GPS versus source dependency / ballistic theory
Myxococcus xanthus
If source dependency / ballistic theory is true, then GPS cannot
possibly be as accurate as claimed. If you will study the references
provided by Sam Wormley at the following site, you will note that GPS
positioning algorithms universally assume the speed of light in vacuum
to be constant.
http://www.edu-observatory.org/gps/gps.html
Let us examine measurements taken on a GPS satellite at different
times of day by two tracking stations, P and Q, on opposite sides of
the Earth.
For simplicity, let us ignore the the Earth's rotation.
5:04 AM midnight
B --P-- A
/ \
| p@q |
6:00 AM \ / 11:04 AM
C --Q-- D
The GPS satellite is in circular orbit about the center of the Earth,
denoted by @, with a 12 hour period. The orbital radius is 26,600 km,
and the velocity of the satellite is 3.87 km/sec. The radius of the
Earth is 6370 km, and the satellite orbits counterclockwise in this
diagram. Let us take the speed of light to be 300,000 km/sec.
At midnight, the satellite is at point A, and is just peeking above
the horizon as viewed by tracking station P. The distance of P to the
GPS satellite is 25,800 km, and the radial component of the satellite
relative to P is 0.927 km/sec, i.e. the satellite is approaching
tracking station P. Ballistic theory predicts that a GPS signal from A
to the tracking station will require 0.085999734 sec to arrive, as
opposed to 0.086000000 sec in the absence of ballistic theory
assumptions.
The signal arrives 0.000000266 sec sooner than it normally would be
expected to arrive, and tracking station P concludes that the
satellite is 80 meters closer than it actually is.
At 5:04 AM, the satellite is just sinking below the horizon at point
B, and is moving at 0.927 km/sec away from the tracking station.
Ballistic theory predicts that the GPS signal requires 0.086000266
seconds to arrive at the tracking station.
The signal arrives 0.000000266 sec later than it normally would be
expected to arrive, and tracking station P concludes that the
satellite is 80 meters farther away than it actually is.
Tracking station P concludes that the GPS satellite orbits the Earth
about point p, which is displaced 80 meters to the left of the center
of the Earth.
By similar arguments, tracking station Q concludes that the GPS
satellite orbits the Earth about point q, which is displaced 80 meters
to the right of center.
TRACKING STATIONS P AND Q DISAGREE ON THE ORBIT OF THE GPS SATELLITE
BY 160 METERS.
In real life, no such anomalies have ever been noted.
Using a reverse argument, it is possible to demonstrate that if the
source dependency hypothesis is correct, GPS receivers cannot possibly
provide positioning accuracies of better than +/- 80 meters.
In reality, GPS receivers provide positioning accuracies of about 10
meters.
SOURCE DEPENDENCY / BALLISTIC THEORY IS EMPIRICALLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH
THE GPS EVIDENCE.
You have a choice. Either throw away your GPS receivers, or accept
that ballistic theory is nonsense.
Myxococcus xanthus
Eric Gisse
xanthus) wrote:
[snip]
I enjoyed reading that. But you and others work way too hard to
discredit people who discredit themselves on a daily basis. *cough*
Ghost :) *cough*
I am truly starting to believe in the theory of Negative Intelligence.
Not in a crazy Hammond-esque SPOG sort of way, but in a 'this
describes reality way more than it should' type of way.
>You have a choice. Either throw away your GPS receivers, or accept
>that ballistic theory is nonsense.
>
>Myxococcus xanthus
Stop thinking like a physicist, or whatever you are that is in the
realm of science.
These two deny and distort evidence on a daily basis for a purpose
that makes sense only to them. Or, put another way...the "work" these
two do is neither academic or industrial in nature.
They do not appear to want to do anything with it other than say
Relativity is false. Beyond that simple aspiration, there are no
higher goals. It is disgustingly simpleminded and sad to watch.
Anyway, your options are limited to 2 if you are sane and/or honest.
There are further options: Deny the evidence, Assault a strawman, and
Ignore the evidence [a subset of Denial].
divot
I have a set of books on GPS that discuss in detail with all the equations
and all possible error sources evaluated and your concerns are covered. You
can order the set of books (5) from the US Government. Open literature,
probably at your library too.
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>To Henry Wilson and Androcles:
The GPS is accurate to about 3cms.
You obviously know fuck all about it.
>
>SOURCE DEPENDENCY / BALLISTIC THEORY IS EMPIRICALLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH
>THE GPS EVIDENCE.
>
>You have a choice. Either throw away your GPS receivers, or accept
>that ballistic theory is nonsense.
>
>Myxococcus xanthus
Henri Wilson.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
See proof that light speed is source dependent.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
Eric Gisse
[snip]
>>
>>In reality, GPS receivers provide positioning accuracies of about 10
>>meters.
>
>The GPS is accurate to about 3cms.
>You obviously know fuck all about it.
[snip]
Differential GPS is accurate to a few cm. That is not normal GPS.
Furthermore, saying GPS is even more accurate than what was originally
said bolsters MA's argument - which you did not disagree with.
What is the term for this arguing style? I think it is the
non-sequitur form.
John C. Polasek
xanthus) wrote:
Myxo:
Now just a second here. Without following your diagram entirely, it
looks like you are bucking A against B on opposite sides of the world.
The GPS system only looks at 3 satellits directly above and there is
no radial velocity to speak of, so no ballistic effect.
--JP--
Mr. Dual Space
(If you have something to say, write an equation.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay).
Sam Wormley
Henri Wilson wrote:
> The GPS is accurate to about 3cms.
> You obviously know fuck all about it.
>
Actually Henri augmented GPS differential GPS is accurate to a few
millimeters, but in the context of this thread unaugmented GPS is
has a 95% accuracy of about 15 meter for low cost recreational
receivers. Unaugmented military GPS receivers using the P(Y) codes
on both L1 and L2 carriers achieve about 3 meters accuracy (95%).
Interface Control Document ICD-GPS-200C
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
"General Relativity in the Global Positioning System" by Neil Ashby
http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/index.html
http://www.edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html#Relativity
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
"General Relativity in the Global Positioning System" by Clifford M. Will
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
http://www.edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html#Relativity
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
Ian Stirling
> On 3 Sep 2004 18:35:23 -0700, mold-g...@comcast.net (Myxococcus
> xanthus) wrote:
>
>>To Henry Wilson and Androcles:
>>
>>If source dependency / ballistic theory is true, then GPS cannot
>>possibly be as accurate as claimed. If you will study the references
>>provided by Sam Wormley at the following site, you will note that GPS
>>positioning algorithms universally assume the speed of light in vacuum
>>to be constant.
>>http://www.edu-observatory.org/gps/gps.html
>>
>>Let us examine measurements taken on a GPS satellite at different
>>times of day by two tracking stations, P and Q, on opposite sides of
>>the Earth.
>>
>>For simplicity, let us ignore the the Earth's rotation.
> Myxo:
> Now just a second here. Without following your diagram entirely, it
> looks like you are bucking A against B on opposite sides of the world.
> The GPS system only looks at 3 satellits directly above and there is
> no radial velocity to speak of, so no ballistic effect.
This is incorrect.
GPS can use any of the up-to 12 visible satellites visible.
Picking the three that were most overhead would usually give
poorer results than optimising for best precision.
Google "geometric dilution of position"
Androcles
"Ian Stirling" <ro...@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4139e5de$0$12434$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
Even without googling it is intuitively obvious that the optimum angle
for getting a 'fix' is 90 degrees.
\ |
\ |
\|____You are here.
|\
|
|
______|_
^
You are here.
There isn't a darn thing wrong with assuming the velocity of light is
constant with respect to the source, the difference it makes is so small
that it is totally insignificant to the GPS system.
Given that the speed of light is (say) 300,000 km/sec and the speed of the
satellite is 10 km/sec peak, at a distance of (say) 1000 km,
we are comparing 300,010 to 300,000 for an error of 10 km/s.
The time error is then
t = d/v = 1000/300,000 - 1000/300,010 = 0.0000001111074 seconds, or
multiplying by c, 34 metres maximum.
These of course are crude figures for a satellite that is racing directly
away from (or toward) the receiver. For a satellite directly overhead, the
transverse velocity is 10km/sec but the line of sight velocity is 0.
By Pythagoras, sqrt(300,000^2 + 10^2) = 300,000.00011 which is a more
realistic error. Since I've exaggerated the velocity of the satellite
anyway, the signal's velocity will be affected by atmosphere, more than one
satellite is used, we are inside the stated tolerance of GPS regardless of
the velocity of the satellite.
Androcles.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992796
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993232
John C. Polasek
This is not the place for obvious intuition. The nearest 3 satellites
are 22.5 degrees apart (did you get that?). You have to worry about
slant range of various amounts through our atmosphere. That's probably
flakier than your ballistic effect.
You could "skip" a pair and get 45 degrees but then you have to
calculate whether one is overhead and the other through a 45 degree
slant vector.
John C. Polasek
<andr...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
OOPs! The separation between nearest is 45 degrees already. I forgot
about double counting.
Sam Wormley
Androcles wrote:
>
> Even without googling it is intuitively obvious that the optimum angle
> for getting a 'fix' is 90 degrees.
What the hell are you blubbering about. GPS receivers need four*
or more satellites spaced widely around the sky (2 pi steradians).
Many receivers restrict acquistion to 5 degrees or higher above
the horizon to avoid poor signals. Without obstruction, a low
altitude satellite is no harder to lock onto than one over your
head.
*without some augmentation
http://www.edu-observatory.org/gps/tutorials.html
NAVSTAR GPS User Equipment Introduction:
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.peterson.af.mil/usspace/gps_support/documents/gpsuser.pdf
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| One way to check out previous discussions of a subject is via |
| Google's new newsgroup search engine at: |
| http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+group%3Asci.geo.satellite-nav |
| http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search |
| |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Also see:
http://www.gpsnuts.com/
> http://gpsinformation.net
http://www.gpsy.com/gpsinfo/
http://home-2.worldonline.nl/~samsvl/
http://williams.best.vwh.net/avform.html
> http://vancouver-webpages.com/peter/
Introduction:
http://www.edu-observatory.org/gps/tutorials.html
> http://www.Colorado.EDU/geography/gcraft/notes/notes.html
Books, Publications and Technical Documents:
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/geninfo/default.htm
http://www.nima.mil/GandG/pubs.html
http://www.navtechgps.com/
http://www.edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
Accuracy, Errors and DGPS:
> http://users.erols.com/dlwilson/gps.htm
http://www.edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_accuracy.html
http://www.edu-observatory.org/gps/dgps.html
Waypoints, Maps & GIS
http://www.edu-observatory.org/maps/waypoints.html
http://www.edu-observatory.org/maps/maps.html
> http://www.edu-observatory.org/gis/gis.html
http://www.edu-observatory.org/maps/utm.html
Dirk Van de moortel
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:e%p_c.35195$_g7.31153@attbi_s52...
>
>
> Androcles wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Even without googling it is intuitively obvious that the optimum angle
> > for getting a 'fix' is 90 degrees.
