Galileo satellites prove Einstein's Relativity Theory to highest accuracy yet

December 5, 2018, European Space Agency
The relativistic eccentricity of Galileo satellites 5 and 6 reaches a peak amplitude of approximately 370 nanoseconds (billionths of a second), driven by the shifting altitude, and hence changing gravity levels, of their elliptical orbits around Earth. A periodic modulation of this size is clearly discernible, given the relative frequency stability of the Passive Hydrogen Maser atomic clocks aboard the satellites. Credit: European Space Agency

Europe's Galileo satellite navigation system – already serving users globally – has now provided a historic service to the physics community worldwide, enabling the most accurate measurement ever made of how shifts in gravity alter the passing of time, a key element of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.

Two European fundamental physics teams working in parallel have independently achieved about a fivefold improvement in measuring accuracy of the gravity-driven time dilation effect known as '.'

The prestigious Physical Review Letters journal has just published the independent results obtained from both consortiums, gathered from more than a thousand days of data obtained from the pair of Galileo satellites in elongated orbits.

"It is hugely satisfying for ESA to see that our original expectation that such results might be theoretically possible have now been borne out in practical terms, providing the first reported improvement of the gravitational redshift test for more than 40 years," comments Javier Ventura-Traveset, Head of ESA's Galileo Navigation Science Office.

"These extraordinary results have been made possible thanks to the unique features of the Galileo satellites, notably the very high stabilities of their onboard atomic clocks, the accuracies attainable in their orbit determination and the presence of laser-retroreflectors, which allow for the performance of independent and very precise orbit measurements from the ground, key to disentangle clock and orbit errors."

These parallel research activities, known as GREAT (Galileo gravitational Redshift Experiment with eccentric sATellites), were led respectively by the SYRTE Observatoire de Paris in France and Germany's ZARM Center of Applied Space Technology and Microgravity, coordinated by ESA's Galileo Navigation Science Office and supported through its Basic Activities.

Galileo satellites 5 and 6 were delivered into faulty elongated orbits by a faulty Soyuz upper stage during their launch in 2014. This left them unable to view the entire Earth disc during the low point or perigee of their orbits, rendering their navigation payloads unusuable, because they use an Earth sensor to centre their signal beams. Subsequent orbital manoeuvres succeeded in making their orbits more circular and their navigation payloads usbale because they retained views of the entire Earth disc through each orbit. However their orbits remain elliptical compared to the rest of the Galileo constell. Credit: European Space Agency
Happy results from an unhappy accident

These findings are the happy outcome of an unhappy accident: back in 2014 Galileo satellites 5 and 6 were stranded in incorrect orbits by a malfunctioning Soyuz upper stage, blocking their use for navigation. ESA flight controllers moved into action, performing a daring salvage in space to raise the low points of the satellites' orbits and make them more circular.

Once the satellites achieved views of the whole Earth disc their antennas could be locked on their homeworld and their navigation payloads could indeed be switched on. The satellites are today in use as part of Galileo search and rescue services while their integration as part of nominal Galileo operations is currently under final assessment by ESA and the European Commission.

However, their orbits remain elliptical, with each satellite climbing and falling some 8500 km twice per day. It was these regular shifts in height, and therefore gravity levels, which made the satellites so valuable to the research teams.

Reenacting Einstein's prediction

Albert Einstein predicted a century ago that time would pass more slowly close to a massive object, a finding that has since been verified experimentally several times – most significantly in 1976 when a hydrogen maser atomic clock on the Gravity Probe-A suborbital rocket was launched 10 000 km into space, confirming Einstein's prediction to within 140 parts per million.

In fact, atomic clocks aboard navigation satellites must already take into account the fact that they run faster up in orbit than down on the ground – amounting to a few tenths of a microsecond per day, which would result in navigation errors of around 10 km daily, if uncorrected.

Periodic modulation of the gravitational redshift for one day's orbit of the eccentrically-orbiting Galileo satellites. Credit: European Space Agency

The two teams relied upon the stable timekeeping of the passive hydrogen maser (PHM) clocks aboard each Galileo – stable to one second in three million years – and kept from drifting by the worldwide Galileo ground segment.

"The fact that the Galileo satellites carry passive hydrogen maser clocks, was essential for the attainable accuracy of these tests," noted Sven Hermann at the University of Bremen's ZARM Center of Applied Space Technology and Microgravity.

"While every Galileo satellite carries two rubidium and two hydrogen maser clocks, only one of them is the active transmission clock. During our period of observation, we focus then on the periods of time when the satellites were transmitting with PHM clocks and assess the quality of these precious data very carefully. Ongoing improvements in the processing and in particular in the modelling of the clocks, might lead to tightened results in the future."

Refining the results

A key challenge over three years of work was to refine the gravitational redshift measurements by eliminating systematic effects such as clock error and orbital drift due to factors such as Earth's equatorial bulge, the influence of Earth's magnetic field, temperature variations and even the subtle but persistent push of sunlight itself, known as 'solar radiation pressure.'

"Careful and conservative modelling and control of these systematic errors has been essential, with stabilities down to four picoseconds over the 13 hours orbital period of the satellites; this is four millionth of one millionth of a second," Pacôme Delva of SYRTE Observatoire de Paris.

"This required the support of many experts, with notably the expertise of ESA thanks to their knowledge of the Galileo system."

Precise tracking was enabled by the International Laser Ranging Service, shining lasers up to the Galileos' retro-reflectors for centimetre-scale orbital checks.

