Re: Lorentz Transformations and Selleri Transformations (what exactly does x equal?)
Cornelis Verhey
Cornelis,
Re: “As I understand it they run 7us slower due to orbital velocity and 45us faster due to the lower gravity. The overall result would be 38us faster if there where no adjustment made.”
Yes, that is the claim being made by relativists (LT/LET/SR/ST), but there is no reliable evidence of such an adjustment other than ensuring the clocks are stable and are of good quality. GPS reliability is only dependent on that. From previous discussions on the subject, what the GPS engineers claim is that since the system broadcasts the time stamps to be used to all senders and receivers in the system at intervals, there is no need for such prelaunch adjustments by 38 us.
Even using common sense, when you do 38 us adjustment pre-launch to a satellite clock, during its ascent into space and eventual entry into orbit, would those motions relative to ECI not have messed up your claimed prelaunch adjustment? When people want to tell lies, they should do better.
Akinbo
From: Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 6:52 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; googlegroups.com, relativity <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; AJ <andre...@gmail.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Lorentz Transformations and Selleri Transformations (what exactly does x equal?)Akinbo
As I understand it they run 7 us slower due to orbital velocity and 45 us faster due to the lower gravity. The overall result would be 38 us faster if there where no adjustment made.
Cornelis Verhey
On Thu, Jul 3, 2025, 11:11 AM Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:Hi Carl,As far as GPS is concerned, there is no pre-launch adjustment without which GPS will cease to function correctly. It is this claim that a pre-lauch adjustment (making GPS clocks run 38 microseconds faster than ECI) is carried out to ensure GPS clocks run faster than Earth clocks that is the indirect evidence that there is clock slowing in the satellite clocks.We once discussed the evidence against this claim, including checking up on various papers and manuals, but ended up with agreeing to disagree. I don't know if you have any other evidence to back up this claim of clock slowing.Regards,Akinbo
From: Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 4:26 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>
Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; AJ <andre...@gmail.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Lorentz Transformations and Selleri Transformations (what exactly does x equal?)Hi Akinbo,
Before we part ways on this, I'd like to employ an analogy in an effort to appeal to your philosophical nature.
Going back to the boat on a lake, when the boat is under power (moving across the lake's surface), it creates a wake. The size of the wake is related to the speed of the boat, just as the amount of process slowing a moving particle of matter experiences (as it moves through whatever the background is) is related to its speed relative to the background.
Small caveat: If you're not of the mind process slowing actually occurs, then Yes, this whole discussion is pointless.
What you argued below is akin to saying that the boat only makes a wake when it is moving directly away from a particular spot on the shore. If it's moving in any other direction, it magically doesn't create a wake. The boat could be clipping along at 30 nautical miles per hour, the the surface of the lake is as smooth as glass everywhere.
If you're on board with process slowing, but this is how you think about it, I'm flummoxed.
Kind regards,
Carl
----------------
On 7/3/2025 7:04 AM, Akinbo Ojo wrote:Hi Carl,
Re: “It's all about motion relative to the ECI background”
ECI background has x, y and z axis. Therefore, all motion relative to ECI background does not equate to the linear separation between two clocks S and S’ on a given axis, which is an essential requirement for the transformation equations to come into effect. In the transformation equations, there must be separation between S and S’, which distance of separation is given by vt.
Therefore, if after a duration, no separation is observed to have taken place between a GPS satellite and ECI, and they both maintain a constant distance to each other, the physical situation is equivalent mathematically to vt = 0. I think we should agree to disagree on this point at this point.
Re: “Our discussion, however, ignores gravity and its effects.”
What effects are you referring to?
Regards,
Akinbo
From: Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2025 5:08 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>
Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; AJ <andre...@gmail.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Lorentz Transformations and Selleri Transformations (what exactly does x equal?)Hi Akinbo,
I tossed out SR simply because it does not claim/utilize a background, not that it doesn't incorporate gamma. The ECI is a background. SR doesn't recognize it.