>
> What the hell are you blubbering about. GPS receivers need four*
> or more satellites spaced widely around the sky (2 pi steradians).
> Many receivers restrict acquistion to 5 degrees or higher above
> the horizon to avoid poor signals. Without obstruction, a low
> altitude satellite is no harder to lock onto than one over your
> head.
You'd be surprised how hard it is to lock onto the one over
Androcles' head. You have no idea what a hydrocephale can
do to a radio signal.
Dirk Vdm
Tom Roberts
> Now just a second here. Without following your diagram entirely, it
> looks like you are bucking A against B on opposite sides of the world.
> The GPS system only looks at 3 satellits directly above and there is
> no radial velocity to speak of, so no ballistic effect.
Modern GPS receivers reference up to 12 satellites simultaneously (at
least ones available at Wal-Mart (:-)). And the best accuracy is for
those near the horizon. If they only looked at satellites "directly
above" they could not determine position on the surface very well at all
(but would do very well for altitude (:-)).
But yes, the success of the GPS indicates that any "ballistic effect" is
quite small and consistent with zero -- certainly it is utterly
inconsistent with "c+v".
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Ian Stirling
> John C. Polasek wrote:
>> Now just a second here. Without following your diagram entirely, it
>> looks like you are bucking A against B on opposite sides of the world.
>> The GPS system only looks at 3 satellits directly above and there is
>> no radial velocity to speak of, so no ballistic effect.
>
> Modern GPS receivers reference up to 12 satellites simultaneously (at
> least ones available at Wal-Mart (:-)). And the best accuracy is for
> those near the horizon. If they only looked at satellites "directly
> above" they could not determine position on the surface very well at all
> (but would do very well for altitude (:-)).
Consider three satellites overhead, equidistant from the GPS unit.
The GPS unit calculates position by measuring relative delay to the
satellites.
As there is no relative delay, it can't solve for altitude.
3 satellites gives you two unknowns (if you don't have a hyper-accurate
clock, or one just set from a bird that's gone out of view).
If you know altitude, longitude or latitude, then you can obtain a
degraded fix.
If you know the GPS units velocity, then you can use the doppler as they
move to give you a better fix.
John C. Polasek
wrote:
Yes, they certainly could do a commendable job using the nearest 3
stations, because the least sutention between stellites is 45 degrees,
so any accuracy would be limited to versine of 22.5 deg. of optimum,
and the idea of going horizon to horizon at nearly zero elevation
angle through our refractive atmosphere is at the least depressing, if
it is just to pick up a few %.
In any case, the radial velocity problem is just not a factor, in my
opinion. The expression c + v is without merit.
Myxococcus xanthus
> Now just a second here. Without following your diagram entirely, it
> looks like you are bucking A against B on opposite sides of the world.
> The GPS system only looks at 3 satellits directly above and there is
> no radial velocity to speak of, so no ballistic effect.
Huh?
GPS cannot use satellites DIRECTLY overhead for determining horizontal
position.
If psi is the angle of a GPS satellite above the horizon, the
horizontal positioning error due to an error in determining the range
to the satellite is
horizontalPositioningError = satelliteRangeError / cos(psi)
This (approximate) formula becomes infinite for satellites directly
overhead.
So yes, satellites high in the sky would show less of a ballistic
effect, but even though the ballistic effect is smaller for satellites
high in the sky, the horizontal positioning error due to source
dependency would be very nearly as great as that for satellites near
the horizon.
I whipped together a short computer program to illustrate this fact.
The program is reproduced at the end of this post. Although the
hypothetical ballistic effect approaches zero as the GPS satellite
approaches the zenith, the horizontal positioning error DUE TO
BALLISTIC EFFECTS ONLY does not decrease below approximately 62
meters.
The program ignores real life effects which, as noted, tend to make
use of overhead satellites undesirable.
Note the parentheses about the zenith entry. I needed to compute this
entry "by hand" since the computer program did not properly handle
zero divided by zero.
To simplify programming, I modified the midnight start time to
represent the satellite on the x axis.
theta is the angle of the satellite with respect to the x axis.
psi is the angle of the satellite above the horizon as seen by P.
range is the distance from P to the satellite.
radial velocity is the rate of change of the range.
ballistic range error is the error due to source dependency, in
meters, predicted by ballistic theory in determining the distance from
P to the satellite.
ballistic horizontal positioning error is the horizontal error due to
source dependency, in meters, predicted by ballistic theory in
determining the location of P.
03:00:00
zenith
B
|
|
|
|
|
05:32:17 | 00:27:42
gps set | gps rise
C --P-- A
/ \
| @----|-------------- 00:00:00
\ /
--Q--
ballist ballistic
time theta psi range radial range horiz pos
(hms) (deg) (deg) (km) velocity error error (m)
00:27:42 13.86 0.00 25826 -0.9265 -79.8 -79.8
00:42:56 21.47 7.74 24982 -0.9180 -76.4 -77.2
00:58:10 29.08 15.76 24154 -0.8917 -71.8 -74.6
01:13:23 36.70 24.07 23358 -0.8459 -65.9 -72.1
01:28:37 44.31 32.69 22614 -0.7798 -58.8 -69.8
01:43:51 51.93 41.61 21940 -0.6927 -50.7 -67.8
01:59:05 59.54 50.85 21355 -0.5850 -41.6 -65.9
02:14:18 67.16 60.35 20877 -0.4583 -31.9 -64.5
02:29:32 74.77 70.09 20522 -0.3154 -21.6 -63.4
02:44:46 82.39 80.00 20304 -0.1608 -10.9 -62.7
03:00:00 90.00 90.00 20230 -0.0000 0.0 (-62.3)
03:15:13 97.61 100.00 20304 0.1608 10.9 -62.7
03:30:27 105.23 109.91 20522 0.3154 21.6 -63.4
03:45:41 112.84 119.65 20877 0.4583 31.9 -64.5
04:00:54 120.46 129.15 21355 0.5850 41.6 -65.9
04:16:08 128.07 138.39 21940 0.6927 50.7 -67.8
04:31:22 135.69 147.31 22614 0.7798 58.8 -69.8
04:46:36 143.30 155.93 23358 0.8459 65.9 -72.1
05:01:49 150.92 164.24 24154 0.8917 71.8 -74.6
05:17:03 158.53 172.26 24982 0.9180 76.4 -77.2
05:32:17 166.14 180.00 25826 0.9265 79.8 -79.8
-------------------------------------------------------------------
#include <math.h>
#include <iostream>
#include <iomanip>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
const double PI = 4 * atan(1); // pi
const double c = 300000; // speed of light (km/s)
const double r = 6370; // radius Earth (km)
const double R = 26600; // radius GPS orbit (km)
const double period = 12*60*60; // period of GPS orbit (sec)
// gps satellite angular velocity (radians/sec)
const double omega = 2*PI/period;
const double gpsRise = period*asin(r/R)/2/PI;
const double gpsSet = period/2 - gpsRise;
// angle of satellite with respect to x axis
double theta(double t) {
return omega * t;
}
// distance of satellite from observer P
double s(double t) {
return sqrt(r*r + R*R - 2 * r * R * sin(theta(t)));
}
// satellite angle of elevation with repect to observer P
double psi(double t) {
return acos( R*cos(theta(t))/s(t) );
}
// radial velocity of satellite relative to observer P
double ds_dt(double t) {
return -(r * R * omega * cos(theta(t))) /
sqrt(r*r + R*R - 2 * r * R * sin(theta(t)));
}
double satelliteRangeError(double t) {
return c*( s(t)/(c - ds_dt(t)) - s(t)/c ) ;
}
double horizontalPositioningError(double t) {
return satelliteRangeError(t) / cos(psi(t));
}
string hms(double seconds)
{
char output[20];
int sec, minutes, min, hr;
sec = (int)seconds % 60;
minutes = (int)(seconds/60);
min = minutes % 60;
hr = minutes / 60;
sprintf(output, "%02d:%02d:%02d", hr, min, sec);
return string(output);
}
int main()
{
double i;
double t; // seconds
int divisions = 20 ;
printf(" ballist
ballistic");
printf("\r\n");
printf(" time theta psi range radial range horiz
pos");
printf("\r\n");
printf(" (hms) (deg) (deg) (km) velocity error error
(m)");
printf("\r\n");
for ( i = 0; i <= divisions; i = i+1 )
{
t = i * (gpsSet - gpsRise) / divisions + gpsRise;
printf("%s %6.2f %6.2f %5.0f %7.4f %6.1f %6.1f \r\n",
hms(t).c_str(), 180*theta(t)/PI, 180*psi(t)/PI,
s(t), ds_dt(t),
1000 * satelliteRangeError(t),
1000 * horizontalPositioningError(t) );
}
return 0;
}
Androcles
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:jys_c.494$Ip....@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
[snip]
| But yes, the success of the GPS indicates that any "ballistic effect" is
| quite small and consistent with zero -- certainly it is utterly
| inconsistent with "c+v".
|
| Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
When a so-called scientist resorts to lying to support his prejudices his
credibility takes a dive from which there is no recovery.
Roberts, you are a LIAR.
Androcles.
Eric Gisse
Tom Roberts, a respected [whatever he is] for his knowledge of GR and
physics in general vs Androcles, an old alcoholic crank who doesn't
understand that you don't set d=1 in dx to get a derivative.
Tell us Androcles, how is he a LIAR!!!!!!? I have to ask because you
didn't bother telling.
Bilge
That is why you aren't a scientist, so-called or otherwise and tom is.
Myxococcus xanthus
> John C. Polasek <jpol...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message news:<cpkjj01bnidkq0dbe...@4ax.com>...
> > Now just a second here. Without following your diagram entirely, it
> > looks like you are bucking A against B on opposite sides of the world.
> > The GPS system only looks at 3 satellits directly above and there is
> > no radial velocity to speak of, so no ballistic effect.
>
> Huh?
>
> GPS cannot use satellites DIRECTLY overhead for determining horizontal
> position.
>
> If psi is the angle of a GPS satellite above the horizon, the
> horizontal positioning error due to an error in determining the range
> to the satellite is
>
> horizontalPositioningError = satelliteRangeError / cos(psi)
>
> This (approximate) formula becomes infinite for satellites directly
> overhead.
Oops! I missed a sign. If a satellite in the first quadrant is
perceived to be closer than it actually is, then your horizontal
positioning error should be to the right.
BTW, the approximation is for a flat Earth and the satellite
infinitely far away.
Myxococcus xanthus.
Myxococcus xanthus
Seems you continue to have the misconception (expressed in earlier
posts) that GPS receivers operate by triangulation.
Instead, they use trilateralization, and because of that, if psi is
the angle of a GPS satellite above the horizon, the horizontal
positioning error due to an error in determining the range to the
satellite is
horizontalPositioningError = -satelliteRangeError / cos(psi)
(approximation assumes flat Earth and satellite infinitely far away)
> There isn't a darn thing wrong with assuming the velocity of light is
> constant with respect to the source, the difference it makes is so small
> that it is totally insignificant to the GPS system.