Major support was also received from the Navigation Support Office based at ESA's ESOC operations centre in Germany, whose experts generated the reference stable and products for the two Galileo eccentric satellites and also determined the residual errors of the orbits after the laser measurements.

Explore further: Galileo satellites set for year-long Einstein experiment

More information: Sven Herrmann et al. Test of the Gravitational Redshift with Galileo Satellites in an Eccentric Orbit, Physical Review Letters (2018). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.231102

P. Delva et al. Gravitational Redshift Test Using Eccentric Galileo Satellites, Physical Review Letters (2018). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.231101

Related Stories

Galileo satellites set for year-long Einstein experiment

November 9, 2015

Europe's fifth and sixth Galileo satellites – subject to complex salvage manoeuvres following their launch last year into incorrect orbits – will help to perform an ambitious year-long test of Einstein's most famous theory.

Satellites 11 and 12 join working Galileo fleet

April 29, 2016

Europe's latest navigation satellites, launched last December, have been officially commissioned into the Galileo constellation, and are now broadcasting working navigation signals.

Recommended for you

Magnetoresistance ratio enhancement in Heusler-based alloy

December 18, 2018

Magnetic field sensors can enhance applications that require efficient electric energy management. Improving magnetic field sensors below the picoTesla range could enable a technique to measure brain activity at room temperature ...

84 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

hat1208
3 / 5 (3) Dec 05, 2018
So they improved on a result of 140 parts per million by a factor of 4. Could somebody put that is relative terms please.
rrwillsj
2 / 5 (5) Dec 05, 2018
For myself? I would use a crude analogy from my life. Two neighboring businesses were separated by a large, paved parking area. Which for years, they split evenly for their customers & truck parking.

Yeah, you know where this is going. Lawyers raking in the fees!

One business wanted to expand and in order to get funding their bank requires a modern survey of the property. If I remember correctly, the original plot survey was done back in the 1880's or '90s.

Well, the expanding businesses gained a large chunk of the parking lot. And the other business lost half of their customer parking spaces.

I would luck out. My business was a corner between two major intersections. So the 19th century survey was accurate to within a couple of feet. I was able to sell for a reasonable profit.

hat, the meaning of advancing the precision of technology can decide valuable property rights. Easements, access to sub-surface resources such as an aquifer or oil & gas pumping.
xinhangshen
1.4 / 5 (14) Dec 05, 2018
How funny the research is! After more than three years since Einstein's relativity was disproved both theoretically and experimentally (see peer-reviewed papers: https://www.resea...lativity and https://www.resea...niversal ), there are still physicists who claim Einstein's relativity is right.

Please be aware that all physical clocks can never measure relativistic time. The mistake of relativity is obvious that everybody can understand: Einstein redefined time and space through Lorentz Transformation, but the newly defined time is no longer the physical time measured with physical clocks. We know clock time T=tf/k where t is the theoretical time, f is the frequency of the clock and k is a calibration constant.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 05, 2018
So they improved on a result of 140 parts per million by a factor of 4. Could somebody put that is relative terms please.
Actually the other one improved it by a factor of 5.6. So that would be 140/5.6=25 parts per million. What's interesting is that the result appears to be durable, since two separate studies got essentially the same result.
xinhangshen
1.5 / 5 (13) Dec 05, 2018
In classical mechanics, the theoretical time t is the absolute Galilean time defined by Galilean Transformation and reference frame independent, which makes the frequency f of the clock frame independent too. We can set k=f to make clock time T=tf/k=t, ie, we can use clocks to measure Galilean time.

In special relativity, the theoretical time t is the relativistic time defined by Lorentz Transformation and reference frame dependent, which makes the frequency f of the clock frame dependent. Thus, there is no way to set k=f to make clock time T=tf/k to equal the relativistic time, ie, clocks can never measure the relativistic time. The relativistic time is not the physical time we use to observe all physical phenomena, but a fake time. Therefore, based on such a fake time, all what relativity describes are irrelevant to real physics.
guptm
4.7 / 5 (13) Dec 05, 2018
After more than three years since Einstein's relativity was disproved both theoretically and experimentally (see peer-reviewed papers: https://www.resea...lativity ), there are still physicists who claim Einstein's relativity is right.


Journal 'Physics Essays' does not exist in JCR 2018 list. Impact Factor = 0. Please publish your findings in Physical Review Letters.
jim28
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 06, 2018
So they improved on a result of 140 parts per million by a factor of 4. Could somebody put that is relative terms please.


relative error = 0.01 to 0.1 %
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Dec 06, 2018
https://journals....1.231102

Looks like Physical Review Letters to me.

Just sayin'.
jim28
1 / 5 (1) Dec 06, 2018
relative error = 0.01 to 0.1 %
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 06, 2018
So they improved on a result of 140 parts per million by a factor of 4. Could somebody put that is relative terms please.


relative error = 0.01 to 0.1 %
Meanwhile, on Earth, it goes from 0.0000140% to 0.0000035%.
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (13) Dec 06, 2018
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.231102

Looks like Physical Review Letters to me.

Just sayin'.


I think he's referring to the posts by xinhangshen, claiming that he's proved Einstein wrong. That nonsense was published in Physics Essays, which is a crank journal.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 06, 2018
Ah. I missed that. Thanks, @Jones.
granville583762
3 / 5 (4) Dec 06, 2018
Tis the season for sparkly new theories
xinhangshen> In classical mechanics, the theoretical time t is the absolute Galilean time defined by Galilean Transformation and reference frame independent, which makes the frequency f of the clock frame independent too. We can set k=f to make clock time T=tf/k=t, ie, we can use clocks to measure Galilean time.

