The Theory of Relativity will begin to fall apart in 2016/2017 - Part III

[Robin]

Originally Posted by SDG

The time dilation interval to the train frame is 5.103s.
...
The 6.379s is time dilated interval in the train frame.

I thought we had got it clear that simply applying t*gamma to a duration does not work unless the x position of the first event and the second event are the same.

This is not the case in either of those intervals so these are both wrong and should be removed from the thought experiment.

[Bjarne]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

Yes, yes, Bjarne, we all know launching and maintaining satellites is complex business. But somehow, all the brain-washed, concrete-headed scientists seem to do it quite successfully all the time. Why do you think that is? Could it be that they actually know what they are doing?

And what about it all? GPS would STILL not work if SR was not calculated in and done so correctly.

Hans

A scientific test of SR has never been performed.

I hope the data from the test of relativity on board ISS is clear enough, to extract SR, but I am fare from sure.

Get over it, this is the real world.

[Bjarne]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

You wrote that, but you are wrong. SR is a distinct effect that can be measured, and can be verified to comply with the theory.

SR can be measured. If they make it a GR test, it is because that is what they want to test.

Hans

If it was true that GPS is such a wonderbar Scientific test setup of both for GR and SR..... WHY in heck was then ONLY GR tested in the Galileo system (2 lost satellits)? - NOT and NEVER in the exiting GPS system.… (?)

And why in heck continue to test relativity on board ISS ?

GPS was NEVER used to test GR
It can be done as we saw with the 2 (lost) dedicated Galileo satellits - but only if 2 such satellits is taken out for dedicated scientific test..

SR can impossible be tested that way because it is a relative small effect effect , very difficult to extract.

I accept the GR influence - NOTICE that and I claim that few satellits have a SR anomaly.

SR have never been tested, and it is extremely difficult to do so.. This is just a matter of FACT.

[Bjarne]

Originally Posted by phunk

Why are you unsure it can be measured? The math is simple, you can figure out what is predicted and you can google up some atomic clock info to see if they're accurate enough to measure that (they are).

How will you extract SR

It is NO secret that even the GR test data from the Galileo test, is too rough to 100% confirm GR.
Maybe the data can be further refined.. (maybe not)

We are fare from there where the data can confirm both SR and GR.

It required very exact scientific data which is still not available anywhere.

If you really believe such scientific test data are available, just send me a link . Not more unscientific bla. bla bla - .

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by SDG

If the relativity does not work for x=0 then it is no good.
The relativity has to be bulletproof, if not then it has to be scraped.

You know, I really think it's time you started to try to understand SR instead of insisting there's something wrong with it because of your failure to understand it.

Seriously, which do you think is more likely: that you've spotted something that science's best minds have failed to notice in over a century of the most intense scrutiny imaginable, or that you are simply misunderstanding? Remember that SR is routinely used to correctly predict real world behaviour.

[Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

You know, I really think it's time you started to try to understand SR instead of insisting there's something wrong with it because of your failure to understand it.

Seriously, which do you think is more likely: that you've spotted something that science's best minds have failed to notice in over a century of the most intense scrutiny imaginable, or that you are simply misunderstanding? Remember that SR is routinely used to correctly predict real world behaviour.

There is nothing to understand, with regards to GR or SR so long we not have the slightest idea, what the nature of space is about, - which must include the connection between matter and space.
So called "Curvature of Space" - is just a empty word, - a groundless fatamorgana.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by SDG

What relativity is saying is this: the cavity light clock is ticking in the platform frame between 5s and 7.5s and the train grid of the inertial observers does not see it because it has time frozen in a now moment across the board.

How is this supposed to work?

SDG

I am pretty sure that it would be impossible to define any duration in SR where a non-zero duration maps to a zero duration or vice versa without having something travel faster than the speed if light

That is only a quick interpretation of space time diagrams, so maybe someone can correct me.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Robin

I am pretty sure that it would be impossible to define any duration in SR where a non-zero duration maps to a zero duration or vice versa without having something travel faster than the speed if light

That is only a quick interpretation of space time diagrams, so maybe someone can correct me.