> Given that the speed of light is (say) 300,000 km/sec and the speed of the
> satellite is 10 km/sec peak, at a distance of (say) 1000 km,
Try 1 km/sec peak and 20,000+ km distance.
> we are comparing 300,010 to 300,000 for an error of 10 km/s.
> The time error is then
> t = d/v = 1000/300,000 - 1000/300,010 = 0.0000001111074 seconds, or
> multiplying by c, 34 metres maximum.
Try 62 meters minimum, 80 meters maximum.
Regardless, you do agree that there will be a significant ranging
error. Good.
> These of course are crude figures for a satellite that is racing directly
> away from (or toward) the receiver. For a satellite directly overhead, the
> transverse velocity is 10km/sec but the line of sight velocity is 0.
> By Pythagoras, sqrt(300,000^2 + 10^2) = 300,000.00011 which is a more
> realistic error.
1) Pythagoras is rolling in his grave.
2) Try sticking in 90 degrees for psi and see what you get.
> Since I've exaggerated the velocity of the satellite
> anyway,
...and underestimated the range...
> the signal's velocity will be affected by atmosphere, more than one
> satellite is used,
Since GPS satellites orbit in six orbital planes, the observer will
see them traversing the sky in several different directions, they will
provide inconsistent horizontal positioning errors of 62 to 80 meters
in different directions, and the errors generally won't cancel out.
> we are inside the stated tolerance of GPS regardless of
> the velocity of the satellite.
No, we are not within the stated tolerance of the GPS.
Myxococcus xanthus
Myxococcus xanthus
>> There isn't a darn thing wrong with assuming the velocity of light
is
>> constant with respect to the source, the difference it makes is so
small
>> that it is totally insignificant to the GPS system.
>> Given that the speed of light is (say) 300,000 km/sec and the speed
of the
>> satellite is 10 km/sec peak, at a distance of (say) 1000 km,
> Try 1 km/sec peak and 20,000+ km distance.
Clarification: 1 km/sec peak radial component of the satellite
velocity with respect to the observer. Orbital velocity is slightly
less than 4 km/sec.
Myxococcus xanthus
Mike
No, it isn't. It doesn't not tell you anything about c+v. Terms
involving v are either to small wrt measurement error or wash out
depending on the sats involved overhead or at the horizon.
You got to be smarter than that and understand that there can be no
experiment to decide over c+v, unless the OWSL is first determined
with v and with v=0.
At any rate, the current status of GPS clock correction is using
heuristic algorithms, very far from the theoretical predictions of GR.
But look, the same holds even for sat trajectory planning. Theoretical
predictions fail even there.
People just do not realize the power of feedack control systems.
Things are not forward driven but continuously adjust based on data
received. Theory plays no role any longer except an initial ball park
estimate and capability.
Mike
>
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <andr...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:7jx_c.829$vh1.7...@news-text.cableinet.net...
Androcles and the LIAR - revisited
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TheLiar2.html
See also
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TheLiar.html
Full blown paranoia (revisited as well).
Dirk Vdm
Randy Poe
> At any rate, the current status of GPS clock correction is using
> heuristic algorithms, very far from the theoretical predictions of GR.
Eh?
The theoretical prediction is that the clocks, relative to
earth clocks, will gain 37 microseconds per day. The frequencies
are adjusted to gain: 37 microseconds per day.
How do you translate that into "very far from the theoretical
predictions"?
> But look, the same holds even for sat trajectory planning. Theoretical
> predictions fail even there.
Theoretical predictions based on a uniform earth and ignoring
the effects of the moon and the sun wouldn't be good very
long. The government has invested a lot of money in working
out very accurate gravitational surveys working out the
resulting correct theory out to 3rd, 5th or higher order.
The resulting orbital models are trustworthy enough that
ballistic missiles can be dropped in on your nose.
Perturbations gradually creep in over days, and satellite
orbit estimates need to be updated. But the models are
certainly good enough to find a satellite within a few
meters over many orbits.
> People just do not realize the power of feedack control systems.
> Things are not forward driven but continuously adjust based on data
> received.
Neither GPS nor satellite ephemeris is "continuously adjusted
based on data received". Both are updated once a day, and the
drift between times is pretty miniscule. The theory accounts
for the drift to a few nanoseconds per day out of 37 microseconds.
That's one part in 10000. Is that your definition of "very
far"?
> Theory plays no role any longer except an initial ball park
> estimate and capability
Once again, theory predicts the observed drift to within
one part in 10000, every day, day after day. Pretty fine
"ball park".
- Randy
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message news:<jys_c.494$Ip....@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>...
>>quite small and consistent with zero -- certainly it is utterly
>>inconsistent with "c+v".
>
> No, it isn't. It doesn't not tell you anything about c+v. Terms
> involving v are either to small wrt measurement error or wash out
> depending on the sats involved overhead or at the horizon.
This is just plain not true. Apparently you missed the opening article
in this thread which displayed how and why a simple "c+v" theory applied
to the GPS, AND THE WAY THE GPS ASSUMES c ALONE, would induce position
errors much larger than GPS receivers actually achieve.
The v of the satellites is indeed small compared to c, but not too small
to be significant to the GPS accuracy.
Again I point out this does not apply to satellites directly overhead,
or nearly so; the effect is most pronounced for satellites near the horizon.
> You got to be smarter than that and understand that there can be no
> experiment to decide over c+v, unless the OWSL is first determined
> with v and with v=0.
Sure there can, when one knows the velocity of the source wrt receiver.
For GPS satellites this is quite well known. Of course one measures c
using comoving source and detector (as is universally done in
metrological labs).
I guess there is indeed a third part to this: the observed constancy of
the round-trip speed of light in those metrological labs.
> At any rate, the current status of GPS clock correction is using
> heuristic algorithms, very far from the theoretical predictions of GR.
Not true. By far the largest correction, about 37 microseconds per day,
is directly in agreement with GR. The minor corrections (a handful of
nanoseconds per day, IIRC) are due primarily to non-modelable clock
drifts, and also to a bunch of effects too small to be accurately
modeled (effects of sun and moon are modeled; asteroids are not, nor are
minor orbital errors, gravitational effects of mountains and oceans, etc.).
> People just do not realize the power of feedack control systems.
I have no idea what "people" you mean. All major engineering systems
include feedback controls, including the GPS.
But yes, in an alternate universe in which the GPS was
constructed without the GR correction, and was based on
a "c+v" theory, the feedback control system could be designed
so the system would work. But that does not apply to the
GPS _AS_BUILT_. In particular, the software in GPS receivers
would be different in that alternate universe, as would the
overall control systems that determine the clock corrections.
> Things are not forward driven but continuously adjust based on data
> received. Theory plays no role any longer except an initial ball park
> estimate and capability.
Sure. But in the case of the GPS clocks, 99+% of all corrections are
accurately modeled by GR. Certainly the basic GR correction is several
hundred times larger than the intrinsic accuracy and stability of the
clocks. And it is utterly required for the system to work anywhere close
to specifications.
Note that any feedback control system needs both a damping system
(low-pass filter) and a set of limits. Without the GR correction the
limits would need to be set hundreds of times wider than they are. And
the damping system would need to be set very loose, to permit initial
capture. Either or both of those would subject the system to many more
sources of instability....
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Myxococcus xanthus
> > Modern GPS receivers reference up to 12 satellites simultaneously (at
> > least ones available at Wal-Mart (:-)). And the best accuracy is for
> > those near the horizon. If they only looked at satellites "directly
> > above" they could not determine position on the surface very well at all
> > (but would do very well for altitude (:-)).
> >
> > But yes, the success of the GPS indicates that any "ballistic effect" is
> > quite small and consistent with zero -- certainly it is utterly
> > inconsistent with "c+v".
> >
>
> No, it isn't. It doesn't not tell you anything about c+v. Terms
> involving v are either to small wrt measurement error or wash out
> depending on the sats involved overhead or at the horizon.
Please refer to my previous posts to this thread:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ce5e7813.0409031735.763ea570%40posting.google.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ce5e7813.0409041717.70eb523%40posting.google.com
I calculate that between 62 and 80 meters measurement error would
result from hypothetical source dependency / ballistic effects. This
is hardly "small wrt measurement error".
Nor will the hypothetical errors "wash out" in averaging over multiple
satellites. GPS satellites are confined to six orbital planes, and
even if your receiver is monitoring a maximum of 12 satellites, most
of the satellites will be in duplicate orbital planes, and will only
reinforce each others' errors.
c+v is totally inconsistent with the GPS data. If you want to argue
against me, show how my math is wrong, instead of making ignorant
assertions without any calculations or data to back them up.
> You got to be smarter than that and understand that there can be no
> experiment to decide over c+v, unless the OWSL is first determined
> with v and with v=0.
>
> At any rate, the current status of GPS clock correction is using
> heuristic algorithms, very far from the theoretical predictions of GR.
Heuristic algorithms? Very far from the theoretical predictions? You
got to be kidding. GPS satellite clocks match GR predictions to within
a few nanoseconds per day.
Or do you consider matching GR predictions only to within 0.01% "very
far from the theoretical predictions"?
> But look, the same holds even for sat trajectory planning. Theoretical
> predictions fail even there.
I don't know what you mean by "theoretical predictions" failing.
Orbital modelling is very far advanced from what you apparently
imagine it to be.
> People just do not realize the power of feedack control systems.
> Things are not forward driven but continuously adjust based on data
> received. Theory plays no role any longer except an initial ball park
> estimate and capability.
GR provides an initial ball park estimate good to 0.01%, after which
the GPS satellites are corrected once a day to take care of random
clock drift.
This is not "continual adjustment", and the initial GR estimate is
good to the limits of clock accuracy.
Myxococcus xanthus
Myxococcus xanthus
> Mike wrote:
> > Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:<jys_c.494$Ip....@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>...
> >>But yes, the success of the GPS indicates that any "ballistic effect" is
> >>quite small and consistent with zero -- certainly it is utterly
> >>inconsistent with "c+v".
> >
> > No, it isn't. It doesn't not tell you anything about c+v. Terms
> > involving v are either to small wrt measurement error or wash out
> > depending on the sats involved overhead or at the horizon.
>
> This is just plain not true. Apparently you missed the opening article
> in this thread which displayed how and why a simple "c+v" theory applied
> to the GPS, AND THE WAY THE GPS ASSUMES c ALONE, would induce position
> errors much larger than GPS receivers actually achieve.
>
> The v of the satellites is indeed small compared to c, but not too small
> to be significant to the GPS accuracy.
>
> Again I point out this does not apply to satellites directly overhead,
> or nearly so; the effect is most pronounced for satellites near the
horizon.
Actually, the effect is very pronounced even for satellites overhead.
If psi is the angle of a GPS satellite above the horizon, the
horizontal positioning error due to an error in determining the range
to the satellite is
horizontalPositioningError = -satelliteRangeError / cos(psi)
So even though the satellite range error approaches zero as psi
approaches 90 degrees, the horizontal positioning error due to the
hypothetical ballistic effect remains large because of the division by
cos(psi).
