[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.

[Bored chemist]

This time you're right,

And this time

And you have introduced the word "vector" for no reason.

And this time

Did you realise that you changed it to something meaningless?

But it took a few repetitions before you noticed you were making a fool of yourself about that.
I wonder how many it will take before you realise that the same is true of the whole of your post.

[Bored chemist]

How about this quote?

OK

To offset these two effects, the GPS engineers reset the clock rates, slowing them down before launch by 39,000 nanoseconds a day.

GPS works because the engineers took relativity into account.

You just proved my point.

[Centra (OP)]

This time you're right,

And this time

And you have introduced the word "vector" for no reason.

And this time

Did you realise that you changed it to something meaningless?

But it took a few repetitions before you noticed you were making a fool of yourself about that.
I wonder how many it will take before you realise that the same is true of the whole of your post.

Probably plenty. Just because I put a redundant word in doesn't make the whole thing wrong. The basis of my theory is that you can't have velocity in one frame just by seeing it in another and, therefore, an example is how Einstein's thought experiments wrongly identified something as velocity which was not.

[Centra (OP)]

How about this quote?

OK

To offset these two effects, the GPS engineers reset the clock rates, slowing them down before launch by 39,000 nanoseconds a day.

GPS works because the engineers took relativity into account.

You just proved my point.

I don't know, maybe in a way, but why didn't they have to keep adjusting it regularly? I'll have to look into it more anyway. BUT why was SR wrong about the Sagnac effect? That's still not resolved?

[Centra (OP)]

Say we added a fixed amount energy to stationary object. It achieves a final known velocity. All  relative frames of references, to that original frame, will not be valid when doing an energy balance. Relative velocity may work for velocity, but energy is not relative, since it is part of a universal energy balance.

Interesting points. You can flip the frames as if the other is the one moving, but one of the frames actually put energy into creating the motion and the other didn't. Does it make a difference in some way? I don't know, something to ponder.

[Bored chemist]

BUT why was SR wrong about the Sagnac effect? That's still not resolved?

Because SR only covers "special " cases where there's no acceleration.
GR is more "general", and does cover it.
Were you not aware of that?

[Bored chemist]

Interesting points.

But wrong.
PP isn't good at science.

[Centra (OP)]

BUT why was SR wrong about the Sagnac effect? That's still not resolved?

Because SR only covers "special " cases where there's no acceleration.
GR is more "general", and does cover it.
Were you not aware of that?

No, What do you think, I read everything in existence? I just started this physics theorizing thing recently because I watched some YouTube videos about Einstein thought experiments. I may just give up on it eventually, it's possible it's not actually valid. It was just something to put out there and see where it leads.

[Centra (OP)]

Interesting points.

But wrong.
PP isn't good at science.

Maybe, but he's not offensive. I prefer people who are not good at science but non-offensive over people who are good at science but offensive any day. He's doing some creative thinking and not bothering anybody so why do you feel compelled to say that?

[Bored chemist]

Interesting points.

But wrong.
PP isn't good at science.

Maybe, but he's not offensive. I prefer people who are not good at science but non-offensive over people who are good at science but offensive any day. He's doing some creative thinking and not bothering anybody so why do you feel compelled to say that?

This is a science site. Turning up and posting tosh is offensive.

[Centra (OP)]

Interesting points.

But wrong.
PP isn't good at science.

Maybe, but he's not offensive. I prefer people who are not good at science but non-offensive over people who are good at science but offensive any day. He's doing some creative thinking and not bothering anybody so why do you feel compelled to say that?

This is a science site. Turning up and posting tosh is offensive.

Well it's true that it wouldn't matter about the energy used for the motion in regard to flipping the frame considered to be in motion, but I can see how a person might think it possibly could. It does indicate that he was doing some abstract thinking, it just didn't happen to take a path which is likely to be shown to be correct. It was unique though, I hadn't thought of anything like that before so it was worth reading.

[Bored chemist]

Energy was never conserved from one frame to another.
From the point of view of an ant on a cricket ball, it has practically no KE. But the batsman won't see it that way.

[Centra (OP)]

In regard to GPS, the satellites are not in uniform motion in a straight line, they are the same as being on the perimeter of a rotating disc of radius 26,578.1 km, which is earth radius plus altitude. As Sagnac experiments have established, Sagnac effect does not conform to Special Relativity predictions, it's actually about 10x greater. So how could Special Relativity accurately apply to GPS clocks?

To obtain the straight line motion of a satellite relative to a particular point on the earth, like a ground station, you would have to connect a straight line from that station to a satellite and observe how the length of that line changes as the satellite orbits. It would be equivalent to the satellite starting directly above the ground station, or as close as it ever gets to directly above it in its path, then moving away from the ground station, until it gets on the exact opposite side of the earth from it, and then moving back toward it until it gets directly over it again. That's not the motion that is used in any of the calculations attributed to GPS in any article I've seen, they use the angular velocity around the center of the earth instead, which only works with the Sagnac equations, not the Special Relativity ones.