At any rate, it would seem to be impossible within SR for a clock to tick in one frame and not tick in the other without the clock travelling faster than the speed of light.

So SR doesn't say that AFAICS.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

How will you extract SR

It is NO secret that even the GR test data from the Galileo test, is too rough to 100% confirm GR.
Maybe the data can be further refined.. (maybe not)

We are fare from there where the data can confirm both SR and GR.

It required very exact scientific data which is still not available anywhere.

If you really believe such scientific test data are available, just send me a link . Not more unscientific bla. bla bla - .

I have already linked you to the proof that both GR and SR were confirmed to within 1% based on the NAVSTAR GPS satellites in 1977! That is 42 years ago. Your argument has been falsified almost 2 generations ago.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=450

[Robin]

Originally Posted by SDG

Edit: The bold part
This cannot be error. If the relativity does not work for x=0 then it is no good.
The relativity has to be bulletproof, if not then it has to be scraped.

He didn't say it didn't work at x=0. Of course it works at x=0.

It is just that the gamma*t transform you are applying everywhere, only works at x=0.

Did you really not understand what he said?

[jonesdave116]

Further to my previous;

rel1.jpg

(Click to enlarge)

From;

GPS AND RELATIVITY: AN ENGINEERING OVERVIEW
Henry F. Fliegel and Raymond S. DiEsposti (1996)
http://www.stanson.ch/files/GPS/Vol%2028_16.pdf

Anybody that knows anything about the accuracy required for GPS, will know that ignoring +7 microseconds per day would render the system useless in very short order.

[halleyscomet]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

A scientific test of SR has never been performed.

That’s a bald faced lie and I think you know it. Multiple examples have been posted to this thread proving your claim to be flat out wrong. I’ve seen Creationists who are better at adapting than you are.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by SDG

Let us try the text book example one more time.

The blue arrows represent how the light beam is seen by the grid of platform inertial observers.
The red arrows represent how the light beam is seen by the grid of train inertial observers.
Do you agree?
SDG

Yes, and this agrees with the Train to platform part of my table.

Now consider if the author had chosen to illustrate the concept using a light pulse travelling perpendicular to the tracks in the platform frame.

In this case the situation would be reversed, the blue arrows would represent the light beam as seen by the grid of train inertial observers and the red arrows would represent how the light beam is seen by the grid of platform inertial observers. We would need to flip the diagram horizontally to get the directions right.

Hence equation 2.2 would also be reversed.

And this agrees with the Platform to train part of my table.

[halleyscomet]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

I have already linked you to the proof that both GR and SR were confirmed to within 1% based on the NAVSTAR GPS satellites in 1977! That is 42 years ago. Your argument has been falsified almost 2 generations ago.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=450

The proof is older than that.
https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-200-year...ved-1458642219

General Relativity got traction initially BECAUSE it was so easy to test it scientifically. Bjarne isn't just lying, he's telling a whopper that has literally been false since shortly after initial publication of the theory!

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by SDG

https://i.imgur.com/LWeFfZh.png

When the light hits the LE of the train car it is in 5s of the platform grid inertial observers proper time.
The time dilation interval to the train frame is 5.103s.

In the platform frame, light hits the LE (left end of the train) in 5s.

In the train frame, light hits the LE in 6.124s.

That event does not take place at x = 0 or at x' = 0.

You think you can translate times between frames by multiplying by gamma without taking x into account. That's not how the Lorentz transformation works.

Look at it this way: suppose there are multiple clocks all along the length of the train, which the conductor has carefully synchronized so they all read the same time.

In the platform frame, all the clocks on the train tick slower than the platform clocks. They all tick slower by the same factor (gamma, of course). But in addition, they all read different times because they're moving and are at different x coordinates.

