[chiralSPO]

But the apparent speed of the CMBR is the same no matter which way we look at it. Velocity differs from speed in that it includes a direction. It looks to me that your reasoning would indicate that we are moving away from the source of the CMBR at roughly 368 km/s, but because the source is all around us, that presents a paradox: in which direction are we moving 368 km/s?

[Janus]

For example, Einstein suggested that if you put one clock at the North pole, and another on equator, they will have different time dilation and eventually show different time. Which I believe is correct. But nobody did that experiment. Because relativists very soon figured out it would refute relativity. You see..... those two clocks have no relative speed. Their distance is always the same. Their relative speed is zero. And yet, their passage of time is different. Showing that relative speed is irrelevant and only absolute speed of cutting the fabric of space matters. Clock on the equator travels faster, cuts more space, and hence it would go slower (after compensating for the gravitational effect).

Einstein made this prediction in 1905, and before he went on to finish his work on GR, which included gravitational time dilation.    Once you factor GR in and allow for the fact the surface of the Earth follows a geoid( it has an oblate spheroid shape due to its rotation), it turns out that clocks at sea level at the Pole and equator run at the same rate .

You argument just shows that you don't understand the difference between how to treat things in non-inertial frames vs inertial frames.  Assume for the moment that you had a perfect sphere so that we could ignore gravitational time dilation as it would be the same for both pole and equator.

 In this case,   you have two choices for which frame you want to work from.  You can work from the non-rotating  inertial frame, or the non-inertial co-rotating frame of the sphere.  If you work from the inertial frame, then you are rest with respect to the pole clock and the equator clock has a speed of v=wr relative to you, where w is the angular velocity of the sphere and r is its radius,  and you simply apply the Lorentz factor to the equator clock to conclude that it runs slow.
If you work from the non-inertial rotating frame, then there is no relative velocity between the two clocks, but there is a potential difference between them in the rotating frame that has to be accounted for and which predicts the same result as you got in the inertial frame. 

Just because you never got past the inertial frame treatment which deals with relative velocities doesn't mean that Relativity doesn't go beyond that.

But there's still strong propaganda that is making Einstein an artificial deity. And this makes me very angry. The false concept of relativity is stalling the advance of science. We should be focusing our money on detecting the underlying fabric of space, which is the absolute reference frame. We can call it "fabric of space" or a specific "quantum field" or whatever, but it's obvious that it exits. And if we find a way to detect it, that will be a huge breakthrough in physics.

But as long as physicists are discouraged from research because "Einstein said everything is relative and Einstein is God" and money for such research is blocked, we won't find it. Relativists are deliberately stalling the science to protect their god. Why don't they just erect the Church of Einstein, go pray there every day, and leave the rest of the science alone. Science needs research not dogmas.

Oh, please.   This view that science treats either Einstein or Relativity as sacrosanct is so off base as to be laughable.  Science is always pushing Relativity to its limits, looking for chinks in its armor.  If an experiment were to conclusively expose a flaw in the theory, it would bring excitement not despair to the scientific community, as it would open up new regions to explore.

As Janus already said, you can compensate for gravity and acceleration and still use SR for the velocity-based time-dilation.

Don't put words in my mouth.  I said that acceleration can be dealt with in SR,  How you do so depends on which frame you are working from.  It cannot deal with gravitational effects. For that you need GR (of which, SR is a subset)

 Which is exactly what they do for GPS and everything else. But with a twist. They omit "relativity" from SR. They use just the absolute rotational speed. And rotational speed is absolute, think about it and you'll see why. So... GPS refutes relativity.

All this proves is that you don't grasp what "relativity" means in this situation.  As I already pointed out, if GPS relied on absolute velocity, then the satellite clocks rates would vary due to the various motions of the Earth, Sun etc.  Since different satellites orbit at different orientations, The absolute velocities of these satellites would differ depending on how their orbital velocity added up to these other velocity.   The only way to make the GPS satellites work with absolute motion, is to assume that the Earth is the absolute rest frame.   But in posts above, you claim that our relative motion with respect to the CMB is our absolute velocity, which means that You can't make that assumption in your GPS argument.   
You are being inconsistent in your arguments, changing the assumptions depending on what you are trying to argue.

