E7.3 - GPS Versus Einstein. Ask Us Whatever.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 чер 2022
- In this episode of the Ask Us Whatever Relativity series, host Joe Sorge shows that the GPS navigation system would fail if the atomic clocks aboard GPS satellites were synchronized with Einstein’s method. Such clocks must be adjusted to compensate for the relativistic effects of gravity and speed on time dilation, but they cannot be synchronized using Einstein synchronization. Joe walks us through the Sagnac Effect and the differences between Einstein clock synchronization and the absolute synchronization method relied upon by GPS systems and by coordinate universal time (UTC) atomic clocks. Joe makes clear that in the reference frame of the Earth, light speed is NOT constant if measured with atomic clocks that have been absolutely synchronized, and that Einstein synchronization creates the illusion of constant light speed in moving inertial reference frames; whereas absolute clock synchronization reveals this illusion.
#Veritasium #PBSSpaceTime #QuantaMagazine #Einstein #SagnacEffect #LightSpeed
If you enjoy the videos on this channel, please subscribe to Ask Us Whatever so you don't miss future episodes. You can revisit past episodes here or on our website.
View this video with transcript on our website askuswhatever.com. You can also access a variety of references for the video here: askuswhatever.com/episodes/ep.... - Наука та технологія
Fun fact: GPS used to have errors before they implemented Einstein’s theory of relativity. GPS would work and is working with Einstein’s theory of relativity.
Yes I agree. Einstein's predictions with respect to the effects of speed and gravity on the tempo of clocks were very intuitive and correct (to within very small differences). The phenomenon in this video focuses on the coordination of the settings on clocks in different locations, not their tempo. Special relativity addresses both clock tempo and clock settings. GPS adjusts clocks for Einstein's predictions with respect to clock tempo. But GPS had to reject Einstein's protocol for coordinating clock settings (not tempo), because that protocol produces clocks that report different times of day based on their locations with respect to each other. Such a coordination protocol complicates the GPS calculations and so they eliminated Einstein clock coordination from the system. Thanks
@@AskUsWhatever okay.
@@AskUsWhatever so, where did you get that info?
@@official-obama You can start with the references on the askuswhatever.com web site. The effects of gravity and speed on time dilation are covered on Wikipedia.
@@AskUsWhatever where?
this is the best video i ever seen about sagnac and the relativity, THank you!!
You don't need to make it that convoluted when you just use the modern 4D vector calculation methods.
I've been on a little bit of an astronomy history kick lately which obviously brings up the old idea of geocentrism and the ether. This has me curious, would this result be potentially compatible with a geocentric system which has a rotating ether?
I don't think so, because such an ether would have to rotate similarly with respect to our sun. And so the Eddington light-bending experiment would have turned out differently.
The frequency and wavelength are what determines time. Not the speed. Clocks in motion/gravity change the frequency of the light pulse hitting the detector causing the clock to run slower or faster.
GPS clocks have their frequency adjusted to offset the change in orbital velocity and gravitational affects. Those two values are never constant so the clock in orbit will never be synchronized with ground based clocks.
Way to go!
Makes perfect sense to me. Light speed doesn’t change, just the location of the target. And with thousands of satellites all moving in multiple different directions, they all have to account for the differences in receiving and transmitting of signals. fascinating stuff , keep up the great work 😎👍
The slowing of the clocks would then be directly proportional to distance instead of velocity
Thank you!
Supposedly, it was proven that the speed of light speed isn't constant and can be adjusted according to the density of magnetic fields, etc...and the speed of light supposedly could be adjusted and manipulated...
One thing to point out is that the reasoning presented is circular. Standard clock synchronization (which is the only synchronization that makes sense and is not "conventional") can only be performed by exchanging constant speed signals (either light or whatever). So if you assume that light speed is not constant you immediately have two logically irrefutable consequences: 1) Relativity is wrong. Period. 2) It does not make sense to synchronize clocks with light signals. This means that it is a sophism trying to prove relativity wrong by assuming that light speed is not constant.