Or better still xinhangshen, old bean
Why not just simply use the effects gravity has on any time keeping device
As gravity affects atomic clocks they make excellent gravitometers
Time has moved on since you formulised your theory
We use time to measure gravity

You have to backtrack on your theory
There are plenty to choose from in the book of theories old bean
As it's the festive season xinhangshen
Treat yourself to a brand new shiny sparkly theory
To put under your Christmas tree
xinhangshen
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 06, 2018
After more than three years since Einstein's relativity was disproved both theoretically and experimentally (see peer-reviewed papers: https://www.resea...lativity ), there are still physicists who claim Einstein's relativity is right.


Journal 'Physics Essays' does not exist in JCR 2018 list. Impact Factor = 0. Please publish your findings in Physical Review Letters.


Truth can stand by itself. I have presented the fatal mistake of special relativity here, please refute it if you don't agree. Debate based on logical reasoning is the only convincing way to judge the truth.
jonesdave
4.7 / 5 (12) Dec 06, 2018
Truth can stand by itself. I have presented the fatal mistake of special relativity here, please refute it if you don't agree. Debate based on logical reasoning is the only convincing way to judge the truth.


Anti-Einstein fruitcakes are ten a penny in these crank journals. Real scientists aren't even going to look at them. Submit it to a decent physics journal, and somebody might see it. Assuming it gets past peer review.
xinhangshen
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 06, 2018
Truth can stand by itself. I have presented the fatal mistake of special relativity here, please refute it if you don't agree. Debate based on logical reasoning is the only convincing way to judge the truth.


Anti-Einstein fruitcakes are ten a penny in these crank journals. Real scientists aren't even going to look at them. Submit it to a decent physics journal, and somebody might see it. Assuming it gets past peer review.

Unfortunately, the most influential journals such as "Nature" and "Science" are controlled by relativists who reject all anti-relativity papers unconditionally without any peer-reviewing. What can I do?
Ojorf
5 / 5 (10) Dec 06, 2018
^^^
What can I do?

Try publishing something that does not conflict with reality.

Not:
The relativistic time is not the physical time we use to observe all physical phenomena, but a fake time. Therefore, based on such a fake time, all what relativity describes are irrelevant to real physics.

and
Einstein redefined time and space through Lorentz Transformation, but the newly defined time is no longer the physical time measured with physical clocks.

since it has, without any doubt, been measured with real physical clocks.
rrwillsj
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 06, 2018
xin baby, the way I always tell the true woo crankery from the Real Science?

I ask this question. Does the claim produce actual working technology that will survive the patent process?

Special & General Relativity & Quantum Mechanics & Classical/Newtonian Physics produces nuclear bombs.
& all the other machinery surrounding us, Including whatever internet access device you are using.

If your alternative to Classical & Modern Physics can blow up a city? Prove it...

Impress me!

Otherwise? You are just another self-absorbed narcissist ego-maniac like all the other cultists of the weirdly implausible who infest this site.
jonesdave
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 06, 2018
What can I do?


Try being honest, for a start. You say;

the designers of the Global Positioning System confirmed that all ground and satellite clocks of the Global Positioning System, once synchronized, will remain synchronized relative to all inertial reference frames [8]


Which is demonstrably wrong and dishonest, and would never have got past peer review in a decent journal. The paper you reference is from 1974 when we hadn't even built a GPS satellite, let alone tested SR and GR with one. Why did you ignore much later papers showing that GR and SR were necessary, and were as predicted? Looks like blatant dishonesty to me.

Relativity in the Global Positioning System (2003)
Ashby, N.
https://link.spri...r-2003-1
guptm
5 / 5 (10) Dec 06, 2018
Truth can stand by itself.


@xin

Einstein's GR is standing since 103 years now with flying colors. If no reputed journal is accepting your paper, that means it is not publishable. Only predatory journals can help you.

Scientists always welcome new ideas (including yours), but if the idea is pseudo, then it is rejected immediately without consideration for peer-review.

If you want to bypass peer-review, provide experimental proofs to support your theory. Such experiments must pass every time.

If top physicists of today approve your concepts, you will attract immediate attention worldwide.
dfjohnsonphd
3 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2018
Sorry if I missed this in any of the posts, but what does all this precise data really do for us, other than ooh and aah?

What are the practical implications of these measurements?

At the very least, they should begin the push for Einstein's "Laws of Relativity".

There has never been reliable contrary evidence, and this is more empirical data piling on to prove the theories are in fact laws of nature.

Hubble has a law from his observations. Why does Al keep getting stiffed?
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 06, 2018
^^^
What can I do?

Try publishing something that does not conflict with reality.

Not:
The relativistic time is not the physical time we use to observe all physical phenomena, but a fake time. Therefore, based on such a fake time, all what relativity describes are irrelevant to real physics.

and
Einstein redefined time and space through Lorentz Transformation, but the newly defined time is no longer the physical time measured with physical clocks.

since it has, without any doubt, been measured with real physical clocks.


For example, measured as discussed in the very article that the original comment avoid to discuss! You cannot argue with results (Galileo system and its relativistic corrections), so whether or not the pseudoscience is published or not is rather irrelevant. Finding errors is highly unlikely. Replacing all of GR and cosmology is possible but a *tall* order.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 06, 2018
Sorry if I missed this in any of the posts, but what does all this precise data really do for us, other than ooh and aah?

What are the practical implications of these measurements?

At the very least, they should begin the push for Einstein's "Laws of Relativity".

There has never been reliable contrary evidence, and this is more empirical data piling on to prove the theories are in fact laws of nature.