Numerically, I found the minimum horizontalPositioningError as
psi approached 90 degrees to be about 62 meters.
The following post explains this point further. I made a sign error in
the last column of my table, but otherwise I think my calculations
should be OK.
Myxococcus xanthus
Myxococcus xanthus
>
> Numerically, I found the minimum horizontalPositioningError as
> psi approached 90 degrees to be about 62 meters.
>
> The following post explains this point further. I made a sign error in
> the last column of my table, but otherwise I think my calculations
> should be OK.
I had MEANT to link to
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ce5e7813.0409041717.70eb523%40posting.google.com
:-(
Note that this analysis applies to satellites passing through the
zenith.
I am still working on the general, three-dimensional case. Quite an
interesting exercise for rusty old brain cells...
Myxococcus xanthus
Jim Greenfield
Guess what? If your figures are correct, this will be equal to the
"corrections" made to keep the system accurate. The idiots don't
realise that using c'=c+v would eliminate the need for "time"
corrections.
Jim G
c'=c+v
Dirk Van de moortel
"Myxococcus xanthus" <mold-g...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:ce5e7813.04090...@posting.google.com...
> To Henry Wilson and Androcles:
Never mind the stupid ones, specially if they want to remain
ignorant as well.
By the way, have you seen this one?
http://www.gfy.ku.dk/~cct/Speciale1.pdf
I haven't worked through it all the way, but it seems quite okay.
Dirk Vdm
Androcles
"Jim Greenfield" <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c4afb26.04090...@posting.google.com...
Well, I don't claim they are. They are simply in the ball park.
Individual satellites will have elliptical orbits that have slightly
different
eccentricities, those orbits will be constantly perturbed, mostly by the
moon but some by the sun as the Earth has some eccentricity in its orbit, so
any satellite will be tugged by the three most significant bodies when the
three are aligned or at a right angle, and that will depend on the relative
positions of the satellites, the ground stations will monitor where the
satellite actually is and signal the satellite to change where it thinks it
is. The satellite needs to use its own "GPS" to know its own position, and
the ground stations are a fixed reference. After all, it is relative to that
frame that we need to use the system to locate ourselves. In that signal
will be included the time as well, so the accuracy of the clock isn't as
critical as relativists pretend it to be.
| The idiots don't
| realise that using c'=c+v would eliminate the need for "time"
| corrections.
The adjustments will always be necessary, Jim. The system won't work without
them. Roberts doesn't understand how the system works, hence his stupid
claim that altitude will be more precise from a directly overhead satellite,
denied by Ian Stirling, and his ridiculous assertion that GPS is
incompatible with c+v.
Androcles
| Jim G
| c'=c+v
Harry
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:ZxU_c.237825$062.12...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
Interesting, lots of info!
Thanks.
Harald
Mike
> ele...@yahoo.gr (Mike) wrote in message news:<9c1b39be.04090...@posting.google.com>...
> > At any rate, the current status of GPS clock correction is using
> > heuristic algorithms, very far from the theoretical predictions of GR.
>
> Eh?
>
> The theoretical prediction is that the clocks, relative to
> earth clocks, will gain 37 microseconds per day. The frequencies
> are adjusted to gain: 37 microseconds per day.
>
> How do you translate that into "very far from the theoretical
> predictions"?
[snip]
That's the theoretical prediction. Now, do you have data to tell me
how this related to actual drift? If you do, can you tell me how the
data is obtained and specifically, how do you synchronize the start
and end of an interval to complete your measure using ground and
orbitting clocks?
Or in another way, has anyone ever determined the error in a target
position on the ground and made backward calculation to determine what
the clock adjustment should be to null that error? What is that in
comparison to the "37 microsec" figure obtained by the theory?
Mike
>
> - Randy
Henri Wilson
>"Androcles" <andr...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<q3n_c.526$SY3.5...@news-text.cableinet.net>...
>> "Ian Stirling" <ro...@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:4139e5de$0$12434$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>>
>> There isn't a darn thing wrong with assuming the velocity of light is
>> constant with respect to the source, the difference it makes is so small
>> that it is totally insignificant to the GPS system.
>> Given that the speed of light is (say) 300,000 km/sec and the speed of the
>> satellite is 10 km/sec peak, at a distance of (say) 1000 km,
>> we are comparing 300,010 to 300,000 for an error of 10 km/s.
>> The time error is then
>> t = d/v = 1000/300,000 - 1000/300,010 = 0.0000001111074 seconds, or
>> multiplying by c, 34 metres maximum.
>> These of course are crude figures for a satellite that is racing directly
>> away from (or toward) the receiver. For a satellite directly overhead, the
>> transverse velocity is 10km/sec but the line of sight velocity is 0.
>> By Pythagoras, sqrt(300,000^2 + 10^2) = 300,000.00011 which is a more
>> realistic error. Since I've exaggerated the velocity of the satellite
>> anyway, the signal's velocity will be affected by atmosphere, more than one
>> satellite is used, we are inside the stated tolerance of GPS regardless of
>> the velocity of the satellite.
>>
>> Androcles.
>> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992796
>> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993232
>
>Guess what? If your figures are correct, this will be equal to the
>"corrections" made to keep the system accurate. The idiots don't
>realise that using c'=c+v would eliminate the need for "time"
>corrections.
dead right. they haven't a clue.
>
>Jim G
>c'=c+v
The only difference between a preacher and a used car salemans is that the latter actually has a product to sell.
Henri Wilson
Thankyou Mike, that should put their fantasies to rest..
Th GPS obviously owes its accuracy to continuous empirical correction.
>
>>
>> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Henri Wilson
>On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 05:16:51 GMT, "Androcles"
><andr...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
>>news:jys_c.494$Ip....@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
>>[snip]
>>
>>| But yes, the success of the GPS indicates that any "ballistic effect" is
>>| quite small and consistent with zero -- certainly it is utterly
>>| inconsistent with "c+v".
>>|
>>| Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
>>
>>When a so-called scientist resorts to lying to support his prejudices his
>>credibility takes a dive from which there is no recovery.
>>Roberts, you are a LIAR.
>>
>>Androcles.
>>
>
>Tom Roberts, a respected [whatever he is] for his knowledge of GR and
>physics in general vs Androcles, an old alcoholic crank who doesn't
>understand that you don't set d=1 in dx to get a derivative.
The con men who wear white collars are respected by the fools of society, too.
>
>Tell us Androcles, how is he a LIAR!!!!!!? I have to ask because you
>didn't bother telling.
Paul B. Andersen
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> skrev i melding news:hpeoj0tm4ddl3h726...@4ax.com...
But you know this isn't true, don't you?
How often are the correctional data uploaded to
the satellites, Henri?
By how much can the clocks be allowed to drift
off synch during that period, Henri?
By how much can the clock rate be wrong to achieve
that, Henry?
How does that compare to the GR correction, Henri?
You still pretend to be ignorant of the answers
to these question, do you?
Paul
Randy Poe
> poespa...@yahoo.com (Randy Poe) wrote in message news:<df76407e.04090...@posting.google.com>...
> > ele...@yahoo.gr (Mike) wrote in message news:<9c1b39be.04090...@posting.google.com>...
> > > At any rate, the current status of GPS clock correction is using
> > > heuristic algorithms, very far from the theoretical predictions of GR.
> >
> > Eh?
> >
> > The theoretical prediction is that the clocks, relative to
> > earth clocks, will gain 37 microseconds per day. The frequencies
> > are adjusted to gain: 37 microseconds per day.
> >
> > How do you translate that into "very far from the theoretical
> > predictions"?
>
> [snip]
>
> That's the theoretical prediction.
It's also the observed gain. Or it was till they put that
correction in the clock frequencies.
> Now, do you have data to tell me
> how this related to actual drift?
That kind of stuff has been posted here lots of times before.
Off the top of my head, I remember that the daily corrections
are on the order of <5 nsec per day. I'm not sure what the best
place to find this data is, but I know it's in publicly available
data files.
A little googling got me this site:
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gps_datafiles.html
I'd bet the data you want is here somewhere.
> If you do, can you tell me how the
> data is obtained and specifically, how do you synchronize the start
> and end of an interval to complete your measure using ground and
> orbitting clocks?
I don't know the details of the process. The GPS sends you
a signal that contains where it thinks it is and what time it
thinks it is. In order to make adjustments on this, the
ground station would need independent assessments of both
the distance to the satellite and the current time. 10 cm
of position accuracy = 0.33 nsec of time accuracy (that is,
if you know the satellite distance within 10 cm then you
know what time it was when the signal left the satellite,
within 0.33 nsec). I don't know how accurately they know
satellite position, but I think it's on that order.
> Or in another way, has anyone ever determined the error in a target
> position on the ground and made backward calculation to determine what
> the clock adjustment should be to null that error?
I'm not sure what you mean by this exactly. They way they do
it is what I said, compare what time the satellite thinks it
is to what time it really is. That's your error.
Here's some satellite data from the USNO site:
ftp://tycho.usno.navy.mil/pub/gps/usnogps1.dat
I believe column 5, MC-GPS NS is the clock error in
nsec. So you can see that the errors are on the order
of +-5 nsec for most readings, but are often greater
than +-10 nsec and occasionally as high as +-20nsec.
This is all much smaller than the 37 usec you'd see
if the GR correction was not made. In other words, the
actual drift agrees with the GR prediction to within
1 part in 1850 (20 nsec/37000 nsec), and better than
1 part in 3000 for most satellites.
> What is that in
> comparison to the "37 microsec" figure obtained by the theory?
See above. After they make the 37 microsec adjustment predicted
by the theory, the remaining drift is less than 0.02 microsecond.
- Randy
John Polasek
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:hpeoj0tm4ddl3h726...@4ax.com...
> On 5 Sep 2004 10:34:01 -0700, ele...@yahoo.gr (Mike) wrote:
>
> >Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:<jys_c.494$Ip....@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>...
> >> John C. Polasek wrote:
> >> > Now just a second here. Without following your diagram entirely, it
> >> > looks like you are bucking A against B on opposite sides of the
world.
> >> > The GPS system only looks at 3 satellits directly above and there is
> >> > no radial velocity to speak of, so no ballistic effect.
> >>
> >> Modern GPS receivers reference up to 12 satellites simultaneously (at
> >> least ones available at Wal-Mart (:-)). And the best accuracy is for
> >> those near the horizon. If they only looked at satellites "directly
> >> above" they could not determine position on the surface very well at
all
> >> (but would do very well for altitude (:-)).
Hi! I just got through with the hurricane Frances and just got back on the
air. I thought I posted a message indicating that the nearest spacing was 45
degrees (is this right?) in any case and want to make the case that it would
be counterproductive to use any but the nearest 3. 45 degrees is plenty of
separation, and skipping one to get 90 degrees would not be logical for this
reason: Money!! It costs a great deal of money to put up one of these
satellites, and to put up 24 costs twice as much (trust me on this :-) ).
Why would they pepper the sky with more than they need so they could skip
them as they choose? (Could it be the Halliburton effect?).