Very interesting argument, and I have a good response. Special relativity is wrong (albeit a very close approximation at non-relativistic speeds) in 3 respects a) light can travel at speeds other than c, which can explain the Michelson Morley result, b) length contraction is an absurd, unworkable concept, and c) there must be a frame of reference in which light that is emitted by a source that is stationary with respect to such frame will travel at speed c in all directions relative to that frame; in other words, a universal, preferred reference frame. There is a benefit to synchronizing clocks with light if the source of the light travels at the same speed as the reference frame of interest. In other words, the source of the light is stationary within the frame. Then Einstein's method of synchronization will yield a "calculated" light speed of c in that frame, which was the desired result Einstein sought for conforming special relativity and Maxwell's equations. Einstein's method involved reasoning that was intentionally circular since he wanted light speed measurements to always be equal to c. He needed to rig the clocks to achieve this.
@@AskUsWhatever I meant that "relativity is wrong" is your best argument. All you add after that is, more or less, a non-sequitur. I'll explain to you why.
Let us assume that your explanations based on "absolute simultaneity" are logically correct and do not lead to contradictions (I am not asserting its incorrectness or correctness. I did not analyze them profoundly because I do not think they are worthy, and I am pretty sure of this because, otherwise, experts in the field would have long noticed and adopted the ALT).
The problem with your reasoning is this: by giving an alternative explanation you are in no way proving the incorrectness of the original explanation, i.e., relativity.
Anyway, I like your arguments because they invite us to analyze alternatives and they are more or less more convincing than other quack's ideas against relativity.
For instance, I did not know Allan, Weiss, and Ashby's paper. I found it very interesting. Note that their interpretation is contrary to how you present it.
Furthermore, your videos are nicely presented so congratulations on that!
So the speed of light is slower traveling eastward. Is that caused by the Earth's rotation? Does the speed at which the Earth revolves around the sun factor in as well?
Speed of light is still the same:) travel distance is different
Great video! Would you expand on the idea of "mathematics of lorentz transformation surplant reality"
Yes, but first have you seen Episodes 7.1? I believe it reveals one of the fundamental flaws in applying the Lorentz transformations to the real world. Thanks
AT 6:14, Einstein Special Relativity is a 2 for 1 type of deal or 1=2... however, you want to look at it. Einstein SR is the "have a cake and eat it, too" theory - 2 opposite ways occurring at the same time...fast and slow! Which one is it? Einstein SR answer: BOTH!
Bro you literally got laughed out of the relativity and especially quantum subject entirely. Go back to making UFO videos lol, that's your niche
@@andrewferris8169 **
Bro, did you figure out what is wrong with the videos I did? Can you explain it?
Don't worry...I'm still laughing at the people laughing at me.
*
@@itsbs Uhhhhhh, must I redirect you to our comment thread under your quantum video that I schooled you in detail on every point? You didn't even respond because you had nothing left. You forget? I can leave another comment on that thread to remind you if you have suppressed the memories lolololol
@@itsbs these desperate wannabe scientists are so amusing. Like, tell me where actual scientists, degrees, peer review, experimentation, and research hurt you......
@@andrewferris8169 **
Yeah right, I probably didn't respond because I get MANY responses per day on multiple platforms, so some of the notifications don't show up...just like this one! It took me 2 months to discover it.
So yeah, "schooled" ... I bet you think you "schooled" me... no question.
Has your theory been published in a scientific journal. Would love to see the original paper. Thanks for making the videos.