Hubble has a law from his observations. Why does Al keep getting stiffed?


Again a comment that did not even consider the described use. Everyone else loves their GPS systems ...

So terms such as "laws" and "theories" wax and wane in popularity within science. They don't have any constant meaning but are convenience labels. You can call any of his verified results a law, if you wish.

Nevertheless Einstein has lot of laws, from the law of universal speed limit to the Stokes-Einstein Law for Diffusion in Solution.
dfjohnsonphd
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 06, 2018
Theories wax and wane. The courts have overturned social laws, but science, to my knowledge, never has.

Perhaps you could give me an example.

There is an extreme difference between the two. Do recall that the ultimate "popularity within science", from a professional point of view, is progress toward more knowledge. Laws establish strict boundaries. To end run them, you better have some diamond hard data. Ignoring them is almost always a waste of time.

To the casual observer, theories are vastly more popular. Laws are boring due to their constraints. This is strictly based on Sci-Fi movies which almost always defy the basic laws of nature, and are wildly popular. Why not?

Happily, there is no penalty for such ignorance of nature's laws. And it all can be quite fun!!
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (3) Dec 06, 2018
Einstein still standing after 103 years
Guptm>Einstein's GR is standing since 103 years now with flying colors. If no reputed journal is accepting your paper, that means it is not publishable. Only predatory journals can help you.
Scientists always welcome new ideas (including yours), but if the idea is pseudo, then it is rejected immediately without consideration for peer-review.
If you want to bypass peer-review, provide experimental proofs to support your theory. Such experiments must pass every time.
If top physicists of today approve your concepts, you will attract immediate attention worldwide.

Xinhangshen does a good line in pendulums in orbit, but it's not a nice sparkly present to put under your Christmas tree, as the theory is wanting
With xinhangshen Toe to replace relativity
There is a surprising amount of ordinary little details xinhangshen has not thought out through thoroughly
xinhangshen
1 / 5 (4) Dec 07, 2018
Too All: Are the following statements true?

1. The atomic clocks are synchronized relative not only to the ground clocks but also to each other i.e. they are synchronized relative to all reference frames as Wikipedia states.

2. Clocks in special relativity can never be synchronized relative to more than one inertial reference frame no matter how you correct them because "time is relative".

If both statements are true, relativity is simply wrong.
jonesdave
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 07, 2018
Too All: Are the following statements true?

1. The atomic clocks are synchronized relative not only to the ground clocks but also to each other i.e. they are synchronized relative to all reference frames as Wikipedia states.

2. Clocks in special relativity can never be synchronized relative to more than one inertial reference frame no matter how you correct them because "time is relative".

If both statements are true, relativity is simply wrong.


Nope, you simply don't understand the subject matter. Which is why I linked you to a real paper, in a real journal. You should read it.
RNP
4.9 / 5 (10) Dec 07, 2018
@xinhangshen
The clocks are synchronized in the sense that our knowledge of SR and GR allow us to compensate for their different run rates.

Synchronized does not mean that they run at the same rates.
jonesdave
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 07, 2018
http://www.leapse...tm#NTS-2

Shows how the first GPS satellite carried a synthesiser to change the frequency of the clock to account for relativistic effects.. Some people were still claiming it wouldn't be necessary, so they didn't turn on the synthesiser for 22 days, by which stage it was obvious that it would be needed. The resulting observations matched the predictions to 3 parts in a trillion.
TopJimmy
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 07, 2018
Too All: Are the following statements true?

1. The atomic clocks are synchronized relative not only to the ground clocks but also to each other i.e. they are synchronized relative to all reference frames as Wikipedia states.

2. Clocks in special relativity can never be synchronized relative to more than one inertial reference frame no matter how you correct them because "time is relative".

If both statements are true, relativity is simply wrong.


This site is laughable. It allows people like this, who don't even comprehend what they are posting, to persist even when it links to comment guidelines about what is acceptable and isn't. I know they want to make a few bucks but they might as well delete the comment guidelines at this point.
xinhangshen
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 07, 2018
A logic based rational debate, please!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Dec 07, 2018
@xinhangshen
A logic based rational debate, please!
this can't happen until all parties abide by the same rules for discourse. In science, that starts (and ends) with the scientific method and evidence

If you will note, Ojorf, RNP and JonesDave tried to correct false assumptions on your part and direct you to a scientific paper to clarify the situation

a scientific paper is far more evidentiary than a claim made on the internet because the paper is verifiable whereas the claim must be taken on face value *unless* it references a paper that validates the claim being made

as such, your claims aren't backed by valid, verifiable science, therefore are, at best, opinion
(explained here: http://www.auburn...ion.html )

also note: just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it's true, factual or even real
https://duckduckg...p;ia=web
jonesdave
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 07, 2018
A logic based rational debate, please!


There is no debate to be had. GR and SR are proved beyond any doubt. Deal with it.
jonesdave
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 07, 2018
also note: just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it's true, factual or even real


Especially if it is in Physics Essays! It is full of tosspots claiming 'Einstein was wrong', etc. A crank journal with an impact factor closer to 0 than 1!
jonesdave
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 07, 2018
A logic based rational debate, please!


You'll find that in the scientific literature. Which is a foreign country to you, isn't it? Crank claims, crank journal.
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 07, 2018
A logic based rational debate, please!


Go ask Neil Ashby, you idiot. I linked you to the papers that show that adjustments were needed for GR and SR. You have totally failed to deal with them, showing your complete misunderstanding of the subject matter. You are a loon. Go away.
guptm
5 / 5 (7) Dec 07, 2018
A logic based rational debate, please!