There is no question that the GR corrections of 60, .1, 21 and 14 usec/day
are legitmate.
--JCP--
> >> But yes, the success of the GPS indicates that any "ballistic effect"
is
> >> quite small and consistent with zero -- certainly it is utterly
> >> inconsistent with "c+v".
> >>
> >
> >No, it isn't. It doesn't not tell you anything about c+v. Terms
> >involving v are either to small wrt measurement error or wash out
> >depending on the sats involved overhead or at the horizon.
> >
> >You got to be smarter than that and understand that there can be no
> >experiment to decide over c+v, unless the OWSL is first determined
> >with v and with v=0.
> >
> >At any rate, the current status of GPS clock correction is using
> >heuristic algorithms, very far from the theoretical predictions of GR.
> >But look, the same holds even for sat trajectory planning. Theoretical
> >predictions fail even there.
> >
> >People just do not realize the power of feedack control systems.
> >Things are not forward driven but continuously adjust based on data
> >received. Theory plays no role any longer except an initial ball park
> >estimate and capability.
> >
> >Mike
> >
>
> Thankyou Mike, that should put their fantasies to rest..
>
> Th GPS obviously owes its accuracy to continuous empirical correction.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
>
>
> The only difference between a preacher and a used car salemans is that the
latter actually has a product to sell.
John C. Polasek
Henri Wilson
wrote:
But you have now agreed in the other thread that the SR component of the 'GR
corection' is zero over each complete orbit.
Therefore the GR correction is a hoax, at least 20% out.
HW.
......The only difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter actually has a product to sell.
Paul B. Andersen
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> skrev i melding news:cbbsj0dldl29q4bf2...@4ax.com...
Ah. This beutiful piece of Wilsonian logic again! :-)
If there is a lurker not understanding how it goes, it is like this.
GR predicts that a clock in GPS orbit will run 38 us/day fast
when compared to a ground clock.
But Henri Wilson insists that GR _should_ have predicted
it to run 45 us/day fast, because Henri Wilson thinks that
the speed dependent term of the GR prediction should
have been zero.
Since observations show that such a clock run fast
by exactly the amount predicted by GR, and NOT
by the amount Henri Wilson thinks GR should have
predicted, Henri Wilson concludes that the prediction
of GR is wrong!
A fantastic display of Henri's convoluted thinking, isn't it? :-)
But the above was obviously only meant to divert
the attention from the questions I asked you, Henry.
But that's OK, Henri.
You have now confirmed that you know that
the GPS confirms the predictions of GR.
When did you do that?
Right above.
By stating that the "GR correction is 20% out" from
what you think the GR correction should have been
(which is 20% more than what it factually is), you are
admitting that you know that the actual GR correction
is correct.
Paul
Dirk Van de moortel
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message news:chmcum$5i8$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
Wilson knows that he is wrong. That's what makes
him a liar. He lies about everything: his name, his
degrees (physics, mathematics, psychology, genetics...)
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=3bf455d0...@news.bigpond.com
| "What are you talking about. I just told you I have a full
| degree in physics and maths, including QM, relativity,
| thermodynamics, optics, nuclear, partial differential
| equations, laplace transforms, etc. I also have a completely
| separate science degree majoring in psych and genetics
| with a few other biological and physics subjects included.
| I spent eleven years at two of the best universities,
| overall. I was an experimental officer, in physics research
| in Australia's CSIRO and other institutions for over twenty
| years. I will send you a photo of my credentials if you like.
| They are up on the wall in front of me.
| I might not have been the best or most sober student but I
| passed well and got a good grasp of the basics."
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=a63obu$ldc$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au
Dirk Vdm
Paul B. Andersen
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> skrev i melding
news:pNA%c.9958$CR3....@news.cpqcorp.net...
>
> Wilson knows that he is wrong. That's what makes
> him a liar. He lies about everything: his name, his
> degrees (physics, mathematics, psychology, genetics...)
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=3bf455d0...@news.bigpond.com
> | "What are you talking about. I just told you I have a full
> | degree in physics and maths, including QM, relativity,
> | thermodynamics, optics, nuclear, partial differential
> | equations, laplace transforms, etc. I also have a completely
> | separate science degree majoring in psych and genetics
> | with a few other biological and physics subjects included.
> | I spent eleven years at two of the best universities,
> | overall. I was an experimental officer, in physics research
> | in Australia's CSIRO and other institutions for over twenty
> | years. I will send you a photo of my credentials if you like.
> | They are up on the wall in front of me.
> | I might not have been the best or most sober student but I
> | passed well and got a good grasp of the basics."
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=a63obu$ldc$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au
>
> Dirk Vdm
>
Archimedes Plutonium was employed by a university.
He washed dishes.
Maybe Henri washed floors at SCIRO? :-)
Paul
John C. Polasek
xanthus) wrote:
Myxo, it is so simple using the nearest 3 satellites and much more
sensitive.
Firstly, the least angle is 45 degrees from center of earth, but since
we already are standing on one radius and looking up 3 more radii,
then the angle subtended between two of them is 45 x 4/3 or 60
degrees.
Draw a 60 degree triangle from you to two satellites and the vertical
divider of 30 degrees. Let L be the distance to the satellite and x be
the place on the ground, directly in the middle.
Obviously we want to find how much L changes for a change in position
x.
x = L sin 30 = L/2
dL/dx = 2 = L*csec theta/2
The sensitivity is doubled and for even smaller angles the "gain"
would be higher.
You know, if they wanted 90 degrees between satellits, they could have
gotten by with only 6, but they chose not to.
Ballistic effect? The Lorentz velocity is already taken into account
with 0.1 us/day on ground and 7 us/day for orbit velocity.
Mr. Dual Space
(If you have something to say, write an equation.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay).
Mike
> ele...@yahoo.gr (Mike) wrote in message news:<9c1b39be.04090...@posting.google.com>...
> > poespa...@yahoo.com (Randy Poe) wrote in message news:<df76407e.04090...@posting.google.com>...
> > > ele...@yahoo.gr (Mike) wrote in message news:<9c1b39be.04090...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > At any rate, the current status of GPS clock correction is using
> > > > heuristic algorithms, very far from the theoretical predictions of GR.
> > >
> > > Eh?
> > >
> > > The theoretical prediction is that the clocks, relative to
> > > earth clocks, will gain 37 microseconds per day. The frequencies
> > > are adjusted to gain: 37 microseconds per day.
> > >
> > > How do you translate that into "very far from the theoretical
> > > predictions"?
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > That's the theoretical prediction.
>
> It's also the observed gain. Or it was till they put that
> correction in the clock frequencies.
>
> > Now, do you have data to tell me
> > how this related to actual drift?
>
> That kind of stuff has been posted here lots of times before.
> Off the top of my head, I remember that the daily corrections
> are on the order of <5 nsec per day. I'm not sure what the best
> place to find this data is, but I know it's in publicly available
> data files.
>
I bet you they monitor some type of fixed target and correct
accordingly. There is no magic to that. A typical learning/adaptive
control system. The rest about theoretical predictions is bull talk.
Unless you have a standard to compare to, it's meaningless to say the
applied correction corresponds to the actual error. It just does not
make any sense and any talk about that is a sign of schizophrenia.
[snip]
>
> See above. After they make the 37 microsec adjustment predicted
> by the theory, the remaining drift is less than 0.02 microsecond.
Compared to what? Do you know the old (650 BCE) Heruclitus saying
"Everything drifts (is in flux)".
The 0.02 microseconds remaining drift is the remaining drift of the
remaining drift the theory fails to account for. It is just what you
can measure on top of the drift left. Unless you have an absolute
position to measure wrt, which is not provided by the theory anyway.
So any talk about corrections conforming to theory is, to say the
least, stupid.
Lokk at it in another way: all you measure is the relative drift,
which you can measure it within the bounds allowed by the theory, i.e.
clock and rulers. Those exactly same bounds are used to measure the
acutal drift, result:
OF COURSE THE ACTUAL DRIFT WILL MATCH THE THEORETICAL CORRECTION
WITHIN EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENT ERROR.
Corrolary: let go people, let go.
Mike
>
> - Randy
Henri Wilson
wrote:
You are talking your usual nonsense. Thread terminated.
Please answer my questions in the other thread.
>
>Paul
>
HW.
Randy Poe
> poespa...@yahoo.com (Randy Poe) wrote in message news:<df76407e.04090...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Off the top of my head, I remember that the daily corrections
> > are on the order of <5 nsec per day. I'm not sure what the best
> > place to find this data is, but I know it's in publicly available
> > data files.
> >
>
> I bet you they monitor some type of fixed target and correct
> accordingly.
No, they measure the satellite positions and see what time
the satellite says it is.
> There is no magic to that. A typical learning/adaptive
> control system. The rest about theoretical predictions is bull talk.
Which part is bull? That there's a prediction or that they
make it?
These are atomic clocks, manufactured on the ground. They keep
accurate time on the ground, to within fractions of nanoseconds
per day. Any two such clocks on the ground will remain in
synch.
But we find that clocks on the satellites run fast. We predict
the amount. It agrees. Which part of that is bull?
> Unless you have a standard to compare to, it's meaningless to say the
> applied correction corresponds to the actual error.
That standard would be the atomic clocks on the ground.
> It just does not
> make any sense and any talk about that is a sign of schizophrenia.
>
> [snip]
> >
> > See above. After they make the 37 microsec adjustment predicted
> > by the theory, the remaining drift is less than 0.02 microsecond.
>
> Compared to what?
Compared to the ground clock standard. In the files I gave
a link to, this is referred to as "MC" or "Master Clock".
> Do you know the old (650 BCE) Heruclitus saying
> "Everything drifts (is in flux)".
No. What is supposed to be the relevance?
>
> The 0.02 microseconds remaining drift is the remaining drift of the
> remaining drift the theory fails to account for. It is just what you
> can measure on top of the drift left. Unless you have an absolute
> position to measure wrt, which is not provided by the theory anyway.
> So any talk about corrections conforming to theory is, to say the
> least, stupid.
Huh?
The GPS system depends on knowing exactly what time it is on
the satellite, and exactly how far the satellite is. Why do
you have to have a test target to determine these things?
What are you talking about with "absolute position"? The
theory predicts what should happen to the clock. You look
at the clock. It either agrees with theory or it doesn't.
What is found is that it does.
Look, consider a simpler case. I manufacture two apparently
identical clocks. We put them on the desk next to each other.
I tell you that for theoretical reasons, I predict the clock
on the left will run 10% fast, meaning it will gain 6 minutes
every hour.
We watch them. After one hour we notice the clock on the left
is 6 minutes ahead. After two hours we notice it is 12 minutes
ahead. After 24 hours it is 144 minutes ahead. This goes on
day after day. Are you saying that we can't agree that the
left-hand clock is indeed gaining 6 minutes per hour, that
any statement about "10% fast" is bull, that any discussion
of "running fast" is schizophrenia?
I open the clock on the left. I go to its speed control.