No I haven't sent it out yet. Frankly the arguments in this Episode 7.3 are old news. They were debated in the 1960s by two camps, one of which aligns with the notions that I am presenting, and the other camp was so devoted to preserving a certain interpretation of Einstein's theories that they began to reject the need to involve real clocks and real time concepts, and instead used the Lorentz transformations as a virtual shield against rational argument. Unfortunately the mainstream eventually sided with the Lorentz transformations because the mainstream mistakenly believed that the Lorentz transformations supported Maxwell's equations. But I suspect that the mainstream did so without realizing that special relativity and Maxwell's equations require clocks to be "rigged" in order to force the measurement of light speed to be constant in all frames. You'll see comments in the comment sections to some of my videos trying to deny that the Einstein synchronization protocol actually creates clocks that report different times of day in the frame of the clocks. I think this mainstream thinking is using the notion that if you cannot physically observe two clocks simultaneously in the clock frame, then the differences in their reported values are not part of your reality (due to the delay in the communication of information with respect to their reported time values). However this limitation goes away if we discover ways for communication that do not rely on signals traveling at speed c or we incorporate it into the communication protocols, as was done with the GPS system. Thanks
The is called WAAS (Wide Area Augmentation System)
Isn't GPS amazing! And to think that WAAS can allow planes to land at any airport, even without ground-based tracking equipment. Engineering at its best! Thanks
I must say, as an airline pilot, an instructor and FAA examiner, this is by far the best explanation of time and GPS technology. Thank you for this video.
Dude first of all Einstein is a hero. Second of all Einstein clock synchronization results in light speed being the same, but TIME ITSELF changing (you obviously knew that) so the same speed is not really the same speed.
Third, you are like if Spicoli from Fast Times became a Physicist (which is awesome).
Hah, all I need are some tasty waves, a cool buzz, and I'm fine! :)
Waiting for your complete reformulation of Classical Electromagnetism without SR.......
Yes it's coming. Need to get through the alternative model transformations first, which will be coming in Episode 8. Thanks for the interest!
@@AskUsWhatever you are telling me you are gonna reformulate classical electromagnetism without referencing magnetism as the lorentz transform of the electric force (charge density variance ect...), and still refuse to pursue peer review? Again bro, where is the nobel prize? You might be able to fool the "youtube educated" crowd, but please, at least try to challenge actual physicists.
@@andrewferris8169 Think about how fast electrons "flow" through a wire and then compute the Lorentz factor at that speed. And then ask yourself if that could produce the force of the magnetic field. Also length contraction requires the actual contraction of lengths. It cannot be a virtual effect., It must cause physical contraction of all objects within the space of the reference frame. So the nuclei and electrons would both be contracted equally in the wire. Thus no mismatch in spacing. When you really get into the details of special relativity, it falls apart.
@@AskUsWhatever The Lorentz factor is tiny, just like electrons and the ratio in speed verse the speed of light is multiplied by the charge which is enormous in a current carrying copper wire.
2. Who said length contraction was virtual? Also the nuclei are not in the same frame of reference as the free valence electrons, the rest of the copper atom stays stationary in the wire.
If lightspeed could be variable wouldn't that mess with like all of Maxwell's equations for the EM field? I just don't know if I buy all of this. I'd like to see any other physicist's take on these ideas tbh
Wait for Episode 8 where I show my alternative time and distance transformations. Light still appears to travel at speed c in any inertial reference frame in the alternative model as well. The difference is that clock synchronization is carried out (naturally) with respect to a universal, preferred inertial frame in which light truly travels at a constant speed, instead of an arbitrary "observer" frame. Thanks
@@AskUsWhatever that frame is only that which travels with the light. Any other static frame is going to show light which appears to slow down/speed up with respect to the varying spatial compression of the areas it is traveling through. While a universal time may be implied by local variances in the rate of passage of time, we run on that subordinate relative time affected by spatial compression and so does light.
@@jadedandbitter Are you referencing the effect of gravity on "space" when you write "spatial compression"?
@@AskUsWhatever gravity doesn't warp/compress space. It has no effect on space- that is cause and effect backwards. Rather, gravity is the observed effect of space warping/compressing. Saying "the effect of gravity on space" is like saying "the effect of tides on the motion of the moon".
Basically, when mass interacts with a gradient of warped/compressed space (and I use the word compressed because its more intuitive to understand since you literally wind up with more space in a cartesian volume than expected, like the Tardis) part of the mass travels through more space (and more slowly through time) than the other part, and that difference causes acceleration just like if you had applied the brakes to only one wheel of a car. That acceleration is what we see and call the force of gravity.
So, moving against rotation results in effectively shorter distance because finish line moves toward you. Moving along rotation means longer path because target is running away. With the same speed both ways, you arrive to destination sooner if move against rotation.