@xin

It is pretty much clear that your fundamentals in physics are weak. If you are unable to comprehend the principles of relativity, all your logical ideas are false, you can't add anything new to it.

Einstein himself explained relativity to laymen during his lifetime. I know that relativity is not easy to understand, only a few could understand it in Einstein's lifetime.
guptm
5 / 5 (5) Dec 07, 2018
@xinhangshen

Just to encourage you...

In November 1964, John Bell submitted a paper to the obscure (and now defunct) journal Physics. That paper, entitled "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox," changed how we think about quantum physics.

Physics Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 195-200, 1964, Physics Publishing Co.

'What' matters more than 'where' you publish, but the idea must be revolutionary.
granville583762
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 08, 2018
One's own version of relativity
xinhangshen> Too All: Are the following statements true?
1. The atomic clocks are synchronized relative not only to the ground clocks but also to each other i.e. they are synchronized relative to all reference frames as Wikipedia states.
2. Clocks in special relativity can never be synchronized relative to more than one inertial reference frame no matter how you correct them because "time is relative".
If both statements are true, relativity is simply wrong.

But
Xinhangshen
your theory is not relativity
or at least xinhangshen
it's not relativity
until your pressed
on the actual point
when
your
theory
replaces relativity
then the truth
cometh out
that it is just another version of relativity
your relativity
your
Toe
as your theory
your Toe
is the one
the only one
that is the correct theory
as xinhangshen is always right
come what may
even as the sky falls
Xinhangshen is right
xinhangshen
1 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2018
It's such a simple logical reasoning, how can't you give your judgement which statement in the following is wrong?

1. The atomic clocks are synchronized relative not only to the ground clocks but also to each other i.e. they are synchronized relative to all reference frames as Wikipedia states.

2. Clocks in special relativity can never be synchronized relative to more than one inertial reference frame no matter how you correct them because "time is relative".

If both statements are true, relativity is simply wrong.

jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2018
It's such a simple logical reasoning, how can't you give your judgement which statement in the following is wrong?

1. The atomic clocks are synchronized relative not only to the ground clocks but also to each other i.e. they are synchronized relative to all reference frames as Wikipedia states.

2. Clocks in special relativity can never be synchronized relative to more than one inertial reference frame no matter how you correct them because "time is relative".

If both statements are true, relativity is simply wrong.



Nope, relativity has been proven correct time after time. Including by the GPS satellites.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2018
@xinhangshen
It's such a simple logical reasoning
no, it's not
it's a claim on the internet from you that you've debunked one of the most successful and widely tested and validated scientific theories of all time while presenting no verifiable validated evidence except to a known crank journal with explanations that haven't been observed or validated

that is not logic
that is dogma presented as logic in an attempt to establish credibility (IOW - religion)

perhaps this may help you overcome your Dunning-Kruger: https://ocw.mit.e...=physics

enjoy
It's free
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2018
@xin, you've missed the point. The clocks on the satellites aren't synched once and left to run free; they're synched daily. They have to be. And the Wikipedia article says so. You've chosen the most simplistic explanation and then left half of it out. This is outright lying.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2018
At the time of launch of the first NTS-2 satellite (June 1977), which contained the first Cesium clock to be placed in orbit, there were some who doubted that relativistic effects were real. A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite clock system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit was that predicted by GR, then the synthesizer could be turned on bringing the clock to the coordinate rate necessary for operation. The atomic clock was first operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on the synthesizer. The frequency measured during that interval was +442.5 parts in 10^12 faster than clocks on the ground; if left uncorrected this would have resulted in timing errors of about 38,000 nanoseconds per day. The difference between predicted and measured values of the frequency shift was only 3.97 parts in 10^12, well within the accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock.


jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 10, 2018
^^^^^^^^^
http://www.leapse...vity.htm

8th paragraph. So, anybody wanting to disprove SR effects is a bit late. They were confirmed 41 years ago. And still there are crank journals full of crank physics, claiming Einstein was wrong.
xinhangshen
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 10, 2018
How sad you are! You even don't dare to make a simple judgement which is true in the following:

1. The atomic clocks are synchronized relative not only to the ground clocks but also to each other i.e. they are synchronized relative to all reference frames as Wikipedia states.

2. Clocks in special relativity can never be synchronized relative to more than one inertial reference frame no matter how you correct them because "time is relative".

If both statements are true, relativity is simply wrong.

I have said that all those so-called evidences are just wrong interpretation of the facts without exception. If you can't make a judgement, please keep quiet.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2018
If you leave out significant information from your analysis, @xin, then you are lying, and that's that. And you did and anyone who looks up the article on GPS can see it. There is nowhere to hide unless you are either determined to lie or psychotic and experiencing delusions.
xinhangshen
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 10, 2018
If you leave out significant information from your analysis, @xin, then you are lying, and that's that. And you did and anyone who looks up the article on GPS can see it. There is nowhere to hide unless you are either determined to lie or psychotic and experiencing delusions.


You have to point out what I lie. Otherwise, please keep quiet!

If you understand special relativity, you should know that the kinematic time dilation is relative, not absolute, which can't be corrected to make the clock synchronized relative to more than one inertial reference frame, while atomic clocks on the GPS satellites are synchronized not only relative to the ground clocks but also relative to each other.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2018
Any drift from true time maintained on the ground is corrected daily.
That quote immediately follows yours. You left it out. You're lying, @xin.

https://en.wikipe...g_System
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 10, 2018
How sad you are! You even don't dare to make a simple judgement which is true in the following:

1. The atomic clocks are synchronized relative not only to the ground clocks but also to each other i.e. they are synchronized relative to all reference frames as Wikipedia states.

