[Centra (OP)]

Under that definition, Einstein's "theories" would not be theories.

Einstein's works have been tested extensively, and found to be correct within the limits of experimental error.
They meet the definition as given in the wiki article.

Why say things like that?
Why be so obviously wrong?

I disagree, name the experiments. I just cited one that contradicted it.

[Bored chemist]

I disagree, name the experiments. I just cited one that contradicted it.

Are you serious?
For a start, sat nav works.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
So, essentially, you are disagreeing with anyone who ever studied the field.

I suspect the problem may be that you failed to understand this:

within the limits of experimental error.

[Bored chemist]

I have modified that par of the post to read "First I will give my definition of velocity: the quantification of motion based on the parameters of distance, time and vector.

Did you realise that you changed it to something meaningless?

[Centra (OP)]

I have modified that par of the post to read "First I will give my definition of velocity: the quantification of motion based on the parameters of distance, time and vector.

Did you realise that you changed it to something meaningless?

Okay, please define velocity.

[Centra (OP)]

Are you serious?
For a start, sat nav works.

Yes, I'm quite serious. Sat nav are rotating around the earth, which is itself rotating around the sun, therefore, the Sagnac effect is involved. The fact that relativity is contradicted by the experimental results of the Sagnac effect shows that the satellites cannot possibly behave in accordance with the postulates of Special Relativity. Those portable cesium clocks are simply not highly accurate, compared to large ground based ones, and they're affected by the Sagnac effect, they have to be corrected. It's just coincidence that those factors happen to be capable of being shoehorned into the Special Relativity theory if you fudge the numbers enough. I'll look into the subject more.

I suspect the whole thing is like the Hafele-Keating experiment, with the planes flying around the earth. It was carried out poorly and the actual outcome can be explained by the Sagnac effect. Consider this, the planes were flying in opposite directions at roughly the same speed for the same distance based on the ground based clock, so shouldn't they both be equally different from the ground based clock? One was not moving at a faster rate relative to the ground based clock than the other. They were in the air, which moved with the rotating earth, so it's as if the earth was stationary from the standpoint of special relativity, so why were there different times on the two plane clocks? That experiment was based on the flawed viewpoint that the atmosphere doesn't move with the rotating earth, which it obviously does. For such an experiment to be valid, it would have to be satellites outside the atmosphere, not conventional airplanes. Since there is not a constant east to west wind of approximately 1000 mph at the altitude that those planes were, the whole premise was invalid

 I also don't believe any of that other stuff on Wikipeda really confirms SR, because how could it when the Sagnac experiment conclusively disproved it? Scientists don't get funding by challenging widely accepted theories, they get it by flubbing experiments to make it look like those theories are confirmed.

[Centra (OP)]

Oh what's this here? Looks like GPS actually contradicts Special Relativity. So now I have cited two articles which state that the Sagnac effect contradicts Special Relativity, thus proving it invalid, this one quite modern. The Sagnac effect invalidates Special Relativity, simple statement of experimentally established fact.

Abstract – The implementation of GPS systems has allowed the understanding of important facts about the true meaning of time and simultaneity. In fact GPS has became a fundamental source for the understanding of clock behaviour and synchronization, through the considerations of the relativistic effects affecting it. Among these, a very important role is played by the Sagnac effect, influencing the clocks readings. The correct consideration of such effect is fundamental in every synchronization process where the receiver is moving with respect to the source. In this paper we show how GPS system demonstrates that the explanation of Sagnac effect given by the commonly accepted version of Special Theory of Relativity is not correct and the use of an alternative formulation based on Inertial Transformations must be used. This implies the adoption of a new synchronization procedure, the renounce to the relativity of simultaneity and a novel meaning of physical time.

