Comments Regarding How GPS Provides Empirical Evidence Against Special Relativity

von Harry H. Ricker III 

Comments Regarding How GPS Provides Empirical Evidence
Against Special Relativity
Harry H. Ricker III
 
(Auszug aus einer privaten Korrespondenz, Juli 2012)  

I think that GPS demonstrates that there are the following significant arguments that provide empirical evidence against mainstream special relativity, thereby refuting it as physically valid science.

The first one is that GPS uses a physical definition of time, while mainstream science uses a metaphysical definition of time. The physical definition of time is absolute and is the accepted definition known as UTC. This makes the GPS system inconsistent with the special theory of relativity.

The second one is that in using a physical definition of time, instead of a metaphysical definition, the GPS system is based upon an absolute simultaneity of physical time. This makes the GPS system inconsistent with the special theory of relativity.

The third one is that the in GPS system the velocity of light is observer dependent in that for each GPS receiver the observed velocity of light is different and depends upon the earth rotation with respect to the receiver. That is to say that there is a so called Sagnac effect correction that is observer dependent, or dependent upon the receiver location. This makes the GPS system inconsistent with the special theory of relativity.

The fourth one is that the velocity of light is an absolute constant relative to the Earth Centered Coordinate or ECI reference system. This makes the GPS system inconsistent with the special theory of relativity, because that theory asserts that the velocity is a constant relative to different observers or GPS receivers.

The fifth one is that in the GPS system, the orbital velocity correction is executed by entering a satellite clock correction to the effect that the satellite clock is made to run fast by the same factor that the orbital velocity relative to the ECI causes the satellite clock to run slow. This is a correction of absolute physical time to keep the satellite clocks consistent with the UTC time standard. This correction is inconsistent with the special theory of relativity because in the special theory the correction is observer dependent, or depends on receiver location.

The sixth one is that the GPS satellite time correction validates the famous claim by Herbert Dingle, known as Dingle’s question, that it is impossible for clocks A and B in relative motion to both run slower than the other one. The GPS system demonstrates that it is the satellite motion relative to the absolute ECI frame that justifies the GPS correction that makes the satellite clock to run fast by the same factor that the orbital velocity relative to the ECI causes the satellite clock to run slow. This resolution of Dingle’s question that validates Dingle’s argument is not consistent with the special theory of relativity.

——————————–

Here is a brief discussion of the justification for my views regarding Einstein’s special relativity. The main fallacy of special relativity is that Einstein makes claims that are not empirically justified. In the case of the velocity of light he made a hasty judgement based on the Michelson-Morely experiment. In the case of the relativity principle he made an unjustified expansion of the relativity principle to electromagnetism. In both cases the empirical facts were not so overwhelming as to justify the metaphysical claims he tried to implement in his postulates. It is for this reason that his theory is false. He didn’t have real solid empirical evidence to justify his claims and this was not proper scientific method. Essentially his so called „postulates“ were based upon metaphysical speculations and not upon valid well tested empirical factual information.

The Michelson-Gale and Sagnac experiments have definitely undercut his claims for the light velocity postulate, and it is unlikely it would have been accepted if these experiments and been done prior to 1905. The current evidence, in particular the evidence regarding electromagnetic induction, argues against extending the relativity postulate to include electromagnetism. The GPS system definitely proves that the fundamental claims of relativity regarding the relativity of time simultaneity and constancy of light velocity are false. No one knowing the current empirical facts as we now know them would except his postulates if they were proposed as new ideas today.

Then there is the problem that the relativity theory is mathematically defective. This shows up in the numerous paradoxes, which arise from the incorrect relativity postulate. These can not be resolved in any physically meaningful way. The theory deals with them by invoking absurd excuses. The bottom line is that you can not solve the equations of relativity for any case other than a relative velocity of v=0. That means the theory is not applicable to any physical problem of relative motion.

Because relativity is pseudo-science, the actual facts which show that relativity is false and not a valid theory of physics are either ignored or dismissed as erroneous. When you try to explain why relativity is false you run into the pseudo-scientific mind set which rejects any evidence that relativity is false, as being false. Hence it isn’t a scientific discussion and is not worth engaging in a debate about, because you can fight pseudo-scientific beliefs with rational arguments. This is one of the defining characters of a pseudo-science.

Readers are urged to consult the details of my conclusions that are documented at the general Science Journal. The papers are available by clicking this link: http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals-Papers/Author/327/H.H.,%20Ricker%20III

 

———————————————————————–

Siehe auch vom Autor in diesem Blog: Empirical Verification of Time Dilation in Special Relativity

 

Die Kommentarfunktion ist geschlossen.