This shows that the whole thing is bogus. I suppose the reason it worked even though they used the completely wrong calculation is that, if Special Relativity is even valid, the effect is actually so slight that nobody would notice it anyway. How else could it work when I just explained how to find the actual straight line velocity from the ground station? That velocity also would not be uniform, but changing throughout the path, starting at zero, increasing and then decreasing to zero on the opposite side if the earth and then repeating the process in the other direction back to the ground station. Think about it yourself by mentally doing as I described, connecting the satellite to the ground station with a straight line, which is the only way to determine the straight line motion relative to it. To aid in picturing the motion, just consider yourself to be standing at the ground station and keeping your eyes focused on the satellite's position as it orbits, as if you could also see it through the earth, what would you see it doing relative to you? It would be like a paddle ball with you as the paddle and the satellite as the ball.

Actually, come to think of it, it wouldn't even be like Sagnac, because the station doesn't move with the satellites, it would be more like Michelson-Morley or something, don't know offhand what to liken it to. It would be Sagnac in regard to one satellite orbiting in the opposite direction of another satellite in roughly the same path, but otherwise I don't know. I also don't know if Sagnac even has any effect on clocks, atomic or regular.

 I can describe one way that Sagnac would have an effect on two light clocks. If you had two arrangements of light source with light activated trigger of that light source on the back of it, and placed them both on a turntable in opposite directions, with the usual array of mirrors to direct the beam around, and used the triggering of the light blasts as the ticks of two clocks then one would obviously tick faster than the other. Would that mean time itself was passing at two different rates? Obviously not, the clocks are both on the same turntable which is in one time dimension, or zone, whatever term you want to use. This shows that light clocks can't dependably be used as reliable timekeepers in all possible configurations, because it wouldn't work in this particular one.

[Bored chemist]

In regard to GPS, the satellites are not in uniform motion in a straight line, they are the same as being on the perimeter of a rotating disc of radius 26,578.1 km, which is earth radius plus altitude. As Sagnac experiments have established, Sagnac effect does not conform to Special Relativity

What do you think is the difference between special relativity and general relativity?

[Centra (OP)]

What do you think is the difference between special relativity and general relativity?

General involves gravity and Special doesn't. The gravitational time dilation is only one part of what people say is the effect on GPS clocks. Less gravity supposedly speeds them up slightly while their motion slows them down slightly, supposedly due to the postulates of Special Relativity. They make the mistake of thinking SR would apply directly to that orbital motion as if it were straight line uniform motion.

[Bored chemist]

They make the mistake of thinking SR would apply directly to that orbital motion

I think you are the only one making that mistake.

General involves gravity and Special doesn't.

Well, strictly, it's any acceleration, rather than specifically gravity but...
The thing is that you seem to realise that SR does not apply to an accelerated frame.
And then you say there is a problem because SR does not apply to a thing that is in orbit and, therefore accelerating.

GR deals with the Sagnac effect.
Why can't you?

[Centra (OP)]

They make the mistake of thinking SR would apply directly to that orbital motion

I think you are the only one making that mistake.

General involves gravity and Special doesn't.

Well, strictly, it's any acceleration, rather than specifically gravity but...
The thing is that you seem to realise that SR does not apply to an accelerated frame.
And then you say there is a problem because SR does not apply to a thing that is in orbit and, therefore accelerating.

GR deals with the Sagnac effect.
Why can't you?

From your favorite information source, Wikipedia:

According to the theory of relativity, due to their constant movement and height relative to the Earth-centered, non-rotating approximately inertial reference frame, the clocks on the satellites are affected by their speed. Special relativity predicts that the frequency of the atomic clocks moving at GPS orbital speeds will tick more slowly than stationary ground clocks by a factor of {\displaystyle {\frac {v^{2}}{2c^{2}}}\approx 10^{-10}}\frac{v^{2}}{2c^{2}}\approx 10 ^{-10}, or result in a delay of about 7 μs/day, where the orbital velocity is v = 4 km/s, and c = the speed of light. This time dilation effect has been measured and verified using the GPS.

The effect of gravitational frequency shift on the GPS due to general relativity is that a clock closer to a massive object will be slower than a clock farther away. Applied to the GPS, the receivers are much closer to Earth than the satellites, causing the GPS clocks to be faster by a factor of 5×10−10, or about 45.9 μs/day. This gravitational frequency shift is noticeable.

When combining the time dilation and gravitational frequency shift, the discrepancy is about 38 microseconds per day, a difference of 4.465 parts in 1010.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System#Special_and_general_relativity

[Bored chemist]

This time dilation effect has been measured and verified using the GPS.

OK, that's good.
You now accept that GPS verifies relativity.
You asked for evidence to support it, and you now quote the bits of wiki that say that the GPS network is essentially proof that relativity works.

Do you recognise that, since relativity gives the right answers, your idea is either wrong (if it disagrees) or redundant (if it agrees)?

But it took a few repetitions before you noticed you were making a fool of yourself about that.
I wonder how many it will take before you realise that the same is true of the whole of your post.

[Centra (OP)]

This time dilation effect has been measured and verified using the GPS.

OK, that's good.
You now accept that GPS verifies relativity.
You asked for evidence to support it, and you now quote the bits of wiki that say that the GPS network is essentially proof that relativity works.

Do you recognise that, since relativity gives the right answers, your idea is either wrong (if it disagrees) or redundant (if it agrees)?

But it took a few repetitions before you noticed you were making a fool of yourself about that.
I wonder how many it will take before you realise that the same is true of the whole of your post.

Fine, maybe Einstein was right, at least in some ways. I'm actually bored with the subject now anyway. Thanks for the discussion.