There is no single consistent "train time" in the platform frame. Times on the train cannot be reliably computed simply by multiplying platform proper time by gamma. Time intervals on the train, when they're intervals between events that have x distance between them, cannot be reliably computed that way either.

If you fail to take that into account, you'll think you're seeing contradictions.

[halleyscomet]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

If it was true that GPS is such a wonderbar Scientific test setup of both for GR and SR..... WHY in heck was then ONLY GR tested in the Galileo system (2 lost satellits)? - NOT and NEVER in the exiting GPS system.… (?)

And why in heck continue to test relativity on board ISS ?

GPS was NEVER used to test GR
It can be done as we saw with the 2 (lost) dedicated Galileo satellits - but only if 2 such satellits is taken out for dedicated scientific test..

SR can impossible be tested that way because it is a relative small effect effect , very difficult to extract.

I accept the GR influence - NOTICE that and I claim that few satellits have a SR anomaly.

SR have never been tested, and it is extremely difficult to do so.. This is just a matter of FACT.

Your inability to comprehend science and technology does not make your ignorant ramblings into facts.

The Dunning-Kruger Effect Shows Why Some People Think They're Great Even When Their Work Is Terrible

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

If it was true that GPS is such a wonderbar Scientific test setup of both for GR and SR..... WHY in heck was then ONLY GR tested in the Galileo system (2 lost satellits)? - NOT and NEVER in the exiting GPS system.… (?)

Is a false statement. Both GR and SR were tested and, indeed, used on Galilieo. If SR wasn't included, it wouldn't work! From NAVSTAR, we know that the overall correction for relativistic time effects is 38 000 nanoseconds. Of this, + 45 000 ns are due to GR, and - 7 000 ns are due to SR. Both effects can easily be measured and, indeed, predicted. GPS requires 20-30 nanosecond precision. Ignoring 7 000 of them is not an option.

Quote:

And why in heck continue to test relativity on board ISS ?

Why not?

Quote:

GPS was NEVER used to test GR
It can be done as we saw with the 2 (lost) dedicated Galileo satellits - but only if 2 such satellits is taken out for dedicated scientific test..

Is another false statement. As the abstract here, says;

Quote:

NTS-2 was successfully launched on 23 June 1977 into a near 12-hour circular orbit. Precise frequency and timing signals are derived from the two cesium frequency standards. This paper discusses the launch and preliminary results which include verification of the relativistic clock effect.

INITIAL RESULTS OF THE NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 SATELLITE
Buisson, J. A. et al. (1978)
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/c...5.pdf#page=197

Quote:

SR can impossible be tested that way because it is a relative small effect effect , very difficult to extract.

I accept the GR influence - NOTICE that and I claim that few satellits have a SR anomaly.

SR have never been tested, and it is extremely difficult to do so.. This is just a matter of FACT.

Is, as shown, yet another false statement. If we can measure the GR effect at 45 microseconds, what is the problem with the SR effect at 7 microseconds? If we require 20-30 nanosecond accuracy for a viable GPS system, and SR requires corrections of 7 000 nanoseconds, what would be the point in sending up GPS satellites in the first place, if we cannot measure the corrections to anywhere near the required accuracy? Think about it.

[Bjarne]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

I have already linked you to the proof that both GR and SR were confirmed to within 1% based on the NAVSTAR GPS satellites in 1977! That is 42 years ago. Your argument has been falsified almost 2 generations ago.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=450

And did you ask if these was polar satellites?

[Bjarne]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Is a false statement. Both GR and SR were tested and, indeed, used on Galilieo. If SR wasn't included, it wouldn't work! From NAVSTAR, we know that the overall correction for relativistic time effects is 38 000 nanoseconds. Of this, + 45 000 ns are due to GR, and - 7 000 ns are due to SR. Both effects can easily be measured and, indeed, predicted. GPS requires 20-30 nanosecond precision. Ignoring 7 000 of them is not an option.