What’s so controversial about this?:)
And has nothing to do with relativity at all. Relativity, regardless whether one agrees with it or not, explains how two different observers perceive the same distance or the same time range. Does not talk about different distances for different observes that Sagnac was working with…
Why did this conversation say nothing about the Doppler Shift?
Because this guy is a clown whos in way over his own head lol
I believe his main issue is with how einstein forced/used clock syncronization based on unproven/baseless assumption that speed of light is always constant in any reference frame. I think he was trying to get to a unified field theory without getting to the bottom of things and potentially before the tools needed were developed. Maybe with Sorge's corrections someone can finally develop physics to be able to explain doppler shifts from velocity or halton arp quasar type objects(plasm physics area maybe)
Doppler will be coming! But first we will discuss the Alternative Transformations, Velocity Addition, and Slow Transport of Clocks. Thank you!
@@AskUsWhatever I found this very interesting. I studied IRFs in Dynamics and it was always said that the N reference frame for the point of the observer was important to establish to create coordinates and the equations of motion I believe. The change of the value of gravity and the effect of gravitational waves on time dilation is intriguing if I remember them being related correctly. I watched a Physics video that said gravity can not be separated from time and space and if the force of gravity relates to field theory and quantum mechanics then that would be interesting. I think you should mention the variations in the Earth’s magnetic poles even though they don’t happen that often. I thought your presentation was remarkably done and I look forward to doing some reading before watching your next videos on the subject so that I can more easily follow what you are saying. Physicists and Mathematicians for the most part model the future and your explanation got my mind thinking as an Engineering student. Thank you!
@@justinmcilvain5791 Well thank you for the feedback. I'm glad the video stimulated your thinking. I will begin to introduce more of my "alternative model" in future episodes which should provide even more stimulation of the imagination. I think there is no theoretical limit to how fast signals can travel, and that light itself travels faster than c when emitted by sources that are moving through space. Thanks
A rotating body is in a non-inertial frame of reference. It's pretty amazing how often you can conveniently overlook key concepts. It almost seems intentional. Are you short selling Einstein or something? Why are you so invested in this idea?
Hi David, yes I addressed your concern in the video. But the force of gravity is at right angles to the direction of light's path on the earth, so please explain why an east-west trip would take longer than a west-east trip (by exactly the time computed using the "linear" clock offset term) if the asymmetry is due to gravity. Unfortunately believers in special relativity dispense with the inertial-frame requirement when it suits them, but raise it as an objection when faced with a real challenge to SR. Looking forward to your explanation of the asymmetry in travel times. Thanks
@@AskUsWhatever Gravity is not the point. You are talking about light making a round trip. There is no closed loop path around the Earth for light. The entire premise is silly. If you want a circular orbit for light, you need a black hole, so we aren't even talking about SR anymore. I'll get back to you soon about this east-west thing.
I was going to bring in Thomas and Wigner precession, but the more I hear your argument, the more I think I don't need it. There is no reason to suspect that light speed is constant in an accelerated frame of reference, such as one rotating with the Earth. Your observations toward the end are generally correct, but they are in agreement with relativity. They are only in disagreement with your misrepresentation of what relativity means.
@@davidhand9721 Hi David. Light traveling through a fiberoptic coil essentially travels in a circular path (with lots of tiny zigs and zags in either direction). The difference in clockwise vs counterclockwise travel times in that coil is due to the difference in distance traveled. It is predicted by the clock offset term of the Lorentz transformations (in radial coordinates). Since only one clock is used to measure travel time in a circular path, we can detect the difference in travel times. But for one-way linear travel, we are plagued with how to synchronize the clocks at the beginning and end of the linear path. Einstein's synchronization protocol forced downstream and upstream travel times to be the same by creating an offset between the clocks. But the GPS system has allowed us to synchronize clocks absolutely, which has revealed that light travels at different one-way speeds in the moving frame of the earth. Thanks.
I completely agree. This guy is as bad as a Scientologist. The thing is I genuinely think he believes it
Was this a reason as to why the Nobel Prize Committee found relativity to be unproven?