2. Clocks in special relativity can never be synchronized relative to more than one inertial reference frame no matter how you correct them because "time is relative".

If both statements are true, relativity is simply wrong.

I have said that all those so-called evidences are just wrong interpretation of the facts without exception. If you can't make a judgement, please keep quiet.


You keep quiet, you idiot. SR is proven. End of story. Your idiotic misunderstanding in a crank journal is worthless. Understand?
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 10, 2018
Test of Time Dilation Using Stored Li+ Ions as Clocks at Relativistic Speed
Botermann, B. et al.
https://arxiv.org...7951.pdf

Published in Physical Review Letters. Impact factor > 8. Now, that is real science, in a real journal. @xin loses!
xinhangshen
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2018
Test of Time Dilation Using Stored Li+ Ions as Clocks at Relativistic Speed
Botermann, B. et al.
https://arxiv.org...7951.pdf

Published in Physical Review Letters. Impact factor > 8. Now, that is real science, in a real journal. @xin loses!


I have told you that current journals are controlled by relativists who just wrongly interpreted so-called relativistic effects. Physics Essays seems the only officially recognized international peer-reviewed journal with an open-mind. Anyway, I don't want to discuss the credibility of the journal here as all I want to do just to use logical reasoning to show you that relativity is wrong. The reasoning I presented here is already complete to disprove relativity. You don't need to get help from other journal articles. If you find errors in my reasoning, you are welcome to present your refutation here, thanks!
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 10, 2018
I have told you that current journals are controlled by relativists who just wrongly interpreted so-called relativistic effects. Physics Essays seems the only officially recognized international peer-reviewed journal with an open-mind. Anyway, I don't want to discuss the credibility of the journal here as all I want to do just to use logical reasoning to show you that relativity is wrong. The reasoning I presented here is already complete to disprove relativity. You don't need to get help from other journal articles. If you find errors in my reasoning, you are welcome to present your refutation here, thanks!


You have totally failed to show that relativity is wrong, you idiot! And there is a shed load of evidence to say it is correct. If all you've got is conspiracy theories, and a crap paper in a crap journal, then you've lost. Nobody cares about your idiocy.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 10, 2018
The reasoning I presented here is already complete to disprove relativity.


Is it f***, you deluded loon! The effect is f***ing measured. Multiple times. You are a poser. All you've got is a crap paper in a crank journal. You are one of hundreds of these idiotic cranks, paying to get their sh!t published in crap like that. It is, quite rightly, totally ignored.
Gawad
5 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2018
Go check out his papers, especially his "Clock Time" paper. This is just Johnny boy who couldn't put two electrons together to form a cooper pair in a new skin.

(Yes, two clocks that start out synched in the same reference frame will end up showing two different times simultaneously as one gets boosted to a new reference frame. How many times have we been here already?)
granville583762
3 / 5 (4) Dec 10, 2018
To one and all
xinhangshen> A logic based rational debate, please!

You have met your match with xinhangshen
I'm surprised he's back for second helpings
It's so unlike xinhangshen
a tantalising theory
a repetitive temptive
inspiring commentary
but
normaly
xinhangshen is nowhere to be found
to
reply to this commentary
as it always fall flat
his theory that is
as its
not
like freshly baked bread
so
if
you relish a challenge
you have met your match with xinhangshen
because
He is like the invisible cat in the hat
guptm
5 / 5 (4) Dec 10, 2018
@xin

How many times your paper in 'Physics Essays' been cited since March 2016? Did you discuss your concept with Kip Thorne? You must.

Here is the detailed account of why your theory is a crap, peer-reviewed globally by various reviewers.

https://www.quora...debunked

https://thewire.i...lativity

There seem to be serious flaws in your understanding of relativity. You must give experimental proofs that can be tested, not theoretical. Theoretically you are proven wrong by all the reviewers (see links).

Either all the scientists since 1905 including Einstein are right, or 'you' have greater intelligence than all of them put together towards becoming the greatest mind of all time. I am sure about the former.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 10, 2018
Xinhang Shen
xinhangshen> Anyway, I don't want to discuss the credibility of the journal here as all I want to do just to use logical reasoning to show you that relativity is wrong

Xinhang Shen
how
can you use logical reasoning
to show relativity is wrong
when
you do not want to discuss the credibility of the journal
as
you
Xinhang Shen
being always of right
just
want to prove
dear old Albert
was
simply wrong
because
your reasoning you have presented is complete to disprove relativity
even
though
you
got your pendulums in a twist, Xinhang Shen
but
that's like your trade
water down the drain
is it not
Xinhang Shen
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Dec 10, 2018
Basically what we have here is a programmer who can't figure out how GPS source code works.