Why not?

Is another false statement. As the abstract here, says;

INITIAL RESULTS OF THE NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 SATELLITE
Buisson, J. A. et al. (1978)
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/c...5.pdf#page=197

Is, as shown, yet another false statement. If we can measure the GR effect at 45 microseconds, what is the problem with the SR effect at 7 microseconds? If we require 20-30 nanosecond accuracy for a viable GPS system, and SR requires corrections of 7 000 nanoseconds, what would be the point in sending up GPS satellites in the first place, if we cannot measure the corrections to anywhere near the required accuracy? Think about it.

Still all this is bla. bla. bla bla.
We are speaking about a scientific test, proving SR to be true
Where is this test, proving SR to be true ?
How do you extract the SR value from the data ????
Except bla. bla. bla bla.

[Bjarne]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

I have already linked you to the proof that both GR and SR were confirmed to within 1% based on the NAVSTAR GPS satellites in 1977! That is 42 years ago. Your argument has been falsified almost 2 generations ago.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=450

Rubbish

Copy / paste from the article below
At present one cannot easily perform tests of relativity with the system because the SV clocks are actively steered to be within 1 microsecond of Universal Coordinated Time (USNO).
Several relativistic effects are too small to affect the system at current accuracy levels, but may become important as the system is improved; these include gravitational time delays, frequency shifts of clocks in satellites due to earth's quadrupole potential, and space curvature.

And here is your own BS source http://www.leapsecond.com/history/Ashby-Relativity.htm

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

Still all this is bla. bla. bla bla.
We are speaking about a scientific test, proving SR to be true
Where is this test, proving SR to be true ?
How do you extract the SR value from the data ????
Except bla. bla. bla bla.

I'm assuming that I am going to have to explain this as if to a five year old. The scientific test is the observation of the discrepancy between the predictions of the corrections required due to SR and GR, and the observation of the discrepancy before the frequency synthesiser was turned on. They predicted it correctly. The prediction was for the cumulative effects of GR and SR.

Understand? 45 - 7 = 38. Which is what was predicted, and what was measured. Get it through your head that you are wrong. And are easily shown to be wrong. And have been. Learn to read. And comprehend. Come back when you have done that.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

Still all this is bla. bla. bla bla.
We are speaking about a scientific test, proving SR to be true
Where is this test, proving SR to be true ?
How do you extract the SR value from the data ????
Except bla. bla. bla bla.

Bla, bla, bla seems to be your coded way of saying, "I don't understand this." I don't have any problem with people not understanding things. What I do have a problem with, is people who don't understand things pretending that they do. You are such a person.

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

How do you extract the SR value from the data ????

You do this;

Prediction 1 - GR will require a correction of + 45 microseconds.

Prediction 2 - SR will require a correction of - 7 microseconds.

Prediction 3 - 45 - 7 = 38.

Send up satellites. Don't bother correcting the clocks. After ~ 20 days, see how much the clocks are out of sync with Earth-based clocks. Observation shows it to be the predicted 38 microseconds. Which was predicted using both GR and SR. Simple. And all done 42 years ago.
So why are you here? You are 100% wrong, and the scientific literature shows you to be 100% wrong. Get over it.

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

To achieve this level of precision, the clock ticks from the GPS satellites must be known to an accuracy of 20-30 nanoseconds. However, because the satellites are constantly moving relative to observers on the Earth, effects predicted by the Special and General theories of Relativity must be taken into account to achieve the desired 20-30 nanosecond accuracy.

Because an observer on the ground sees the satellites in motion relative to them, Special Relativity predicts that we should see their clocks ticking more slowly (see the Special Relativity lecture). Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion [2].

Further, the satellites are in orbits high above the Earth, where the curvature of spacetime due to the Earth's mass is less than it is at the Earth's surface. A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away (see the Black Holes lecture). As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites appear to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground. A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day.