Probably part of the answer.
BALANCE AND COMPLETENESS GO HAND IN BALANCE. Gravity is fundamental ON BALANCE. CLEARLY, quantum gravity is key ON BALANCE. CLEARLY, gravity cannot be shielded (or blocked) ON BALANCE.
Basically and fundamentally, there is no such thing as no “gravitation". Everything has to be properly, fully, AND CLEARLY defined and understood. Define “mass". You cannot. BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental.
E=mc2 is taken directly from F=ma. CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky !! Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE. GREAT.
You have to CLEARLY AND fully understand what E=mc2 means and represents ON BALANCE.
We want to understand the dimensions in a seamless (or balanced) fashion in relation to gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy (including what is E=mc2). Consider one AND three dimensional SPACE ON BALANCE. Consider what is the fourth dimension ON BALANCE. NOW, consider all of the following.
Consider what is E=mc2. CLEARLY, you have to understand what is a TWO dimensional surface OR SPACE ON BALANCE. c squared CLEARLY represents BALANCED acceleration in conjunction WITH what is NECESSARILY a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE, AND consider what is the speed of light (c) ON BALANCE. This CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. Carefully consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE. Great. Consider what is gravity AND E=mc2 ON BALANCE.
TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves (ON BALANCE) that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE; AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, it makes perfect sense that THE PLANETS (including WHAT IS THE EARTH) will move away very, very, very slightly in relation to what is THE SUN !!! ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE. Inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY, as this balances gravity AND inertia; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. GREAT.
By Frank DiMeglio
So......where is your Nobel prize lol? This isn't it bud........
Do they give a Nobel prize for fixing a flawed theory with some simple UA-cam videos?
@@AskUsWhatever they would if you actually fixed, gave undeniable proof, laid out a full mathematical formulation, backed it up with experimental verification, constructed a formal dissertation and applied it for peer review. Ya know......how everyone else gets their Nobel prize.
Andrew Ferris / Who gives a damn about No-bell prizes, peer reviews, fame, positions, and money?
Only idiots!
The issue is not about recognition of any kind.
It is only about the correct understanding of the real and true universal dynamic.
This is not user friendly, try a little harder my friend.
Agreed, this is conceptually difficult material.
This is not fair. He does a great job explaining the whole thing with high school algebra only. I haven't been this interested in relativity since university (15 years ago). The analogy with mechanical sound waves is also very good. The whole series is pretty understandable for outsiders with some background.
I agree with @tarcisiorodrigues9244. The video is clear and well done, I appreciate that. It is a shame it's pseudoscientific instead of scientific but I guess they truly believe it.
I've tried to watch a few of your videos but it's hard to listen to your arguments because of the passive aggressive attitude. Could you explain how you theorize synchronicity/asynchronocity actually *does* work, very clearly, instead of just saying "Lorentz/Einstein doesn't work" and focusing on that
Sorry that I've come across as passive/aggressive. The next few videos will illustrate how and why SR does not work in the real world, and how my alt model solves the problems. But the short answer to what I think you are asking with respect to Episodes 7.2 and 7.3 is that Einstein's method of clock synchronization "configures" the clocks to report different times of day (what I call a "clock offset", as can be observed simultaneously from a distance reference frame) and that this offset is responsible for making it appear that light travels at speed c with respect to a moving reference frame instead of its "true relative speeds" of c + v and c - v. Thanks
@@AskUsWhatever BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental. c squared CLEARLY and necessarily represents balanced acceleration---a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE in relation to what are E AND "m" (ON BALANCE !!). Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE. Hence, what is a TWO dimensional surface OR SPACE ON BALANCE is (CLEARLY) invisible AND VISIBLE SPACE in fundamental equilibrium AND BALANCE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE, AND consider what is the speed of light (c) ON BALANCE. Consider what is THE EYE AND what is the BLUE SKY (ON BALANCE). ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). E=mc2 is taken directly from F=ma. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. GREAT !!!
By Frank DiMeglio
BS.