Snicker.

https://www.ngs.n...xist.htm
http://www.opengts.org/
Many more available on google, just search on "GPS source code"
granville583762
3 / 5 (4) Dec 10, 2018
Theories thought up on the hoof, a weightless pendulum telling time

Xinhang Shen, your idea space is filled up with "Aether and other possible media described by non-linear Navier-Stokes equations or some new physics theories"

Really
space filled with Aether and other possible media
more theories thought up on the hoof as space is not filled up with Aether
non-linear Navier-Stokes equations, your trade is a fluid engineer by expertise Xinhang Shen
concerning satellitic pendulums
you put a pendulum clock on a satellite Xinhang Shen
you will see that the clock will go more slowly rather than more rapidly
as
pendulums on satellites in orbit will not hang but float weightless
a weightless pendulum
telling time
really
we all think
Xinhang Shen, it is back to school
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 11, 2018
Defying Gravity
phys.org> Albert Einstein predicted a century ago that time would pass more slowly close to a massive object, a finding that has since been verified experimentally several times – most significantly in 1976 when a hydrogen maser atomic clock on the Gravity Probe-A suborbital rocket was launched 10 000 km into space, confirming Einstein's prediction to within 140 parts per million

Dear Albert
might have predicted time is proportional to gravity
and
so
by scientific logic
as
time is proportional to gravity
gravity is proportional to time
and
so
time and gravity are one
in
the vacuous vacuum
and
making gravitational space time
but
as
this instantly maketh the force of gravity in the vacuum stretched vacuum
there
is
a
tiny little mechanical problem
gravity is not ethereal, but a physical force
that
effects the transitional electron
Atomic clocks only measure the force of gravity

Defying Gravity
xinhangshen
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 11, 2018
It seems that many people here are not only irrational but also uncivilized. They don't know what logical reasoning is. If you represent relativists, then it is understandable who relativists are!
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 11, 2018
Challenged with proof it's not a programmer and can't parse source code, the troll turns to ad hominem, like all trolls do.

The source code's right there, @xin troll. Parse it.
granville583762
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 11, 2018
Xinhang Shen
You have a short memory
It seems that many people here are not only irrational but also uncivilized. They don't know what logical reasoning is. If you represent relativists, then it is understandable who relativists are!

You opened up your heart on your theory some months hence
this not the same place Xinhang Shen
this is phys.org
this is the real world
if you can persuade those here
that your theory
is
correct
an improvement
and
most importantly
accepted by the establishment
your theory will stand muster Xinhang Shen
then
and
only
then
Xinhang Shen
your
theory will be accepted by one and all
but
if you go around calling everybody cranks
you
Xinhang Shen
will never get your theory accepted
as
Xinhang Shen
you
have no tact, no guile of commentary
as
Xinhang Shen you are not guile of tongue
and
so Xinhang Shen
we
do not see this duplicate theory to relativity
ever
replacing relativity
Xinhang Shen
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Dec 11, 2018
BTW, remember that the velocities of the satellites vary depending on their azimuth. That means that SRT corrections cannot be done on the satellite; the GPS unit on the ground has to correct for azimuth.

Therefore the SR corrections are in the hand, not in the sky.

Just another way the @xin troll has lied.

And the corrections are right there in the source code it can't parse, too.

Not to mention the Wikipedia article it lied about.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Dec 11, 2018
Go ahead, @xin, try lying about the source code.

I dare you.
granville583762
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 12, 2018
Xinhang Shen,s invention Mothalaxy

Xinhang Shen's war cry:- General relativity has already been disproved both logically and experimentally
and "mothalaxy" (mother of galaxies), Xinhang Shen's master stroke in name

A Mothalaxy, by Xinhang Shen
there is only one universe - a 3D Euclidean space evolving in an infinite absolute time. Our part of the universe is something from an explosion, beyond this visible part of the universe, there are still infinitely many existences

By your logic of reasoning there is only one universe Xinhang Shen, then in the same breath you go on to elucidate further by a contradiction Xinhang Shen
that beyond this visible universe, there are still infinitely many existences
which contradicts the first part of your idea
that by logic of reason this only one universe Xinhang Shen

Xinhang Shen
Can you make up your mind?
Is there one universe
Two universes
Or infinite number of universes
xinhangshen
1 / 5 (5) Dec 12, 2018
Yes, of course, there is only one universe which is defined as a collection of everything. Multiverse is a slef-contradicted word. However, the visible part of the universe is filled with fluid medium called aether, and I call it a sky. The sky may have a boundary, beyond which there should be no aether i.e. no light except gravitation. There may be multiple skies in the universe.
savvys84
1 / 5 (5) Dec 13, 2018
yet another false conclusion. totally not taking into account the anomalies of digital clocks. carry on, keep the GR dogma alive.
bloody assholes
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) Dec 13, 2018
Xinhang Shen
The universe is filled with fluid medium called Aether, and I call it a sky
Xinhang Shen> Yes, of course, there is only one universe which is defined as a collection of everything.. The sky may have a boundary, beyond which there should be no aether i.e. no light except gravitation. There may be multiple skies in the universe.

Xinhang Shen
A test of a theory is to write the statement "The universe is filled with fluid medium called aether, and I call it a sky" on a poster and hang in the town centre for the public's reaction
namely
the statement - "The universe is filled with fluid medium" - called - "sky"
as
intead of going into space to visit the space station
becomes
going into sky to visit the sky station
are
you
still sticking with "sky", Xinhang Shen
to describe
The infinite vacuous vacuum of space
xinhangshen
1 / 5 (5) Dec 13, 2018
The sky is the visible part of the universe filling with fluid aether. The sky may have boundary, beyond which there is no aether, and thus no light, but gravitation. The discovery of the existence of aether will not only explain many phenomena from the wave property in the particle-wave duality to the accelerating motions of galaxies, but also start a technology revolution that will make GPS positioning much more accurate, introduce aether dynamics based space engines and superluminal spaceships, and many other possible inventions.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2018
The sky is the visible part of the universe filling with fluid aether. The sky may have boundary, beyond which there is no aether, and thus no light, but gravitation. The discovery of the existence of aether will not only explain many phenomena from the wave property in the particle-wave duality to the accelerating motions of galaxies, but also start a technology revolution that will make GPS positioning much more accurate, introduce aether dynamics based space engines and superluminal spaceships, and many other possible inventions.