I reduce it by 10%. Now we watch the clocks a little more.
We notice that after a day the clock on the left is 5 seconds
slow. The next day it is 2 seconds fast. The day after that
it is 1 second slow. Etc, according to no apparent pattern.
Are you saying we can't claim that the 10% correction was
the right amount? Are you saying that we can't say that the
clocks are now in much closer agreement than they were?
This isn't a difficult concept. A clock was found to run fast,
so the timing apparatus was slowed down. Why do you deny the
ability either to measure "running consistently fast" or
"agreeing with the other clock"?
- Randy
Randy Poe
> poespa...@yahoo.com (Randy Poe) wrote in message news:<df76407e.04090...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Off the top of my head, I remember that the daily corrections
> > are on the order of <5 nsec per day. I'm not sure what the best
> > place to find this data is, but I know it's in publicly available
> > data files.
> >
>
> I bet you they monitor some type of fixed target and correct
> accordingly.
No, they measure the satellite positions and see what time
the satellite says it is.
> There is no magic to that. A typical learning/adaptive
> control system. The rest about theoretical predictions is bull talk.
Which part is bull? That there's a prediction or that they
make it?
These are atomic clocks, manufactured on the ground. They keep
accurate time on the ground, to within fractions of nanoseconds
per day. Any two such clocks on the ground will remain in
synch.
But we find that clocks on the satellites run fast. We predict
the amount. It agrees. Which part of that is bull?
> Unless you have a standard to compare to, it's meaningless to say the
> applied correction corresponds to the actual error.
That standard would be the atomic clocks on the ground.
> It just does not
> make any sense and any talk about that is a sign of schizophrenia.
>
> [snip]
> >
> > See above. After they make the 37 microsec adjustment predicted
> > by the theory, the remaining drift is less than 0.02 microsecond.
>
> Compared to what?
Compared to the ground clock standard. In the files I gave
a link to, this is referred to as "MC" or "Master Clock".
> Do you know the old (650 BCE) Heruclitus saying
> "Everything drifts (is in flux)".
No. What is supposed to be the relevance?
>
> The 0.02 microseconds remaining drift is the remaining drift of the
> remaining drift the theory fails to account for. It is just what you
> can measure on top of the drift left. Unless you have an absolute
> position to measure wrt, which is not provided by the theory anyway.
> So any talk about corrections conforming to theory is, to say the
> least, stupid.
Huh?
The GPS system depends on knowing exactly what time it is on
the satellite, and exactly how far the satellite is. Why do
you have to have a test target to determine these things?
What are you talking about with "absolute position"? The
theory predicts what should happen to the clock. You look
at the clock. It either agrees with theory or it doesn't.
What is found is that it does.
Look, consider a simpler case. I manufacture two apparently
identical clocks. We put them on the desk next to each other.
I tell you that for theoretical reasons, I predict the clock
on the left will run 10% fast, meaning it will gain 6 minutes
every hour.
We watch them. After one hour we notice the clock on the left
is 6 minutes ahead. After two hours we notice it is 12 minutes
ahead. After 24 hours it is 144 minutes ahead. This goes on
day after day. Are you saying that we can't agree that the
left-hand clock is indeed gaining 6 minutes per hour, that
any statement about "10% fast" is bull, that any discussion
of "running fast" is schizophrenia?
I open the clock on the left. I go to its speed control.
I reduce it by 90%. Now we watch the clocks a little more.
Jim Greenfield
standard target, it will show the drift!!!!!! "The frequency is
altering: therefore, because c'=c+v , the time MUST be altered, in
order to maintain accuracy.
It is Oh, so obvious, but so is the unlikelyhood of 40 virgins in
heaven, and look at the 100s of millions of "believers".
Jim G
c'=c+v
Mike
> ele...@yahoo.gr (Mike) wrote in message news:<9c1b39be.04090...@posting.google.com>...
> > poespa...@yahoo.com (Randy Poe) wrote in message news:<df76407e.04090...@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
>
> We watch them. After one hour we notice the clock on the left
> is 6 minutes ahead. After two hours we notice it is 12 minutes
> ahead. After 24 hours it is 144 minutes ahead. This goes on
> day after day. Are you saying that we can't agree that the
> left-hand clock is indeed gaining 6 minutes per hour, that
> any statement about "10% fast" is bull, that any discussion
> of "running fast" is schizophrenia?
>
[snip]
Yes, it is bull and schizophrenia. I'm referring to the claim made
here often that without GR, GPS would not work. You said it yourself.
Just observe the clock rate difference during a given cycle and make
the corrections. You do not even need any theory of gravitation to do
that. It's all empirical stuff.
Now to the claim the GR predicts the drift. It better do that.
Otherwise no reference of GR should be macde in any textbook. But
listen, this is a much different claim from:
A. GR is a correct theory of gravitation.
B. Without GR GPS would be impossible to have.
C. The GPS actual drift is a proof GR is right.
Anyone who asserts any of the above is schizophrenic crank. You gave
the answers yourself amd I hope you'll agree.
IMO, the closeness of the drift predicted by GR to the actual
empirical one is purely accidental. Prove otherwise, i.e. prove the
following:
p
A believes p is true
The belief of A in p is justified.
The above is the standard epistemological problem in the thory of
knowledge. In other words, besides the statement that the GR predicted
drift matches the actual drift, proposition p, any epistemological
assertions regarding GR are unjustifiable.
Besides these basic epistemological difficulties leading to
scepticism, there is a more serious one: during which interval is the
drift clalculated in GR? Are there cummulative effects dut to machian
considerations which GR fails to account for? How long of a period
must the drift amount be calculated for to provide an accurate figure
of the predictive power of the theory? Will that eventually match the
empirically observed?
I have heard reports of the GPS system getting crazy due to error
accumulation. At that point a reset signal is send to re-start the
system. Are we talking about first order correction shere that happen
to be much smaller than second order over a period of time which is
not predicted by the theory?
Answer the above to reinforce the belief in p, i.e. that the belief in
the truth of the proposition the the GR predicted drift matches the
actual one is justified.
Mike
>
> - Randy
Paul B. Andersen
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> skrev i melding news:0m4vj0hvi4fafrsld...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 09:38:35 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
> wrote:
> >> Therefore the GR correction is a hoax, at least 20% out.
> >
> >Ah. This beutiful piece of Wilsonian logic again! :-)
> >
> >If there is a lurker not understanding how it goes, it is like this.
> >
> >GR predicts that a clock in GPS orbit will run 38 us/day fast
> >when compared to a ground clock.
> >But Henri Wilson insists that GR _should_ have predicted
> >it to run 45 us/day fast, because Henri Wilson thinks that
> >the speed dependent term of the GR prediction should
> >have been zero.
> >Since observations show that such a clock run fast
> >by exactly the amount predicted by GR, and NOT
> >by the amount Henri Wilson thinks GR should have
> >predicted, Henri Wilson concludes that the prediction
> >of GR is wrong!
>
Agree. Utter nonsense. My very point.
I note with interest that whenever I explain
your arguments, you call it nonsense.
> Thread terminated.
.. because you cannot defend your claim:
Henri Wislon wrote:
| The GPS obviously owes its accuracy to continuous empirical correction.
Because you know this isn't true, don't you?
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> poespa...@yahoo.com (Randy Poe) wrote in message news:<df76407e.04090...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>ele...@yahoo.gr (Mike) wrote in message news:<9c1b39be.04090...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>>>poespa...@yahoo.com (Randy Poe) wrote in message news:<df76407e.04090...@posting.google.com>...
>
>
> [snip]
>
>>We watch them. After one hour we notice the clock on the left
>>is 6 minutes ahead. After two hours we notice it is 12 minutes
>>ahead. After 24 hours it is 144 minutes ahead. This goes on
>>day after day. Are you saying that we can't agree that the
>>left-hand clock is indeed gaining 6 minutes per hour, that
>>any statement about "10% fast" is bull, that any discussion
>>of "running fast" is schizophrenia?
>>
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Yes, it is bull and schizophrenia. I'm referring to the claim made
> here often that without GR, GPS would not work.
Without GR, one would have to make huge corrections to the clocks all
the time, corrections which no one could explain why they are needed.
> You said it yourself.
> Just observe the clock rate difference during a given cycle and make
> the corrections. You do not even need any theory of gravitation to do
> that. It's all empirical stuff.
One needs GR to explain *why* the corrections are needed.
> Now to the claim the GR predicts the drift. It better do that.
Well, it does.
> Otherwise no reference of GR should be macde in any textbook. But
> listen, this is a much different claim from:
>
> A. GR is a correct theory of gravitation.
> B. Without GR GPS would be impossible to have.
> C. The GPS actual drift is a proof GR is right.
>
> Anyone who asserts any of the above is schizophrenic crank.
Why? Claim A certaintly makes sense, in the light of the evidence. It
may be a bit too strong, perhaps one should phrase it better like
"GR is a theory which describes gravity well within certain limits". But
essentially, the claim is not wrong. It does not justify calling someone
who says this a "schizophrenic crank".
Claim B is also too strong - but rephrasing it as "without GR, GPS would
be rather clumsy and show unexplainable effects" makes it again o.k. And
again, this does not justify calling someone who says this a
"schizophrenic crank".
In Claim C, we only have to replace "proof" with "evidence", and it is
perfectly right. And again, this does not justify calling someone who
says this a "schizophrenic crank".
> You gave the answers yourself amd I hope you'll agree.
>
> IMO, the closeness of the drift predicted by GR to the actual
> empirical one is purely accidental.
Now, *that* is a claim which justifies calling you a "schizophrenic crank".
Tell me, *why* do the GPS clocks experience such large drifts?
Oh, BTW, are all the other predictions of GR (such as light bending at
the sun, gravitational red shift, energy loss in a binary star system
due to the emission of gravitational waves, the shift of Mercury's
perihelion etc.) *also* just "purely accidental" right?
> Prove otherwise, i.e. prove the following:
>
> p
> A believes p is true
> The belief of A in p is justified.
What, exactly, is to proof here? That the last statement is right? That
it follows from the two previous ones? Or what?
> The above is the standard epistemological problem in the thory of
> knowledge. In other words, besides the statement that the GR predicted
> drift matches the actual drift, proposition p, any epistemological
> assertions regarding GR are unjustifiable.
So what would *you* propose doing if you want to find out if a physical
theory is correct (within its limits) or not, if not looking if its
predictions match the observations?
> Besides these basic epistemological difficulties leading to
> scepticism, there is a more serious one: during which interval is the
> drift clalculated in GR?
Irrelevant, if one measures the drift for the same interval.
> Are there cummulative effects dut to machian
> considerations which GR fails to account for?
Please tell us how "machian considerations" could change the result.
> How long of a period
> must the drift amount be calculated for to provide an accurate figure
> of the predictive power of the theory? Will that eventually match the
> empirically observed?
That depends on the measurement errors - of the drift itself as well as
of the factors which go into the calculation.
> I have heard reports of the GPS system getting crazy due to error
> accumulation.
Reference, please.
