling and do it. Do it for GPS as well, whose orbits are pretty well known. Enough with the assurances that something big is going to happen. What are your predictions?

I refer to the 2 last replies above.

You have to be patient.

 

Are you suggesting that a ruler will change is observed length depending on where it sits in a gravitational well?

 

If so, try to calculate something meaningful in the Schwarzschild geometry. The general claim is that, although you can calculate various things, none of these really corresponds to a meaningful notion of 'gravitational length contraction'. Thus, we are a bit confused by what you mean by the 'stretch of the ruler'. You will have to define the notion carefully and argue that it has some physical meaning.

The question is rather how will the universe looks like, the day after the modification of the theory of relativity.

Here is my guess….

Space is correctly a strange elastic 'substance', wonderful illustrated by the rubber sheet from the schools science lesson.

To really to understand what is left from GR and SR it will be necessary to add to the theory, that the ruler is always stretching proportional with time. (This is what a simple the thought experiment mentioned above seems to shows)..

This means that deep inside a field of gravity everything is stretching proportional to time, also the size of our bodies, as well as every process.

The same relativistic transformation happens due to relativistic motion.. It’s all about tension in space.

It will no longer be necessary to accept any irrationality based on wrong interpretation of SR; rather the universe and the theory of relativity will be much more simple and logical.

Furthermore there are no longer any conflicts with quantum physics.

The distance-contraction already predicted in the late 1800, - is therefore not real, what really happens is that the ruler expends as a result of larger true speed..

So as you see the GPS is still working, but as I wrote we shall expect orbit anomalies still not discovered, also in satellite orbits.

Furthermore, the braking force (RR) responsible for orbit collapse, is also responsible for galaxy collapse as well huge amount of mass (periodical) can collapse into the center of a galaxy of that reason., But we cannot see it very deep within, because the ruler as well all nuclear processes is stretching proportional to time. A process taking place deep inside a so called black hole, is created redshifted seen from our perspective, and to extreme extend we will only “see” radio waves coming out. No mysterious infinity event are taking place.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Bjarne

[Mordred]

Oh my what a load of crud. Completely incorrect. I've read some usupported Doozies over the years, but this one takes the cake.

 

You obviously didn't read my earlier post on what is spacetime. As GR does not describe it as some elastic substance.

 

That is a common misconception based on an analogy.

 

That statement alone proves to me beyond any doubt that your knowledge on GR is via multimedia literature.

 

Your length contraction mechanism describing the ruler includes no details on the different observers which is a premise in relativity.

 

I highly suggest studying the actual mathematics involved. Start with SR before advancing to GR.

 

The last post isn't even close to being anywhere near an accurate description.

 

 

Terms like tension in space etc etc is complete and utter garbage.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Mordred

[swansont]

These aspect of relativity that we soon will understand was wrong.[/size]

 

Let’s say that in 2018 we know... [/size]

 

1. SR can only be correct understood in a absolution dark flow motion reference frame. [/size]

2. The cause of Mercury’s Perihelion Anomalies is now evidently solved, whereby the cause of gravity is still a force and only a force as Sir Isaac Newton through it to be, Einstein did not solve the cause of gravity.[/size]

[/size]

This should answer your question. [/size]

SR is easily understood by many in terms of the invariance of the speed of light. To say "correctly understood" will require a model, which has yet to be presented, and evidence, of which you have posted none.

 

In what way is the above, or the advance of Mercury's perihelion, an example of a part of GR that's accepted just because Einstein said so?

 

GR actually gives the number, to a reasonable precision.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury

 

It's accepted because it gives the right answer.

 

Depend what you mean by "published form"

Preferably a journal or archive, but in any event something that could be linked to or referenced. If these sources exist, why won't you share them?

 

Time dilation is easy.[/size]

Then there is no reason not to share the prediction. Why haven't you done so?

 

But the 2 Galileo orbits is due to the elliptic orbits good to show the speed braking force is in action.[/size] [/size]

This need complicated and time consuming calculations, because the 'period' will interact with the already existing acceleration and deceleration period all orbit have.[/size] [/size]

Furthermore ESA have released vey little data. And finnally will ESA at all test orbit stability ? - if not time can easy be wasted ?[/size]

 

 

 

 

I refer to what I just wrote above; I can do estimations, no problem.[/size]

But as you can test yourself little data are available.[/size]

I think that because GPS have daily time synchronizing going on, it is simply impossible to trace any dilation anomaly[/size]

Because it will then be necessary to have all the adjustment ESA does available, and that will be a gigantic work to put together again.[/size]

This is why I many time have pointed out that 100% scientific test must have first priority.[/size]

Waste of time can easy be an option.[/size]

But time dilation for GPS is easy. So there's no reason not to share it.