Whether this is deliberate, or you just don't realize that you are contradicting yourself, I don't know. 

In the Hafele-Keating experiment they also compensated for gravity and curvature, but it didn't help. The numbers were still off. "Einstein's Special Relativity" didn't work until they moved the observer from the military base on the surface, to the axis in center of the Earth. Then it worked. Because they eliminated relativity. From the center of the Earth the airplanes were moving at different absolute speeds (but not relative to the military base). Proving that absolute speed matters, not relative.

 

The experiment results were in agreement with what Relativity predicted for the three non-inertial frames involved.   Just because you can't see how this is consistent with "relativity" as you view it, doesn't mean that it is inconsistent with Relativity as it is understood in physics. 

In essence, all your arguments are based on an incomplete grasp of the theory. You are trying to claim that the bits you think you understand don't fit together. But this is because you don't have all the pieces of the puzzle that connect the bits you have, and thus complete the whole picture.

[Bored chemist]

But the apparent speed of the CMBR is the same no matter which way we look at it. Velocity differs from speed in that it includes a direction. It looks to me that your reasoning would indicate that we are moving away from the source of the CMBR at roughly 368 km/s, but because the source is all around us, that presents a paradox: in which direction are we moving 368 km/s?

Not quite
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#CMBR_dipole_anisotropy

[Bored chemist]

We need to compare two one-way speeds of light.

You keep saying that.
Why do you think it's true?
How did M and M get the MM experiment so badly wrong, and how did nobody notice?

[jeffreyH]

If there was an absolute frame determined by photons then you would be able to tell that an inertial frame was moving. Show me your experiment to measure this movement well away from a gravitational field.

[David Cooper]

There are several experiments that refute special relativity...

Most of the experiments you refer to do no such thing, not least because both SR/GR and LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) make the exact same predictions about the outcomes of all of them and render most of the discussion in this thread misguided in the extreme. However, the Sagnac experiment does lead the way to a proof that there is an absolute frame, so that has settled the argument for those who respect mathematics. The remaining problem is how to get people to accept that the issue has been resolved when they are so determined to back the wrong horse.

With Sagnac and MGP (Michelson Gale Pearson) we have experiments where light must be passing material at speeds higher than c relative to that material, and as soon as we have material with that property, we have a cast iron guarantee that some frames of references are making incorrect assertions about the speed of light relative to some material. As we extend the logic of this, we can further show that there can only be one frame that doesn't make any incorrect assertions while all the others are misrepresentations of reality, although we still cannot identify which is the correct (absolute) frame. Those who continue to insist that none of the frames are misrepresentations of reality have parted company with mathematics and rely for their position on nothing more than the authority of what is essentially a clergy.

[dressed.scientist (OP)]

But the apparent speed of the CMBR is the same no matter which way we look at it. Velocity differs from speed in that it includes a direction. It looks to me that your reasoning would indicate that we are moving away from the source of the CMBR at roughly 368 km/s, but because the source is all around us, that presents a paradox: in which direction are we moving 368 km/s?

CMBR rest frame is determined by looking at the redshift / blueshift of CMBR. We're moving in the direction of Leo constellation.

[dressed.scientist (OP)]

if GPS relied on absolute velocity, then the satellite clocks rates would vary due to the various motions of the Earth, Sun etc.  Since different satellites orbit at different orientations, The absolute velocities of these satellites would differ depending on how their orbital velocity added up to these other velocity.

Not, because as Earth is moving, we're moving with it. So whatever delay is imposed onto the GPS satellite because of rotation around Sun, the same delay is imposed on the rest of the Earth, so we can't notice it. The only thing we CAN notice is the difference between us and the satellite. And that's just the rotational speed. All other speeds, such as Earth orbiting the Sun, or Sun orbiting the center of the galaxy, or our galaxy traveling through space, apply equally to us and the satellites. That's why it's so hard to measure it.

In essence, all your arguments are based on an incomplete grasp of the theory. You are trying to claim that the bits you think you understand don't fit together. But this is because you don't have all the pieces of the puzzle that connect the bits you have, and thus complete the whole picture.