> At that point a reset signal is send to re-start the
> system. Are we talking about first order correction shere that happen
> to be much smaller than second order over a period of time which is
> not predicted by the theory?
Haven't you read the thread? The GR effect is about a factor of 1000
greater than any other drift effects.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
Randy Poe
> Yep. Sure as eggs, if the frequency change is checked against the
> standard target, it will show the drift!!!!!! "The frequency is
> altering: therefore, because c'=c+v , the time MUST be altered, in
> order to maintain accuracy.
> It is Oh, so obvious, but so is the unlikelyhood of 40 virgins in
> heaven, and look at the 100s of millions of "believers".
I know you guys are automatically suspicious of all things
relativity, but you're going to have to explain to me
why you think that it's so hard to compare two clocks
and tell if one is running fast, or that you think
the idea of comparing two clocks involves some deep
modern physics.
- Randy
Androcles
"Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:df76407e.04090...@posting.google.com...
| greenf...@hotmail.com (Jim Greenfield) wrote in message
news:<3c4afb26.04090...@posting.google.com>...
| > Yep. Sure as eggs, if the frequency change is checked against the
| > standard target, it will show the drift!!!!!! "The frequency is
| > altering: therefore, because c'=c+v , the time MUST be altered, in
| > order to maintain accuracy.
| > It is Oh, so obvious, but so is the unlikelyhood of 40 virgins in
| > heaven, and look at the 100s of millions of "believers".
|
| I know you guys are automatically suspicious of all things
| relativity,
Suspicious? I dont suspect there is something wrong... I KNOW
there is.
| but you're going to have to explain to me
| why you think that it's so hard to compare two clocks
| and tell if one is running fast,
Explain why one clock runs faster than another?
Heck, there are any number of reasons. For a pendulum clock
it might be a difference in temperature.
| or that you think
| the idea of comparing two clocks involves some deep
| modern physics.
Of course not. Which clock do you claim is going at the wrong rate?
Maybe I can fix it for you.
Androcles.
|
| - Randy
Uncle Al
Comparing two clocks is crank heresy! Scientists do it.
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
Hafele-Keating Experiment
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Mike
exactly, that's what we are talking about. It's amazng, you ask the
questions yourself and you answer them yourself but when someone gives
the same answer you rebut.
You do not need a modern physics to operate GPS. All you need is to
measure the drift and correct for that. It's that simple. It works
especially well for static position estimates and with a little help
from control theory you can make dymamic tracking of targets over
extended intervals of time. What's the big deal. GPS is assumed to
provide evidence to corroborate GR but that's all. Just adjust the
weights and it will corraborate any compansatory theory with a metric,
affine or scalar tensor. So what?
Mike
Mike
[snip]
> Without GR, one would have to make huge corrections to the clocks all
> the time, corrections which no one could explain why they are needed.
>
>
Bull, the same exactly correction will be made, which are empirically
determined. I guess you lack common sense. All you need is to apply
the drift to the calculations obtained by triangulation. The only
thing that is different up there with down here is clock rate.
Do you think that golf players apply a theory of dynamics everytime
they swing? Do you think that dolphins can balance a tiny ball on
thier nose while swimming fast because they heard of Newton or
Einstein? You simply cranky wrong. It's all feedback control,
heuristic per se. It's the ultimate theory that works fo as long as
people have been around. Needless to say that your reference to
explanations is peculiar to say the least. Only that can label you a
crank.
Mike
[snip]
> [snip]
>
> Bye,
> Bjoern
Randy Poe
> "Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:df76407e.04090...@posting.google.com...
> | greenf...@hotmail.com (Jim Greenfield) wrote in message
> news:<3c4afb26.04090...@posting.google.com>...
> | > Yep. Sure as eggs, if the frequency change is checked against the
> | > standard target, it will show the drift!!!!!! "The frequency is
> | > altering: therefore, because c'=c+v , the time MUST be altered, in
> | > order to maintain accuracy.
> | > It is Oh, so obvious, but so is the unlikelyhood of 40 virgins in
> | > heaven, and look at the 100s of millions of "believers".
> |
> | I know you guys are automatically suspicious of all things
> | relativity,
>
> Suspicious? I dont suspect there is something wrong... I KNOW
> there is.
Androcles demonstrates reading difficulties.
> | but you're going to have to explain to me
> | why you think that it's so hard to compare two clocks
> | and tell if one is running fast,
>
> Explain why one clock runs faster than another?
No, tell if one is running faster than the other one.
Mike is cooking up all sorts of scenarios for how they
"must" be doing this with test targets, control theory,
etc. I'm saying, what is the big deal with comparing
the output of two clocks and saying one seems to be
gaining time on the other? Why is this striking you
people as so difficult to do?
[answer to wrong question snipped].
- Randy
Henri Wilson
wrote:
Paul, you know the answer to this.
The free fall correction is incorporated into the clocks before launch, for
obvious reasons.
HW.
Androcles
"Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:df76407e.04090...@posting.google.com...
| "Androcles" <andr...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<xu%%c.3708$ed3.37...@news-text.cableinet.net>...
| > "Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:df76407e.04090...@posting.google.com...
| > | greenf...@hotmail.com (Jim Greenfield) wrote in message
| > news:<3c4afb26.04090...@posting.google.com>...
| > | > Yep. Sure as eggs, if the frequency change is checked against the
| > | > standard target, it will show the drift!!!!!! "The frequency is
| > | > altering: therefore, because c'=c+v , the time MUST be altered, in
| > | > order to maintain accuracy.
| > | > It is Oh, so obvious, but so is the unlikelyhood of 40 virgins in
| > | > heaven, and look at the 100s of millions of "believers".
| > |
| > | I know you guys are automatically suspicious of all things
| > | relativity,
| >
| > Suspicious? I dont suspect there is something wrong... I KNOW
| > there is.
|
| Androcles demonstrates reading difficulties.
|
| > | but you're going to have to explain to me
| > | why you think that it's so hard to compare two clocks
| > | and tell if one is running fast,
| >
| > Explain why one clock runs faster than another?
|
| No, tell if one is running faster than the other one.
|
| Mike is cooking up all sorts of scenarios for how they
| "must" be doing this with test targets, control theory,
| etc. I'm saying, what is the big deal with comparing
| the output of two clocks and saying one seems to be
| gaining time on the other? Why is this striking you
| people as so difficult to do?
Mike? I see no Mike mentioned in this post until now.
Who is Mike?
Poe demonstrates logical AND reading difficulties.
|
| [answer to wrong question snipped].
Ignored, you mean... something only the ignorant do.
Androcles.
|
| - Randy
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <andr...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:Q070d.4073$bs7.41...@news-text.cableinet.net...
>
> "Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:df76407e.04090...@posting.google.com...
> | "Androcles" <andr...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<xu%%c.3708$ed3.37...@news-text.cableinet.net>...
> | > "Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> | > news:df76407e.04090...@posting.google.com...
> | > | greenf...@hotmail.com (Jim Greenfield) wrote in message
> | > news:<3c4afb26.04090...@posting.google.com>...
> | > | > Yep. Sure as eggs, if the frequency change is checked against the
> | > | > standard target, it will show the drift!!!!!! "The frequency is
> | > | > altering: therefore, because c'=c+v , the time MUST be altered, in
> | > | > order to maintain accuracy.
> | > | > It is Oh, so obvious, but so is the unlikelyhood of 40 virgins in
> | > | > heaven, and look at the 100s of millions of "believers".
> | > |
> | > | I know you guys are automatically suspicious of all things
> | > | relativity,
> | >
> | > Suspicious? I dont suspect there is something wrong... I KNOW
> | > there is.
> |
> | Androcles demonstrates reading difficulties.
> Poe demonstrates logical difficulties.
Crapocles demonstrates logical expertise:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gibberish.html
Dirk Vdm
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> Bjoern Feuerbacher <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message >
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>Without GR, one would have to make huge corrections to the clocks all
>>the time, corrections which no one could explain why they are needed.
>>
>>
>
>
> Bull, the same exactly correction will be made, which are empirically
> determined.
Absolute utter nonsense.
The prediction from GR is a drift of several microseconds (see other
posts). That prediciton is *built into* the clocks - they are built to
go slower in order to compensate for that effect. The remaining drift,
which is empirically determined and corrected for, is on the order of
some nanoseconds only (again, see other posts).
Without GR, one would not have known that the clocks have to be built
to go slower, and therefore one would empirically determine a drift
of several microseconds (instead of only nanoseconds), and would have
to correct for *that* drift, which is *huge* compared to the drift
which has to be empirically determined and corrected *if* one used
the predictions of GR.
> I guess you lack common sense.
I gues you lack logic.
> All you need is to apply
> the drift to the calculations obtained by triangulation. The only
> thing that is different up there with down here is clock rate.
*sigh* And GR predicts by how much the clock rate is different, so that
it was possible to design the clocks so that they take this into
account. Without GR, one would have to make *huge* corrections all the
time, without knowing where this large drift comes from.
> Do you think that golf players apply a theory of dynamics everytime
> they swing? Do you think that dolphins can balance a tiny ball on
> thier nose while swimming fast because they heard of Newton or
> Einstein?
That has absolutely nothing to do with the point here.
> You simply cranky wrong.
Says the one who can't even write such a short sentence correctly.
> It's all feedback control, heuristic per se.
No, it is *not* all feedback control. It is clocks designed specifically
to take into account the GR effects, and only the remaining small drift
is heuristic feedback control.
> It's the ultimate theory that works fo as long as
> people have been around. Needless to say that your reference to
> explanations is peculiar to say the least.
What reference do you talk about?
> Only that can label you a crank.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Bye,
Bjoern
Paul B. Andersen
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> skrev i melding news:cqp1k0tgoq0h6jnus...@4ax.com...
Yep.
And the obvious reason is that the GPS wouldn't work without it.
Since this "free fall correction" was predicted by GR with amazing
precision, the very fact that the GPS works is a confirmation of GR.
We agree, then.
Paul
Paul
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> poespa...@yahoo.com (Randy Poe) wrote in message news:<df76407e.04090...@posting.google.com>...
>
[snip]
> You do not need a modern physics to operate GPS. All you need is to
> measure the drift and correct for that.
*sigh* Without GR, the drift would be several microseconds, and we would
not know where this relatively large effect comes from. With GR, we were
able to say in advance that there will be a drift on that order due to
the GR effects, and were able to build the clocks to compensate for this
effect. Result: the drift now is only a few nanoseconds, a factor of
more than a thousand less.
And *you* call GR not necessary?
[snip]
> GPS is assumed to
> provide evidence to corroborate GR but that's all. Just adjust the
> weights and it will corraborate any compansatory theory with a metric,
> affine or scalar tensor.
Care to demonstrate that?
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
Randy Poe
> questions yourself and you answer them yourself but when someone gives
> the same answer you rebut.
You didn't give the same answer, you gave some nonsense about
how you don't believe that the necessary corrections match
the GR predictions.
Do you accept that the clocks are set to run fast?
Do you accept that we can tell if they run fast?
