Fibre-linked atomic clocks put special relativity to the test

Have you considered for example that mathematically a Geocentric model of the solar system is equivalent to a Heliocentric one, and that it is only by functional considerations' ( including Occams Razor) that that the second is preferred. The words 'right' and 'wrong' do not apply.

With respect to motion within the confines of the solar system, the "correct" (preferred) frame of reference is NOT the earth. It is the barycenter, the "center of mass," which is not even the sun.

That is why this particular endeavor, and similar ones such as the Hafele-Keating experiment, could ONLY use LR (not SR) to make predictions which matched the observed, empirical results they generated.

SR is not capable of explaining, let alone predicting, this outcome. However Lorentizian Relativity explains it completely, and can accurately predict, in advance, what each clock will read.

The historical significance of Einstein for concepts of 'physical reality' WAS precisely SR in which he rejected a Newtonian fixed reference frame

In physics the Einstein æther theory, also called æ-theory, is a generally covariant modification of general relativity which describes a spacetime endowed with both a metric and a unit timelike vector field named the æther. The theory has a preferred reference frame and hence violates Lorentz invariance....

In addition to the metric of general relativity these theories also included a scalar field which intuitively corresponded to a universal notion of time. Such a theory will have a preferred reference frame, that in which the universal time is the actual time. The dynamics of the scalar field is identified with that of an æther which is at rest in the preferred frame.

Einstein-æther theories were popularized by Maurizio Gasperini in a series of papers, such as Singularity Prevention and Broken Lorentz Symmetry in the 1980s....Einstein æther theories returned to prominence at the turn of the century with the paper Gravity and a Preferred Frame by Ted Jacobson and David Mattingly.

The existence of a preferred, dynamical time vector breaks the Lorentz symmetry of the theory, more precisely it breaks the invariance under boosts. This symmetry breaking may lead to a Higgs mechanism for the graviton which would alter long distance physics, perhaps yielding an explanation for recent supernova data which would otherwise be explained by a cosmological constant. The effect of breaking Lorentz invariance on quantum field theory has a long history leading back at least to the work of Markus Fierz and Wolfgang Pauli in 1939.

Recently it has regained popularity with, for example, the paper Effective Field Theory for Massive Gravitons and Gravity in Theory Space by Nima Arkani-Hamed, Howard Georgi and Matthew Schwartz.[3] Einstein-æther theories provide a concrete example of a theory with broken Lorentz invariance and so have proven to be a natural setting for such investigations. In 2004, Eling, Jacobson and Mattingly wrote a review of the status Einstein æther theory as of 2004.

Solid reasoning and new data not available to Einstein and Lorentz show that Lorentz was correct and that Einstein's Theory of Relativity should correctly be termed Einstein's Principle of Invariance. It is shown that Einstein's comprehensive relativity and denial of an absolute frame of reference for the universe are incorrect and that the universe has an absolute universal prime frame of reference.

We have gone from inability to determine the truth to non-belief in its existence and then to belief that truth, and reality, are whatever we choose to believe them to be and can force on our fellows.

[comment: This is the solipsistic/sophistical philosophy favored by the likes of Fresky]

Whether we can know, sense, measure, or understand some aspect of reality or not it still, nevertheless, is. Its being does not depend on our consent nor our observation nor our understanding of it, nor even our own being. We are not gods.

[comment: Here Ellman rejects solipsism, as virtually all sane people do, in favor of "realism." Wiki describes "philosophical realism" as "the belief that some aspects of reality are ontologically independent of our conceptual schemes, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc....it asserts the mind-independent existence of the world, as opposed to skepticism and solipsism."

Brandon9000 wrote:

It certainly does not.

It sounds like we disagree, Brandon. I have already stated, over the course of several posts, my basis for taking a different position. Is there something in them that you specifically disagree with?

How does the twin paradox imply the existence of a preferred reference frame?

Time dilation predicted by Special Relativity is confirmed to within one part in 100 million.

Atomic clocks in France, Germany and the UK have been used to perform the best-ever confirmation of time dilation as set out in Einstein’s special theory of relativity.

In the RMS framework, the shift in frequency of the returned signal will contain a term that involves the difference between the velocities of the atomic clock locations.

As a result, sending signals between atomic clocks at two different points on Earth could reveal RMS violation.

RMS contradicts special relativity in all other reference frames by assuming that the average speed of light of a return journey varies according to a formula involving the velocities of those frames relative to the preferred frame.

RMS assumes that there is a preferred reference frame in which the average speed of light measured on a return journey (there and back again) between two points is constant in all directions.