The theory itself doesn't fit together. For example, light is said to be a wave. It moves, splits, diffracts and reflects like a wave. What's best, it always travels at the same speed in the same medium. So, yeah, that's wave-like behavior. Because the speed of waves depends on the medium. And yet, we're to believe that there's no medium. Hmmm. Waves can't exist without the medium. Only something oscillating carries the wave. So, what's oscillating? Nothing? Then it's not a wave. But since they ARE waves, we can measure them, then there must be a medium.

Another thing. You have the Sagnac effect, which shows that speed of light being measured as equal regardless of your speed (in the same or opposite direction) is an illusion. It's just a measurement problem.

Then you have the twin paradox. Why would one get younger? Is it because the rest frame of the "traveling" brother is changing? Okay, let's minimize the acceleration/deceleration to 1 second. Now you have 2 seconds of acceleration and 2 seconds of deceleration where you can apply any formula you want. But the rest of the trip is happening at constant speed. And if the brother travels for 20 of his years, and the Earth brother ages for 40 years in the same period, in which period did it happen that one aged more? Was it in those 4 seconds of acceleration/deceleration? Because if not, then it happened during those 20 years of constant speed. And as we know..... at a constant speed they both travel relative to each other at the same speed, so they should both age equally.

And there's tons of other stuff where relativity simply doesn't hold water. It would be overturned a long time ago if it wasn't about Einstein and maintaining the deity perfect.

[dressed.scientist (OP)]

Those who continue to insist that none of the frames are misrepresentations of reality have parted company with mathematics and rely for their position on nothing more than the authority of what is essentially a clergy.

I agree.

[Janus]

if GPS relied on absolute velocity, then the satellite clocks rates would vary due to the various motions of the Earth, Sun etc.  Since different satellites orbit at different orientations, The absolute velocities of these satellites would differ depending on how their orbital velocity added up to these other velocity.

Not, because as Earth is moving, we're moving with it. So whatever delay is imposed onto the GPS satellite because of rotation around Sun, the same delay is imposed on the rest of the Earth, so we can't notice it. The only thing we CAN notice is the difference between us and the satellite. And that's just the rotational speed. All other speeds, such as Earth orbiting the Sun, or Sun orbiting the center of the galaxy, or our galaxy traveling through space, apply equally to us and the satellites. That's why it's so hard to measure it.

Wrong. You aren't thinking this out all the way properly.  Let's take you 400 km/sec absolute motion for the Earth.  Since GPS satellites have various orientations, you can find one that is orbiting so its orbit around the Earth intersects the line of the the Earth's "absolute" velocity.  which means that part of the time its speed (relative to the Earth) of ~4 km/sec is added to the Earth's speed and sometimes subtracted from it.  Thus while the Earth maintains its constant 400 km/sec and a fixed time dilation rate by your argument, the GPS satellite would vary its absolute velocity from 396 to 404 km/s.  Sometimes having a lower absolute speed compared to the Earth and thus thus a faster clock tick rate than the Earth's, and sometimes having a higher absolute speed and  a lower tick rate.  Over time this would add up to a different total time difference than what you would get if the GPS clock ran at a constant slower rate than the Earth clock does,  and which is the difference we do measure.  You jumped to the conclusion you wanted rather than actually working it out.

In essence, all your arguments are based on an incomplete grasp of the theory. You are trying to claim that the bits you think you understand don't fit together. But this is because you don't have all the pieces of the puzzle that connect the bits you have, and thus complete the whole picture.

The theory itself doesn't fit together. For example, light is said to be a wave. It moves, splits, diffracts and reflects like a wave. What's best, it always travels at the same speed in the same medium. So, yeah, that's wave-like behavior. Because the speed of waves depends on the medium. And yet, we're to believe that there's no medium. Hmmm. Waves can't exist without the medium. Only something oscillating carries the wave. So, what's oscillating? Nothing? Then it's not a wave. But since they ARE waves, we can measure them, then there must be a medium.

What is oscillating is the Electromagnetic field.  A changing electric field produces a changing magnetic field, which in turn produces a changing electric field.    Just because you personally can't wrap your head around the Idea of light propagating without requiring a medium does not mean that it can't.  The limits of your understanding are not the limits of the universe.