The Sagnac effect in GPS, absolute simultaneity
and the new meaning of time

Luigi Maxmilian Caligiuri
Amrit Sorli2

And look how this other article states that the effects of gravity and time dilation aren't even a significant factor, if they even exist, so how does GPS prove they exist? Satellites don't move fast enough to show any significant time dilation effects, and if gravity affects time, it wouldn't even prove the other light related time dilation effects postulated in Special Relativity, could be two completely different things.

In an inertial frame, a network of self-consistently synchronized clocks can be established either by transmission of electromagnetic signals that propagate with the universally constant speed c (this is called Einstein synchronization), or by slow transport of portable atomic clocks. On the other hand it is well-known[3] that in a rotating reference frame, the Sagnac effect prevents a network of self-consistently synchronized clocks from being established by such processes. This is a significant issue in using timing signals to determine position in the GPS. The Sagnac effect can amount to hundreds of nanoseconds; a timing error of one nanosecond can lead to a navigational error of 30 cm.

 To account for the Sagnac effect, a hypothetical non-rotating reference frame is introduced. Time in this so-called Earth-Centered Inertial (ECI) Frame is adopted as the basis for GPS time; this is discussed in Section 2. Of course the earth’s mass encompasses the origin of the ECI frame and has significant gravitational effects. To an extremely good approximation in the GPS, however, gravitational effects can be simply added to other effects arising from special relativity. In this article gravitational effects will not be considered. Even time dilation, which is an effect of second order in the small parameter v/c, where v is the velocity of some clock, will be neglected. I shall confine this discussion to effects which are of first order (linear) in velocities. The Sagnac effect is such an effect.

THE SAGNAC EFFECT
IN THE GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM

Neil Ashby
Department of Physics, UCB 390.
University of Colorado.
Boulder, CO 80309-0390 USA.

[Bored chemist]

Those portable cesium clocks are simply not highly accurate,

Yes they are.
They are sufficiently accurate that they had to be set to run at the ""wrong" rate here on the ground so that they would run at the right rate when in orbit.
The extent to which the rate changes is exactly what was predicted by GR.
So, you seem to be denying reality here.

[Bored chemist]

I have modified that par of the post to read "First I will give my definition of velocity: the quantification of motion based on the parameters of distance, time and vector.

Did you realise that you changed it to something meaningless?

Okay, please define velocity.

"The velocity of an object is the rate of change of its position with respect to a frame of reference, and is a function of time."
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity

Why couldn't you do that for yourself?

[Centra (OP)]

Those portable cesium clocks are simply not highly accurate,

Yes they are.
They are sufficiently accurate that they had to be set to run at the ""wrong" rate here on the ground so that they would run at the right rate when in orbit.
The extent to which the rate changes is exactly what was predicted by GR.
So, you seem to be denying reality here.

Okay, supposing the portable ones are accurate, the GPS clocks are not adjusted based on GR, it's based on the Sagnac effect, which is what causes noticeable desynchronization, see the articles I quoted. That very Sagnac effect actually contradicts Einstein's theories so obviously if the GPS clocks were adjusted based on GR they would still be off.

[Bored chemist]

the GPS clocks are not adjusted based on GR, it's based on the Sagnac effect

No.
There are three main contributions. The Sagnac effect is one of them.
The others are relativistic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System#Relativity

Shouldn't you have researched this before telling everyone that they were wrong?

[Centra (OP)]

"The velocity of an object is the rate of change of its position with respect to a frame of reference, and is a function of time."
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity

Why couldn't you do that for yourself?

Because I didn't feel like it, that's why.

[Bored chemist]

That very Sagnac effect actually contradicts Einstein's theories

No.
"The Sagnac effect has stimulated a century long debate on its meaning and interpretation,[23][24][25] much of this debate being surprising since the effect is perfectly well understood in the context of special relativity."
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect#History

[Bored chemist]

What do you think "rate of change of its position with respect to a frame of reference, and is a function of time" is that is different from " the quantification of motion based on the parameters of distance, time and vector"?