My browser prevented me from going to your link. Thinks it's unsafe. As for the Pythagorean derivation of gamma, do you mean like this youtube video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67xr6EZEYV8
If so, then perhaps you're not understanding how I mean, "How v was arrived at is of no consequence." All I mean is that when you use the formula, you plug in a value for v. It can be anything from zero to c. How you determine what particular value gets plugged in doesn't affect/alter the resulting factor. What value you plug in directly affects the resulting factor. How you determined what value to plug in doesn't.
You wrote: you say that the clock (t) to which the GPS satellite clock (t’) is synchronized is all the clocks “within ECI”
Where did I say that? I explicitly said I was talking about tick rates, not synchronization. Synchronization requires more. It's more involved.
Clocks on Earth's mean sea level surface (at differing latitudes) all tick at the same rate. Earth is a slightly oblate spheroid, due to its rotation. That combined with the effects of gravity results in them all ticking at the same rate. Our discussion, however, ignores gravity and its effects. We are confining ourselves to the effects of motion only relative to the ECI background. Therefore, ignoring the effects of gravity, clocks at differing latitudes would all tick at different rates. (Note that any clocks on Earth's axis of rotation would all tick at the same rate as each other.)
It's all about motion relative to the ECI background.
Kind regards,
Carl
---------------
On 7/2/2025 2:49 AM, Akinbo Ojo wrote:Hi Carl,
You may need to revisit how gamma (γ) came about and how this does not exclude any of ST, SR, LT or even GT. The only thing is that in GT, γ =1.
I was trying to see if I could send you a link showing its derivation using the Pythagoras theorem, but I couldn’t see one handy. But you must have seen it before. How ‘v’ came about is not in dispute in Selleri transformation and it is of consequence, contrary to what you say that, “How v was arrived at is of no consequence”. You may check this
https://www.hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/ltrans.html#c2
On your replies, I will narrow things down...
As you understand it, you say that the clock (t) to which the GPS satellite clock (t’) is synchronized is all the clocks “within ECI”, and not just the hypothetical stationary clock exactly at Earth centre.
Now, in your reply you say that the clock at the equator DOES NOT tick at the same rate as that at Earth centre due to its 465m/s motion “within the ECI”. This is sufficient to suggest that you may not fully grasp the dilemma involved in the time-dilation claims of ST.
With clocks within ECI ticking at different rates at the different latitudes on Earth surface, at the poles, and at Earth centre, to which of these clocks then do you synchronize the GPS satellite clock, since the GPS satellite clock cannot be synchronized to tick at same rate as all of the differently ticking rates?
From this consideration alone, I believe you should then concede that the clock to which the satellite clock needs to be synchronized IS the motionless clock at Earth centre. It is with respect to this clock that, given v = √(GM/r), the satellite is orbiting at about 4km/s.
Regards,
Akinbo
From: Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 3:57 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>
Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; AJ <andre...@gmail.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Lorentz Transformations and Selleri Transformations (what exactly does x equal?)Hi Akinbo,
I'll try to answer your questions. Regarding the overall ECI:
What are the boundaries of this frame? I don't believe that is known. Probably beyond the moon. However, the moon's "MCI" takes precedence in its vicinity.
Does a clock at the equator not rotate at 465m/s about the ECI? When you phase things this way ("about the ECI"), it makes me think you don't understand what the ECI is. A better (correct?) formulation of the question would be, "Does a clock on the equator not travel at 465m/s within the ECI?" And the answer to that question would be, Yes, it does.
If it does, is it stationary like the hypothetical clock at Earth centre? Based on the previous answer, it is moving within the ECI. So, No, it is not stationary.
Does the clock at the equator tick at the same rate as that at Earth centre in spite of this motion? No.