The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! This sounds small, but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond accuracy, and 38 microseconds is 38,000 nanoseconds. If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! The whole system would be utterly worthless for navigation in a very short time.

The engineers who designed the GPS system included these relativistic effects when they designed and deployed the system. For example, to counteract the General Relativistic effect once on orbit, the onboard clocks were designed to "tick" at a slower frequency than ground reference clocks, so that once they were in their proper orbit stations their clocks would appear to tick at about the correct rate as compared to the reference atomic clocks at the GPS ground stations. Further, each GPS receiver has built into it a microcomputer that, in addition to performing the calculation of position using 3D trilateration, will also compute any additional special relativistic timing calculations required [3], using data provided by the satellites.

Relativity is not just some abstract mathematical theory: understanding it is absolutely essential for our global navigation system to work properly!

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/...Unit5/gps.html

So, 10 km per day for 38 microseconds. So lets leave out the SR correction, but still include the GR correction. This means the clocks will be 7 microseconds different from our current measurements. If 38 microseconds = 10 km per day, then 7 microseconds = ~2 km per day. Equals ~ 700 km/yr. Times 42 = 30 000 km.
Last time you used GPS to drive home, did you make it, or did you find yourself in orbit?

[Bjarne]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/...Unit5/gps.html

So, 10 km per day for 38 microseconds. So lets leave out the SR correction, but still include the GR correction. This means the clocks will be 7 microseconds different from our current measurements. If 38 microseconds = 10 km per day, then 7 microseconds = ~2 km per day. Equals ~ 700 km/yr. Times 42 = 30 000 km.
Last time you used GPS to drive home, did you make it, or did you find yourself in orbit?

And still, where is the word "polar" ?

[Bjarne]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

I'm assuming that I am going to have to explain this as if to a five year old. The scientific test is the observation of the discrepancy between the predictions of the corrections required due to SR and GR, and the observation of the discrepancy before the frequency synthesiser was turned on. They predicted it correctly. The prediction was for the cumulative effects of GR and SR.

Understand? 45 - 7 = 38. Which is what was predicted, and what was measured. Get it through your head that you are wrong. And are easily shown to be wrong. And have been. Learn to read. And comprehend. Come back when you have done that.

and how do you extract SR from the data???????

[Bjarne]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

You do this;

Prediction 1 - GR will require a correction of + 45 microseconds.

Prediction 2 - SR will require a correction of - 7 microseconds.

Prediction 3 - 45 - 7 = 38.

Send up satellites. Don't bother correcting the clocks. After ~ 20 days, see how much the clocks are out of sync with Earth-based clocks. Observation shows it to be the predicted 38 microseconds. Which was predicted using both GR and SR. Simple. And all done 42 years ago.
So why are you here? You are 100% wrong, and the scientific literature shows you to be 100% wrong. Get over it.

And the point is that is not true for polar satellites.. SR will be little less as predicted

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

and how do you extract SR from the data???????

Huh? Can you not read? It is predicted BEFOREHAND!

If it wasn't accounted for GPS wouldn't work. It does. Ergo, you are wrong. Understand?

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

And the point is that is not true for polar satellites.. SR will be little less as predicted

I am not talking about bloody polar satellites. I am talking about the NAVSTAR satellites. Launched in 1977. Which confirmed relativistic time dilation. For both GR and SR.

[halleyscomet]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

Where is this test, proving SR to be true ?

Since Special Relativity is a subset of General Relativity, a test of General relativity should meet your standards.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-200-year...ved-1458642219

[halleyscomet]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

I am not talking about bloody polar satellites. I am talking about the NAVSTAR satellites. Launched in 1977. Which confirmed relativistic time dilation. For both GR and SR.