Another thing. You have the Sagnac effect, which shows that speed of light being measured as equal regardless of your speed (in the same or opposite direction) is an illusion. It's just a measurement problem.

If the Sagnac effect actually represented a failure of Relativity, then Relativity would have been abandoned and replaced. This is how science works.   Again, just because you don't understand how the Sagnac effect is explained by Relativity doesn't mean that Relativity is wrong, just that your understanding of it is limited.

Then you have the twin paradox. Why would one get younger? Is it because the rest frame of the "traveling" brother is changing? Okay, let's minimize the acceleration/deceleration to 1 second. Now you have 2 seconds of acceleration and 2 seconds of deceleration where you can apply any formula you want. But the rest of the trip is happening at constant speed. And if the brother travels for 20 of his years, and the Earth brother ages for 40 years in the same period, in which period did it happen that one aged more? Was it in those 4 seconds of acceleration/deceleration? Because if not, then it happened during those 20 years of constant speed. And as we know..... at a constant speed they both travel relative to each other at the same speed, so they should both age equally.

Again, this just highlights your lack of grasp of the fundamentals of the theory.  Relativity involves a whole new way to look at the concepts of  time and space, but you are trying to shoehorn it into the old Newtonian view of absolute time and space.
When you ask during which period does one twin age more than the other, the answer depends upon which twin is making that determination.  If you ask the Earth Twin, he will say that the space twin aged slower than he did during the entire trip.   If you ask the space twin, he will say that during the outbound and inbound cruising legs, the Earth twin aged less than he did, but during the period when he was accelerating during the turnaround at the end of the outbound leg, the Earth twin aged much more than he did. How much more depends on how far apart they were when turnaround occurred.  When the two twins meet up again, they will agree as to which one is older, but disagree as to how this came about.   

And there's tons of other stuff where relativity simply doesn't hold water. It would be overturned a long time ago if it wasn't about Einstein and maintaining the deity perfect.

Again, BS.   Einstein holds no such deity status in science.  Nothing is just accepted because "Einstein said so".  The Theory of Relativity, like any other theory, had to earn its way to acceptance by its predictions matching experiment and observation. It was not hailed as some great revelation handed down from above when first published, and there were plenty of physicists that doubted it.   Even Einstein's Nobel prize was awarded for work other than Relativity, since it was not yet fully accepted at the time.  Einstein's reputation is a result of Relativity being a successful theory over time. The acceptance of Relativity is not based on Einstein's reputation.  There are countless scientists who would just love to build their own reputation by supplanting Einstein.   

Your claim that of "Einstein worship" stems from your need to boost your own ego.   Rather than believe that your problems with Relativity are a result of your incomplete grasp of the subject, and accept that it is a failing on your part,  you invent this idea that Einstein has been put on this pedestal that no one dares touch. 

You need to examine your own motivations more closely before assigning motivations to others.

[David Cooper]

If the Sagnac effect actually represented a failure of Relativity, then Relativity would have been abandoned and replaced. This is how science works.

That is certainly how science should work, but it continues to fail here badly. Sagnac proves that the speed of light is greater than c relative to some material, and that shows that not all frames of reference can be accurate representations of reality. SR cannot account for some frames having such superiority over others, and indeed asserts that they don't, which means it invalidates itself by not conforming to the real universe.

And there's tons of other stuff where relativity simply doesn't hold water. It would be overturned a long time ago if it wasn't about Einstein and maintaining the deity perfect.

The establishment simply runs away from the proof that SR is wrong and pretends it's still viable, and yet there isn't a single simulation of relativity claiming to be SR or GR that doesn't have to cheat by bringing in a time external to the model in order to control the unfolding of events.

Again, BS.   Einstein holds no such deity status in science.

He does - that is precisely why people override reason and go directly against the laws of mathematics in order to stick to an incorrect position. They lack the courage to go where maths says they should because they don't want to be ridiculed by the establishment; an establishment which is no different from the church refusing to look at the moons of Jupiter through Galileo's telescope.