I find this statement of your bizarrely curious: The v in gamma does not even apply to orbital velocity. From the stringent methodology of limiting the application of gamma to "inertial" motion, I get where you're coming from. But when considering some background (which tosses SR out of the conversation), the only actual limiting constraint on the v in gamma is that it be a constant speed. Direction and the shape of the path followed are irrelevant.
To your Wikipedia reference, and this is a subtle yet distinct difference, if you are concerned with the time readings on two (or more) clocks, then the very linear x-axis approach provides a method for determining those. On the other hand (I bet you didn't know there was another hand), if you are only concerned with how two (or more) clocks keep time - that is to say, how their tick rates compare, then all you need is their various speeds relative to the background in order to determine that. My default mode of operation is in the latter camp.
My conversation with Dr. Gift was exclusively about gamma and how to use it - specifically with respect to tick rates. We agreed.
Kind regards,
Carl
---------------
On 7/1/2025 2:54 AM, Akinbo Ojo wrote:Hi Carl,
For a quantitative prediction, as opposed to a qualitative one, precision in the definition and use of terms is necessary and cannot be arbitrary.
Your “logical” use of gamma goes very much against this understanding.
To give examples, you use “the overall ECI”. What are the boundaries of this frame? Does a clock at the equator not rotate at 465m/s about the ECI? If it does, is it stationary like the hypothetical clock at Earth centre? Does the clock at the equator tick at the same rate as that at Earth centre in spite of this motion?
You say, “Straight, curvy, (S-shaped motion) doesn't matter”. Have you checked the starting premise upon which the Selleri transformation equations for time-dilation were derived? This is not different from how gamma was derived in others like LT, LET, SR which you say you may not care about.
You say, “How v was arrived at is of no consequence”. The v in gamma does not even apply to orbital velocity. So, if we give a concession and apply it, then you simply substitute v^2 = GM/r in gamma to get, 1/(1-GM/rc^2)^1/2, which is what is used in the GPS satellite vs ECI time-dilation claims.
To your save time, just see the first two paragraphs here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation.
Are you saying the words therein, which I embolden, such as “constant velocity relative to the former”, “velocity confined to the x-direction” are meaningless to your consideration? If they are, then let me borrow from Stephan, and admit that we should agree to disagree.
I am happy you had a meeting of the minds with Dr. Gift. Did that conversation end in agreeing to agree or agreeing to disagree?
Regards,
Akinbo
From: Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2025 10:22 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>
Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; AJ <andre...@gmail.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Lorentz Transformations and Selleri Transformations (what exactly does x equal?)Hi Akinbo,
For the purposes of determining the amount of process slowing (time dilation?) all that is needed is a preferred frame (a background from which to reckon all motion) - in the vicinity of Earth, the ECI serves the purpose - and the gamma formula. Plug in a value for v (the speed relative to the overall ECI), and viola! Gamma is the crux of all the theories you listed.
I suppose you could say it's my own theory, since it doesn't include all the other trappings of the listed theories. But, I didn't invent gamma. I just use it logically. About eight months ago, Dr. Gift and I had a somewhat lengthy back-and-forth private conversation on this issue. We ultimately came to a meeting of the minds.
Kind regards,
Carl
----------------
On 6/30/2025 1:47 PM, Akinbo Ojo wrote:Hi Carl,A brief reply first...I will like to know if you are describing your own theory or one of those under contention, i.e. LT, LET, SR or ST? If so, which one? This is because I can hardly recognize any of them in what you posted.Regards,Akinbo
From: Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2025 8:23 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>
Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; AJ <andre...@gmail.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Lorentz Transformations and Selleri Transformations (what exactly does x equal?)Hi Akinbo,
I see your stance as amounting to an academic argument against SR, and that's fine. I really don't care about SR. However, I see the effect (process slowing, time dilation, or however one chooses to term it) as real.