Utter bullshit.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2018
yet another false conclusion. totally not taking into account the anomalies of digital clocks. carry on, keep the GR dogma alive.
bloody assholes


Dickhead. They are atomic clocks, you prat. And GR has been proven multiple times, bozo.
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) Dec 13, 2018
Choosing your sky blue dress

jonesdave, you're not really in any fit state to criticise Xinhang Shen's theory
or any other theory, come to that
as you have yet to decide whether you choose a red dress or a sky blue dress
Hear the gentleman out JD
you have not come out with a theory of your own
if you had
you would not have fallen foul of cantdrve85s sense of humour
so
JD
Let us hear this interesting theory of Xinhang Shen's
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Dec 13, 2018
@xin
The sky is the visible part of the universe filling with fluid aether ...
The discovery of the existence of aether will not only explain...
nope
https://www.natur...omms9174

It seems that many people here are not only irrational but also uncivilized
well, you should start posting as if you have family and have learned to be civilised then - it's the height of rudeness, incivility and irrational to post known lies like aether pseudoscience on a science site

so stop being irrational and rude and pay attention to the above posters trying to help you
guptm
not rated yet Dec 13, 2018
Moon exists regardless if one can see it or not.
savvys84
1 / 5 (2) Dec 14, 2018
hey morondave. Know ye not that the atomic clocks have a digital readout?
And no GR has not been proven right multiple times, only it has been falsely concluded to be right.
Don't pretend that you have not read my papers here
https://www.scrib...savvys84
Thr Phd scientists at IOSR ( INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH) HAVE ACCEPTED MY PAPERS
savvys84
1 / 5 (2) Dec 14, 2018
yet another false conclusion. totally not taking into account the anomalies of digital clocks. carry on, keep the GR dogma alive.
bloody assholes


Dickhead. They are atomic clocks, you prat. And GR has been proven multiple times, bozo.
Lol jonesy boy, likewise. Know ye not that the atomic clocks have a digital readout?
And no GR has not been proven right multiple time, only falsely conclude to be so. Don't pretend that you don't understand my papers at
https://www.scrib...savvys84
If there was something wrong with my papers, the Phd scientists at The International Organisation of Scientficic Research, would not have accepted my papers for publication
granville583762
1 / 5 (1) Dec 15, 2018
The luminiferous Aether

Take the infinite vacuous vacuum of space
with billions of protons and electrons locally in conjunction
occupying a portion of that vacuum
then becomes the same as the atmosphere occupying the vacuum surrounding the earth
which wave of protons in vibration transmit waves
as without protons occupying the vacuum there is no wave
and so the same with electromagnetic radiation
the electron occupy the vacuum
where their electric field in motion produces magnetism produces electromagnetic radiation
electromagnetic radiation is travelling through the electrons occupy the vacuum
as electrons oscillating transmitting a wave
as there is no true vacuum being that it is occupied by atoms
light is never observed travelling a true vacuum
the atoms are the Aether
as it has many names
as waves travel in a medium
it is commonly called
The luminiferous Aether
granville583762
1 / 5 (1) Dec 15, 2018
Relative to relativity

As the oscillating electrons transmit electromagnetic radiation
as sound is transmitted by the oscillating atoms in the vacuum we call air
the same as photons are electromagnetic radiation of oscillating electron occupying the vacuum
as electrons only oscillate at 299792458m/s and no faster
it follows the wave travels 299792458m/s and no faster
and so even if the electrons are physically moving as in a jet at 299792450m/s
the electromagnetic radiation oscillates at 299792458m/s
so now matter what the relative velocity
electromagnetic radiation oscillates at 299792458m/s
electromagnetic radiation travels at 299792458m/s
as
relativity
actually in all reality is relative in velocity to the the vacuum
all relative motion is relative to 299792458m/s
making
relativity relative to light
Relative to the speed of light
savvys84
1 / 5 (1) Dec 16, 2018
@Granville aether is bollocks, as for the rest of your post, what are you trying to convey?
xinhangshen
not rated yet 7 hours ago
If you are still not convinced that Einstein's relativity is wrong, here is a simple thought experiment to disprove it:

Two twins made exact the same trips (i.e. both of them had the same velocity and acceleration all the way during their trips) but in opposite directions. According to special relativity, each should see the clock of the other tick more slowly because of the existence of a velocity relative to each other all the time. The difference should accumulate to its maximum when they got back to the earth. But when they met again on the earth, they found they had exact the same time shown on their clocks because of symmetry. This contradiction has clearly told you that relativistic time is not clock time and can never be realized on clocks.
Gawad
not rated yet 6 hours ago
If you are still not convinced that Einstein's relativity is wrong, here is a simple thought experiment to disprove it:

Two twins made exact the same trips (i.e. both of them had the same velocity and acceleration all the way during their trips) but in opposite directions. According to special relativity, each should see the clock of the other tick more slowly because of the existence of a velocity relative to each other all the time...[snip]
...CABLOOIE!.

Nope, Xin, you haven't just exposed a contradiction in SR, you,ve just exposed that you don't actually understand relativity.

There's no contradiction in your scenario because 1) both twins' space-time interval, S, is identical in length, so they must be the same age when they meet again (contrary to a set of twins where one doesn't get boosted to a different reference frame), and 2) on their return trip, both see the other's clock accelerate back to account for the "missing" time in symmetrical fashion.
xinhangshen
not rated yet 3 hours ago
Gawad, Please be aware that the kinematic time dilation is determined only by the relative velocity!

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.