Remember that Bjarne has his own cosmic mythology in which Earth's poles have a mystical significance. For example, he claims interstellar objects can only approach from "Above " the North Pole. Anytime anyone provides evidence that counters his personal cosmic mythology, he moves the goalposts further into his mythology. Demanding tests done in a polar orbit is one such add-on requirement. He's previously "justified" it by resorting to his personal "Dark Flow" mythology, which has little to no connection to anything an actual scientist means when they refer to "dark" anything.

He is functionally a religious troll.

[Bjarne]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Huh? Can you not read? It is predicted BEFOREHAND!

If it wasn't accounted for GPS wouldn't work. It does. Ergo, you are wrong. Understand?

Polar satellites are where SR will fail.
This always was the point and still is the point with this thread.
I thought you knew after 10 years.

And still a lot of factors of uncertainties (for example true altitude and A LOT more) will always be connected to satellites so long you not are preforming a dedicated scientific test.

Regardless what you predict.

In the same way if I predict that C/2019 Q4 would decelerate lets say total 200 km within 3 month, would that prove MTR to be confirmed. ?

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

Polar satellites are where SR will fail.
This always was the point and still is the point with this thread.
I thought you knew after 10 years.

And still a lot of serveral factors of uncertainties (for example true altitude and A LOT more) will always be connected to satellites so long you not are preforming a dedicated scientific test.

Regardless what you predict.

In the same way if I predict that C/2019 Q4 would decelerate lets say total 200 km within 3 month, would that prove MTR to be confirmed. ?

Nope. No difference where the satellites are. If they have a velocity relative to Earth-based clocks, there will be a correction needed for SR. Einstein tells us this, and it keeps being confirmed. I have no reason to doubt Einstein on this. Nor have I been given one.

[Bjarne]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

I am not talking about bloody polar satellites.

I am, - and this is my thread….

Quote:

I am talking about the NAVSTAR satellites. Launched in 1977. Which confirmed relativistic time dilation. For both GR and SR.

Or maybe they was Lucky to hit the nail that day…

Why are we still testing if everything already really should be so certain.

On the large scale nature’s own test of relativity failed, - as well as humans test too - for example Pioneer anomalies, Flyby anomalies, Oumuamua , Dark Matter, - mysterious inclination of quasars etc etc etc etc....

[Bjarne]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Nope. No difference where the satellites are. If they have a velocity relative to Earth-based clocks, there will be a correction needed for SR. Einstein tells us this, and it keeps being confirmed. I have no reason to doubt Einstein on this. Nor have I been given one.

And still you haven't understood, this thread is about anomalies that must be true for polar satellites.

[Bjarne]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

I have already linked you to the proof that both GR and SR were confirmed to within 1%
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=450

And what when a polar satellit or ISS is let say is 3,9% or 4,7% OFF
WHAT then amigo ?

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

Or maybe they was Lucky to hit the nail that day…

Hahahaha! And every day since, = ~ 42 x 365!

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

And what when a polar satellit or ISS is let say 4,7% OFF
WHAT then amigo ?

4.7% off of what? And atomic clocks are to be flown on the ISS. They will confirm SR, which will have a much larger effect than GR at that altitude. At which stage you will come up with some more woo to cover your obvious failure.

[halleyscomet]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

I am, - and this is my thread….

[jonesdave116]

Managed to find this in a paywalled article;

Quote:

Marvin Epstein and coworkers at ITT have recently pointed out that the adjustments occasionally made to GPS orbits provide an opportunity for sensitive tests of small relativistic effects. For example, rockets fired two years ago to reposition one of the GPS satellites reduced its semimajor axis by 1880 meters and increased its velocity correspondingly. Epstein and company observed an average fractional frequency change of -18.5×10¹⁴, in good agreement with the relativistic prediction of -17.7×10¹⁴.

Relativity and the Global Positioning System
Ashby, N. (2002)
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/d...1063/1.1485583

That is pretty impressive agreement of the cumulative effects of GR and SR down to parts in 10¹⁴. So, anybody claiming that SR effects are too small to be measured at 7 000 nanoseconds per day is either wrong, or.............