...you invent this idea that Einstein has been put on this pedestal that no one dares touch.

He didn't invent that idea - it's one that's been around for a long time, and it's correct.

[Kryptid]

If Einstein was a "god" to scientists, then they wouldn't keep performing tests of his predictions: https://theconversation.com/how-we-proved-einstein-right-on-a-galactic-scale-and-what-it-means-for-dark-energy-and-dark-matter-98481

[jeffreyH]

Define stationary. Define absolute. Absolutes are usually values that bound other values and cannot actually be reached. So following that reasoning there cannot be an absolute rest frame. It is a boundary condition. Stop being naive.

[jeffreyH]

And then you have to consider photons interacting with each other. Evidence of this has been found at cern.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/lhc-atlas-photons-interact-physics

[dressed.scientist (OP)]

Define stationary. Define absolute. Absolutes are usually values that bound other values and cannot actually be reached. So following that reasoning there cannot be an absolute rest frame. It is a boundary condition. Stop being naive.

Stationary means that you're not moving relative to the underlying quantum field that carries the EM waves. Whether we call it the fabric of space or yet another quantum field (out of many), same thing. Photons "know" which one is that. They move at a constant speed relative to that frame. Their seeming "constant speed" relative to other frames is just an illusion caused by our inadequate measurement methods. Which we will eventually improve.

[dressed.scientist (OP)]

If Einstein was a "god" to scientists, then they wouldn't keep performing tests of his predictions: https://theconversation.com/how-we-proved-einstein-right-on-a-galactic-scale-and-what-it-means-for-dark-energy-and-dark-matter-98481 [nofollow]

Those experiments are usually done by those who believe in his theories. They pretend they don't to make a little tension, but in the end they prove their deity was right. As usual. It's like organizing voting in North Korea.

[Janus]

Define stationary. Define absolute. Absolutes are usually values that bound other values and cannot actually be reached. So following that reasoning there cannot be an absolute rest frame. It is a boundary condition. Stop being naive.

 Their seeming "constant speed" relative to other frames is just an illusion caused by our inadequate measurement methods.

How convenient it is that any and all experiments and observations that show results that are in conflict with that which you believe all involve measurement errors. This despite the fact that science knows perfectly well how to to account for error margins, and allow for them in their results. 

Doubly convenient for you. For as more and more accurate experiments still fail to give the results you want, you can just continue to claim that they are still not "accurate" enough. 

[dressed.scientist (OP)]

Wrong. You aren't thinking this out all the way properly.  Let's take you 400 km/sec absolute motion for the Earth.  Since GPS satellites have various orientations, you can find one that is orbiting so its orbit around the Earth intersects the line of the the Earth's "absolute" velocity.  which means that part of the time its speed (relative to the Earth) of ~4 km/sec is added to the Earth's speed and sometimes subtracted from it.  Thus while the Earth maintains its constant 400 km/sec and a fixed time dilation rate by your argument, the GPS satellite would vary its absolute velocity from 396 to 404 km/s.  Sometimes having a lower absolute speed compared to the Earth and thus thus a faster clock tick rate than the Earth's, and sometimes having a higher absolute speed and  a lower tick rate.  Over time this would add up to a different total time difference than what you would get if the GPS clock ran at a constant slower rate than the Earth clock does,  and which is the difference we do measure.

So, the clock would work faster part of the time, and slower another part of the time. But this applies to both satellites. And since you're only computing the difference, and the difference is really small in absolute values, this doesn't affect the system. The error wouldn't pile up, since whatever the clock loses here, it makes up later, so it's balanced.

What is oscillating is the Electromagnetic field.  A changing electric field produces a changing magnetic field, which in turn produces a changing electric field.    Just because you personally can't wrap your head around the Idea of light propagating without requiring a medium does not mean that it can't.  The limits of your understanding are not the limits of the universe.

Sorry, but that's a very naive explanation. You repeat what you've been taught without thinking logically. It's like saying that sound is spreading because of some fictional compression field. And when asked "what is being compressed" you say "nothing". Just because you couldn't see the air molecules you assumed they didn't exist. For waves to travel at a constant speed, there has to be a medium. There's no way around that. Otherwise you could make photons go faster by adding more energy. But you can't. Adding more energy just make denser waves or higher amplitudes, but doesn't make them faster, because they are 100% dependent on the medium.