That sentence does not parse in English.
Do you mean something like this?
"What How do you think "rate of change of its position with respect to a frame of reference, and is a function of time" is that is different from " the quantification of motion based on the parameters of distance, time and vector"?"

Well, that's easy.
The quantification of something is he act of measuring it, not the thing itself.
And you have introduced the word "vector" for no reason.

Basically, you took the right definition, and made it wrong.

As I said;

Did you realise that you changed it to something meaningless?

[Centra (OP)]

the GPS clocks are not adjusted based on GR, it's based on the Sagnac effect

No.
There are three main contributions. The Sagnac effect is one of them.
The others are relativistic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System#Relativity

Shouldn't you have researched this before telling everyone that they were wrong?

Shouldn't you stop using Wikipedia as a reliable reference?

The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein's general theory of relativity would seem to require - transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter - less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.

GPS AND RELATIVITY: AN ENGINEERING OVERVIEW
Henry F. Fliegel and Raymond S. DiEsposti GPS Joint Program Office The Aerospace Corporation El Segundo, California 09245, USA

[Bored chemist]

Shouldn't you stop using Wikipedia as a reliable reference?

No, Wiki is fine, because it cites references.
Speaking of references, you should try reading the one you cited.
Here's what it says.

GPS GR.JPG (132.28 kB . 623x800 - viewed 1034 times)

[Centra (OP)]

What do you think "rate of change of its position with respect to a frame of reference, and is a function of time" is that is different from " the quantification of motion based on the parameters of distance, time and vector"?

You couldn't understand that? Good, I confounded you, haha.

[Bored chemist]

What do you think "rate of change of its position with respect to a frame of reference, and is a function of time" is that is different from " the quantification of motion based on the parameters of distance, time and vector"?

You couldn't understand that? What do you think the following quote "rate of change of its position with respect to a frame of reference, and is a function of time" is... are you with me so far? That is different from this quote " the quantification of motion based on the parameters of distance, time and vector"? You seriously couldn't understand that? Wow.

Am I right in thinking that only one of us is a native speaker of English?

[Bored chemist]

the quantification of motion based on the parameters of distance, time and vector"?

Do you not understand that "vector" is not a parameter?
You seem to have put it in your definition, just to make it wrong.

[Centra (OP)]

Speaking of references, you should try reading the one you cited.

How about this quote?

At high altitude, where the GPS clocks orbit the Earth, it is known that the clocks run roughly 46,000 nanoseconds (one-billionth of a second) a day faster than at ground level, because the gravitational field is thinner 20,000 kilometers above the Earth. The orbiting clocks also pass through that field at a rate of three kilometers per second — their orbital speed. For that reason, they tick 7,000 nanoseconds a day slower than stationary clocks.
To offset these two effects, the GPS engineers reset the clock rates, slowing them down before launch by 39,000 nanoseconds a day. They then proceed to tick in orbit at the same rate as ground clocks, and the system “works.” Ground observers can indeed pin-point their position to a high degree of precision. In (Einstein) theory, however, it was expected that because the orbiting clocks all move rapidly and with varying speeds relative to any ground observer (who may be anywhere on the Earth’s surface), and since in Einstein’s theory the relevant speed is always speed relative to the observer, it was expected that continuously varying relativistic corrections would have to be made to clock rates. This in turn would have introduced an unworkable complexity into the GPS. But these corrections were not made. Yet “the system manages to work, even though they use no relativistic corrections after launch,”

https://medium.com/@GatotSoedarto/top-4-reasons-why-gps-doesnt-need-einstein-s-relativity-895cabc6e619

[Centra (OP)]

the quantification of motion based on the parameters of distance, time and vector"?

Do you not understand that "vector" is not a parameter?
You seem to have put it in your definition, just to make it wrong.

This time you're right, velocity actually is a vector, you got me that time. Yeah I put it in there just to make it wrong, to give you something to gripe about. Glad you kept bringing it up until I actually found out you had a valid point though, that did look pretty silly. I corrected it now.