 

 

I refer to the 2 last replies above.

You have to be patient.

I'm running out of patience. If you aren't going to present a model with predictions, you aren't following the rules. You need to make this a priority if you wish to continue the discussion.

 

The question is rather how will the universe looks like, the day after the modification of the theory of relativity.[/size]

This is getting ahead of matters. There's no point to discussing this until you've convinced people that relativity needs modification.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Bjarne, it's clear you have a warped view of how scientific methodology and theory development works. You've misunderstood many things our members are trying to help you clarify, and you reject that help in favor of your own caricatures of science. You claim our research is inadequate, it's shown you're wrong about that, but you never change the caricature in your mind.

 

Moved to Speculations. Please don't introduce your pet theories into mainstream discussions, you've been warned plenty about that. You're not trying to do anything mainstream here. Please report this note if you disagree, but don't talk about it here.

[Bjarne]

I'm running out of patience. If you aren't going to present a model with predictions, you aren't following the rules. You need to make this a priority if you wish to continue the discussion.

I already did in the previous thread we had.

But let me try to tell you more about the other principles.

I was asked also to show calculation for other satellites.

 

· It only makes sense to spend time on exact calculation for satellites we know will be properly tested for all kind of anomalies.

· It requires more data release from ESA, (or NASA if they too would have Scientific test going on) if any prediction must be 100 % exact.

· GPS satellites in action for commercial purpose are not suitable for prediction due to all the interruption of time and orbit that takes place.

 

Hereunder is which deviations I expect when Galileo 5 and 6 is tested.

This is to show a little more about the principles responsible.

I cannot find very much data released from ESA, no orbit data and also not whether orbit stability at all is tested by ESA.

 

So instead of losing a lot of time let me explain more about the principle how test can lead to the collapse of the aspect of relativity that claims that gravity is caused by the curvature of space.

 

It is not possible very fast to understand all the principle that applies to different kind of orbits or different inclination as well as different kind of directions,.

But let me mention one of the very central and important principle to be able to understand for example why the Earth doesn’t seems to be effected by RR and therefore have a stable orbit.

 

Orbits Predominantly Perpendicular Relative to the Dark Flow Direction (inclination 45 to 90°)

Astronomic objects following these orbits appear to be unaffected by RR.

However, this is not true. RR is a reversible 'elastic' property of space.

Thus, on the one hand, objects increasing its Dark Flow Speed will also feel an increasing RR

On the other hand, as the object is continuously changing direction of movement, a circular orbit is also an expression of equal movement away from a direction in which it was previously affected by RR.

In a completely circular orbit, Release of Retracted Potential Kinetic Energy (in short RRPKE) on the one hand and RR on the other hand equalize each other completely since these are equal, opposite forces.

 

But object following elliptical orbits is periodical following elongated path, and therefore following paths periodical dominated by RR, - because the loss of support from RRPKE..

 

Galileo 5 and 6 have 3 RR periods,

Two RR periods as just described above must be expected, - and one more when moving towards the dark flow direction.

The principle that applies for these periods are different but the effect the same.

None of these are supported by RRPKE. – All these periods are dominated by RR.

The influence on that orbitperiod with deceleration, - is deceleration increase, - and period with acceleration, - the accelerations is wakened.

 

If the satellite speed is let’s say 3km/s and the orbit period is for example 56910 seconds, - we can calculate the Lorentz transformation factor to be 5E-11

Let’s say a resistance period duration = 11000 seconds (the duration depend for 2 of the periods of the duration of the elliptic orbits elongated path (inclination)

 

The max achieved speed loss (for 1 period) is therefore for a orbit with low excentricity 0,00000055 m/s and the average = 0,00000027m/s

 

Hence 1 RR period can in this case cause an orbit circumference lost = 0,003 meter per orbit. Or radius lost 0,00047meter .

 

But the duration of the escalation effect in each period is different, because these will interact with the satellites deceleration or acceleration periods.

One RR period can therefore split up in 2 escalation periods, or 2 period can be united to one escalation period.

To calculate all this very precise, - computer software is very important.

 

But this is not my mission.

 

My mission is to show simple principle everybody can understand.

 

I did this in the thread last week too.

 

Thank you for your time everybody.

I have not more to add for now

As I wrote more principle can be read in my last thread.

This is enough.

Edited January 28, 2016 by Phi for All

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

Thread closed. Doesn't meet our minimum standards we expect from speculations.

Please do not reintroduce this topic.

You may appeal to have this thread reopened by reporting this post. You will be required to show an increased level of rigor (I'd suggest some calculations possibly for the gps satellites or if you really want other GNSS).