If the Sagnac effect actually represented a failure of Relativity, then Relativity would have been abandoned and replaced. This is how science works.

Again a typical naive illusion. Maybe if you take it to the scale of 1000 years that's how knowledge works in general. Not just in science, but generally. However on a small time-scale knowledge can easily be suppressed. Didn't you hear of an experiment when the scientific publication editor decided to reject all the articles he wanted to put into the next issue, and included those that he wanted to reject. Nobody noticed the difference. Did you know that around 50% of all published articles were never peer-reviewed? Did you know all work that refutes relativity was always apriori rejected? So... your naive textbook definition of how science works is cute, but children also think that policemen prevent drug dealers from dealing drugs. And in reality, police is usually cooperating with the drug dealers and even protecting them. What should be is one thing, reality is another. Grow up.

Again, this just highlights your lack of grasp of the fundamentals of the theory.  Relativity involves a whole new way to look at the concepts of  time and space, but you are trying to shoehorn it into the old Newtonian view of absolute time and space.
When you ask during which period does one twin age more than the other, the answer depends upon which twin is making that determination.  If you ask the Earth Twin, he will say that the space twin aged slower than he did during the entire trip.   If you ask the space twin, he will say that during the outbound and inbound cruising legs, the Earth twin aged less than he did, but during the period when he was accelerating during the turnaround at the end of the outbound leg, the Earth twin aged much more than he did. How much more depends on how far apart they were when turnaround occurred.  When the two twins meet up again, they will agree as to which one is older, but disagree as to how this came about.

Wow. You must be a true relativist. You said a lot, and still nothing. Let's imagine that Earth-bound brother was sending selfies every 10 seconds towards his traveling brother. The traveling brother would be receiving normal selfies in sequence, numerated to be sure. There would be a delay, but selfies would be numerated. Aging will be very gradual. But then at one moment, when turning around, he would see that hist brother aged 10 years between two selfies (because turning around takes only 2 seconds). His brother would look 10 years older between two consecutive selfies? Is that what you're saying?

Again, BS. Einstein holds no such deity status in science.

Oh, come on. He's being glorified in all media and even his mistakes are being advertised as hits. All the scientists who have refuted him are being swept under the carpet. How many people have heard of John Stewart Bell? The man who has clearly shown that Einsteins assumptions and hopes about quantum entanglement being slower than light are false. How many ordinary people (on the street) has ever heard of quantum entanglement. An effect that spreads faster than light. Not slightly faster. But at least 100,000 times faster. Nobody knows that outside of people into physics, even though it's real. Instead of that, a fake concept of wormholes is constantly being advertised in popsci shows and movies, because Einstein supported it, and he didn't support FTL quantum entanglement. It's not a boost of my ego when someone's failures are advertised as successes, while at the same time some real amazing scientists are swept under the carpet. You don't notice much things around you, do you? Need to work on that.

[dressed.scientist (OP)]

Doubly convenient for you. For as more and more accurate experiments still fail to give the results you want, you can just continue to claim that they are still not "accurate" enough.

Really? Isn't it convenient that in Hafele-Keating they started doing experiment with 2 trips from the base in opposite directions, and then when results weren't as they expected, they moved the observer? Do you think they indented to do that at the start of the experiment? Because if their original intention was to prove that a faster moving clock experiences more time-dilation, they would have just done one trip around the world, and compare it to the clock in the military base.

But they wanted to do two trips, opposite directions, but same relative distance, to see if the result would be the same. After the result was different, wasn't it convenient that they've changed the setup of the experiment AFTERWARDS? Fitting the experiment to the result, and not vice versa? How is that called? Fitting the data? Rigging the results?

"Oh, sorry, we've made a mistake in the setup, but we've fixed it AFTER we got the result".

[Kryptid]

Those experiments are usually done by those who believe in his theories. They pretend they don't to make a little tension, but in the end they prove their deity was right. As usual. It's like organizing voting in North Korea.

So you're positing a conspiracy theory now?