With respect to your highlighted sentence, specifically the "translational velocity 'v' along an x-axis" part... If you dropped/reeled a rope out of the back of the boat traveling in a back-and-forth 'S' fashion, and once the last part of the rope fell into the water, if you then stretched the rope taut, you have your precious x-axis. Notice the 'v' hasn't changed. Why? Because it's simply distance traveled over a time period. Straight, curvy, doesn't matter. You can do the same thing with an orbit. Whether it's a hundredth of an orbit, a quarter, half or full. Once you've reeled out as much rope as you want, grab the two ends, stretch it taut, and shazam, an x-axis. You traveled x distance in t time, and that gives you v - which, as shown in the next paragraph, is all that is needed. Simple, dimple.
Further down you cite the gravitational orbital speed equation, and focus of the r (radius) value. Where is the r in 1/(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2? There is only a v. It's the lone variable in that formula. All it cares about is v. How v was arrived at is of no consequence. So, No, not playing by SR's rules. Playing by the rules of reality, which means - according to your final sentence, Yes, it is logical to me to reference all of this relative to the overall ECI.
Kind regards,
Carl
---------------
On 6/30/2025 3:40 AM, Akinbo Ojo wrote:Hi Carl,
You are more welcome than most to defend the phenomenon referred to as time dilation because I know that your defence will be more likely to be based on logic and science than from a “religious” standpoint.
In LT, SR, LET and ST, as far as this claimed phenomenon is concerned it arises when there is a separation between two clocks at a translational velocity ‘v’ along an x-axis.
Because all calculations involving predicted effects are based on it, it is very important to understand and be clear on this ab initio, in order that when goal posts are moved from this starting premise a caveat saying so ought to be demanded.
If goalposts can be moved arbitrarily then predictions become unreliable and cannot be used to support any of the theories claiming time dilation.
The importance of claimed time dilation effects in GPS satellite and ECI is not based on reports claiming that such effects experimentally exist, but in whether such a claim supports the theories predicting it. I have in the past discussed with Stephan who is an advocate for Selleri transformation, a predictor theory for time dilation. Other than claiming that there are experimental observations stating so, he has not been able to show how ST predicts the claim, or repeating the same defences offered by SR, LT, and LET. And when he runs into difficulty, he either excuses himself from further explanations on the ground that he has been insulted, or says that he is tired of answering further questions, or just says let us agree to disagree.
There is no difference in the quantitative aspects in the three theories, other than that in the separation between the two clocks along the x-axis, while some theories like LET and ST hold one of the clocks as being the stationary/preferred one (S) and the other as the moving one (S’), in LT and SR, any of the two can be chosen to be stationary and the other as moving.
Coming back to your response...
Let us start with the FACTS. In the GPS satellite clock and ECI system, the satellite clock is orbiting ECI at ~4km/s, and at a translational velocity ~ 0km/s relative to a hypothetical clock at Earth centre. And it is based on the orbital velocity value that the time-dilation claim is based.
Let us start with two objections...
It should be clear that NONE of the theories claims as a starting premise that the prediction also applies to orbital motion, since this is not a translational motion, nor do they claim that all motions including those not on the x-axis are included in their starting premise. It is not for nothing that the y- and z-axis are not mentioned in the calculations. None of the theories says their premise also involves motion along the y- or z-axis. To then include what is not in the premise, not even as an approximation of the premise, amounts to goal post shifting. To then go beyond this, and even include that the time-dilation prediction also applies to motion in an “S-fashion” should not even be broached. And if inclusive, then the starting premises/postulates should better be restated to include all manners of motion.
Let us be permissive and for arguments sake overlook the first above objection and admit orbital velocity in place of translational velocity. The hypothetical clock CANNOT be located elsewhere other than at Earth centre because the orbital speed v is based on v = √(GM/r), and the r is not a distance from satellite to any other place on the Earth like its surface, the poles or the equator, but at exactly Earth centre. It follows then the satellite velocity v relative to any other locations is not 4km/s, and if time-dilation effect is still being reported to be of the same amount between GPS satellite clock and these other locations and the GPS satellite, you should be smelling a rat.
Because of the tiny magnitude of the time-dilation claim, and the fact that two clocks are being compared, and not GPS satellite clock vs. Many clocks, unless you are claiming that the velocity v of the satellite clock has no relationship with r in the formula, so that the value of r can be anything without affecting what value of v you will be using for prediction, then you may admit of “overall ECI” if that is logical to you.
Regards,
Akinbo
From: Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2025 10:32 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>
Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; AJ <andre...@gmail.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Lorentz Transformations and Selleri Transformations (what exactly does x equal?)Hi Akinbo,
Answer: "v" relative to the ECI.
It appears you are trying to deal with this in the realm of SR, rather than the realm of reality. In order for there to be, "no motion between a GPS satellite and ECI," the satellite would need to be affixed to the top of a 20,000 km pole at the North (or South) Pole. That would make it stationary relative to the ECI. But it's not stationary, it's orbiting. Therefore, it has a speed (v) relative to the overall ECI.
Consider a lake. The water represents the ECI. You are in a motor boat, cruising along at 20 kph (relative to the water). It doesn't matter what your heading is. It doesn't matter whether you are going in a straight line, a circle, or curving back and forth in an 'S' fashion. All that matters is your 20 kph speed.
Your contention that the distance between the center of Earth and the satellite doesn't change, is like contending that the distance between the boat and the water's surface doesn't change. True, but it doesn't have anything to do with the speed of the boat. And the speed of the boat (relative to the lake water - as a whole) is all that matters. By the same token, the speed of the satellite (relative to the overall ECI) is all that matters. The center of Earth is just a tiny speck of the overall ECI.
Kind regards,
Carl
----------------
On 6/29/2025 11:30 AM, Akinbo Ojo wrote:Hi Joe,If I may ask, if there is no separation between frames along an axis of motion, will there be a clock slowing effect? To be specific, there is no motion between a GPS satellite and ECI, and the two maintain almost the same separation distance on an x-axis, so what value of "v" (or x'), will you advise to use to check for any time dilation effects?Regards,Akinbo
From: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2025 7:03 PM
To: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>
Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; AJ <andre...@gmail.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>
Subject: [npa-relativity] Re: Lorentz Transformations and Selleri Transformations (what exactly does x equal?)Hi David,
I’ve attached a paper from Selleri. While the paper covers a number of topics, specifically to your question about the LT vs ST, the main difference is in clock synchronization. Selleri assumes that a “privileged” reference frame exists in which light speed is the same in all directions (see point 2.2 in the attached), and that light speed is not the same in all directions in reference frames that are in motion relative to the privileged frame. All clocks report the same “time of day” in the privileged frame regardless of their physical location.
The STs then assume that clocks in a frame that is moving relative to the privileged frame can be synchronized using the readings of the clocks in the privileged frame (not an easy task but conceivable). This eliminates the v * x / c^2 and v * x’ / c^2 terms from the Lorentz time transforms, which are present in the Lorentz transforms to account for the difference in clock readings along the axis of motion. Such a “spatial gradient of clock readings” in ST and LT is caused by the delay in light’s travel time when using Einstein’s method of sending light signals between clocks to synchronize their readings.
So the STs recognize clock slowing caused by movement relative to the privileged frame (“time dilation”), but eliminate any need to compensate for non-identical clock readings because the clocks in (a special case) of ST all report the same time of day.
Regards,
Joe
From: David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>
Date: Sunday, June 29, 2025 at 8:00 AM
To: NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>, HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>, r.j.an...@btinternet.com r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>, npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>, netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>, Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>
Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>, Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>, Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>, Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>, Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>, David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>, Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>, James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>, Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>, cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>, amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>, AJ <andre...@gmail.com>, rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>, ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>, Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>, John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>, jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>, Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>, Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>, Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>, Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>, Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>, Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>, Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>, Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>, Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>, Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>, Peter Rowlands