Do you accept that the amount they run fast is the
same amount, to better than 1 part in 1000, as predicted
by GR?
> You do not need a modern physics to operate GPS. All you need is to
> measure the drift and correct for that. It's that simple.
That's correct.
> What's the big deal. GPS is assumed to
> provide evidence to corroborate GR but that's all.
That's also correct. However, GR is the only theory we have
that predicts this shift, and it predicts it to within one
part in 1000.
If that were the only supporting evidence for GR, I'd say
the case isn't extremely strong. However, we have a number
of predictions of GR in a range of settings over the last
100 years, and every one of them agrees with experimental
observation to very high precision. In most cases, to the
limits of our ability to measure.
GR is the only theory we have that predicts ANY of those
effects, let alone all of them.
> Just adjust the
> weights and it will corraborate any compansatory theory with a metric,
> affine or scalar tensor. So what?
I'd say not. Can you show me another theory that predicts the
GPS clock effect as well as the precession of mercury and
the wavelength-independent gravitational lensing? That would
do for a start.
Is your position this: "Hey all we know is that all the
experiments for 100 years agree with the GR predictions.
How is that proof?" If that's your position, I'd say it's
all the "proof" we can ask of any scientific theory. Could
there be a place where GR breaks down and another theory
does as well for even more of the experimental record?
Sure. We haven't found it yet, but I'm confident it's
out there. However, I'm afraid it will look even less like
classical Newtonian physics than GR does.
- Randy
Tom Roberts
> ele...@yahoo.gr (Mike) wrote in message news:<9c1b39be.04090...@posting.google.com>...
>>measure the drift and correct for that. It's that simple.
>
> That's correct.
No, it is not correct.
If you want to build a tower to the moon out of toothpicks, all you have
to do is stack them up one at a time.
Both claims ignore a myriad of practical issues that actually prevent
the program from succeeding, even though in principle both could work,
IN AN IDEALIZED WORLD. But we do not live in such an idealized world.
IOW: engineering is a necessary dicipline.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Paul Miller
> here often that without GR, GPS would not work. You said it yourself.
> Just observe the clock rate difference during a given cycle and make
> the corrections. You do not even need any theory of gravitation to do
> that. It's all empirical stuff.
All you are saying here is that you could build an adaptive controller
to make the corrections without having any knowledge of GR. So what?
The claim 'GPS wouldn't work without GR' means no more than 'the
controller would land up learning exactly the same corrections as
those predicted by GR'. This puts GR in the same category as any other
well-supported and well-accepted theory. You could train a neural
network to model the predictions of any theory, past or future, so you
'empirical' statement applies to all theories. It tells us nothing
about the status of those theories.
> Now to the claim the GR predicts the drift. It better do that.
> Otherwise no reference of GR should be macde in any textbook. But
> listen, this is a much different claim from:
>
> A. GR is a correct theory of gravitation.
> B. Without GR GPS would be impossible to have.
> C. The GPS actual drift is a proof GR is right.
>
> Anyone who asserts any of the above is schizophrenic crank. You gave
> the answers yourself amd I hope you'll agree.
>
> IMO, the closeness of the drift predicted by GR to the actual
> empirical one is purely accidental. Prove otherwise, i.e. prove the
> following:
>
> p
> A believes p is true
> The belief of A in p is justified.
How would you go about proving that the agreement between theory and
observation was not purely accidental? Surely Karl Popper made it
clear that no theory can ever be proved, only falsified? So the best
we can hope for is that GR is not falsified on every occasion we test
it - so far, it hasn't been.
> The above is the standard epistemological problem in the thory of
> knowledge. In other words, besides the statement that the GR predicted
> drift matches the actual drift, proposition p, any epistemological
> assertions regarding GR are unjustifiable.
Surely everything you've said could be applied to any theory,
including Newton's mechanics? How does what you're saying have any
specific implications for GR?
And please, let's drop the 'schizophrenia' tag. You might not agree
with what people are saying, but that cuts both ways.
Henri Wilson
wrote:
Crap. The GR correction incorporates a fictitious velocity component.
>
>We agree, then.
>
>Paul
>
>Paul
>
HW.
Paul B. Andersen
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> skrev i melding news:jov4k0p051bgj5ege...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 11:47:28 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> skrev i melding news:cqp1k0tgoq0h6jnus...@4ax.com...
> >> obvious reasons.
> >
> >Yep.
> >And the obvious reason is that the GPS wouldn't work without it.
> >Since this "free fall correction" was predicted by GR with amazing
> >precision, the very fact that the GPS works is a confirmation of GR.
>
> Crap. The GR correction incorporates a fictitious velocity component.
Fact 1: GR predicts that clocks in GPS orbit will run fast by 38 us a day.
Fact 2: The GPS prove that clocks in GPS orbit run fast by 38 us/day.
Don't let us quarrel about facts.
Can you please explain which part of the GR prediction is fictitious?
Paul
Mike
You are trying to say something but obviously you're having troubles
expressing yourself or what you think you know and understand.
Mike
The Ghost In The Machine
<paul.b....@hia.no>
wrote
on Sat, 11 Sep 2004 15:08:32 +0200
<chutdb$kgn$1...@dolly.uninett.no>:
Pedant point: predictions cannot be fictitious or factual;
they merely can be confirmed, unconfirmed or disproven,
or perhaps ridiculous if they go against the grain of
readily-confirmed observations.
That said, I'd say the confirmation has been general and
repeated here. All GPS satellites since the first one
(NTS-2?) have had the relativistic adjustment.
Other predictions include those pertaining to supernovae; the
Crab Nebula in particular should have glowed for more than
a hundred years, were it the case that c'=c+v. That it
didn't is a fairly good disproof (IMO) of Newtonian light
theory, and at least partial confirmation of Einsteinian.
Other confirmations use more contemporary supernovae, but
a spectograph should readily confirm double-lines (one
advancing, one receding), for example.
>
> Paul
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> skrev i melding news:jov4k0p051bgj5ege...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 11:47:28 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Yep.
>> >And the obvious reason is that the GPS wouldn't work without it.
>> >Since this "free fall correction" was predicted by GR with amazing
>> >precision, the very fact that the GPS works is a confirmation of GR.
>>
>> Crap. The GR correction incorporates a fictitious velocity component.
>
>Fact 1: GR predicts that clocks in GPS orbit will run fast by 38 us a day.
>Fact 2: The GPS prove that clocks in GPS orbit run fast by 38 us/day.
Crap.
the clocks are funed tuned empirically and continuously.
The GR correction is a complete myth.
>
>Don't let us quarrel about facts.
>
>Can you please explain which part of the GR prediction is fictitious?
The whole thing.
Clocks do not change rates due to velocity.
You have now agreed on that.
You have agreed that clock A DOES not run slower than moving clock B. (other
thread)
>
>Paul
>
HW.
Randy Poe
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 15:08:32 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> skrev i melding news:jov4k0p051bgj5ege...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 11:47:28 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
>
> >> >Yep.
> >> >And the obvious reason is that the GPS wouldn't work without it.
> >> >Since this "free fall correction" was predicted by GR with amazing
> >> >precision, the very fact that the GPS works is a confirmation of GR.
> >>
> >> Crap. The GR correction incorporates a fictitious velocity component.
> >
> >Fact 1: GR predicts that clocks in GPS orbit will run fast by 38 us a day.
> >Fact 2: The GPS prove that clocks in GPS orbit run fast by 38 us/day.
>
> Crap.
> the clocks are funed tuned
You meant "fine-tuned".
- That is a correction of a few nanoseconds per day.
- An adjustment on the order of 38 us per day is built
into the clocks and never adjusted after launch. Never.
> empirically and continuously.
Once per day, not "continuously". There's a difference.
> The GR correction is a complete myth.
Please mark the following statements true or false:
- Physicists predicted that GPS clocks would gain 38 us/day if
they frequency was not altered relative to clocks on the ground.
- A steady gain of 38 us/day was observed when GPS satellites
were run with unadjusted clocks.
- The GPS atomic clocks are altered in such a way that, when on the
ground, they lose 38 us/day.
- GPS clocks on station gain or lose less than 0.02 us/day.
- Randy
Myxococcus xanthus
> >Fact 1: GR predicts that clocks in GPS orbit will run fast by 38 us a day.
> >Fact 2: The GPS prove that clocks in GPS orbit run fast by 38 us/day.
>
> Crap.
> the clocks are funed tuned empirically and continuously.
> The GR correction is a complete myth.
Here is a link to the GPS Interface Control Document
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/icd200cw1234.pdf
Please read section 3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan. Then try to repeat what
you've just written without proving yourself to be a liar.
Not just hopelessly ignorant. Not just incredibly stupid. But a liar.
Myxococcus xanthus
Androcles
True.
|
| - A steady gain of 38 us/day was observed when GPS satellites
| were run with unadjusted clocks.
False.
|
| - The GPS atomic clocks are altered in such a way that, when on the
| ground, they lose 38 us/day.
True.
|
| - GPS clocks on station gain or lose less than 0.02 us/day.
True. They are maintained at that rate by groundstation signals.
3/4 isn't bad, huh?
Now try mine.
Stella flies to TurnAround at 0.9898c and returns (at the same speed) after
an absence of 14 years. Terence, her twin bother, stays home. Every year,
her time, Stella emails Terence a birthday card. Terence does the same, his
time.
They do this via dish antenna connected to the internet.
1) How far is it to TurnAround, to the nearest light year?
a) 1 light year
b) 7 light years
c) 4 light years
d) Other (specify)
e) Don't know.
2) How long does it take Stella to get to TurnAround (nearest year)?
a) 1 year
b) 7 years
c) 4 years
d) Other (specify)
e) Don't know
3) How long does Terence think it takes Stella to get to TurnAround?
a) 1 year
b) 7 years
c) 4 years
d) Other (specify)
e) Don't know
4) How long does Terence think it takes Stella for the round trip?
a) 2 years
b) 14 years
c) 8 years
d) Other (specify)
e) Don't know
5) How many birthday cards does Terence send Stella?
a) 2
b) 14
c) 8
d) Other (specify)
e) Don't know
6) How many birthday cards does Stella send Terence?
a) 2
b) 14
c) 8
d) Other (specify)
e) Don't know
7) How many birthday cards does Stella receive?
a) 2
b) 14
c) 8
d) Other (specify)
e) Don't know
8) How many birthday cards does Terence receive?
a) 2
b) 14
c) 8
d) Other (specify)
e) Don't know
Score:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1: a) 0. b) 5. c) 1 d) 0. e) 1.
2: a) 0. b) 5. c) 2 d) 0. e) 1.
3: a) 0. b) 5. c) 3 d) 0. e) 1.
4: a) 0. b) 5. c) 3 d) 0. e) 1.
5: a) 0. b) 5. c) 3 d) 0. e) 1.
6: a) 0. b) 5. c) 3 d) 0. e) 1.
7: a) 0. b) 5. c) 4 d) 0. e) 1.
8: a) 0. b) 5. c) 4 d) 0. e) 1.
If your score was 40, you are a truly logical thinker.
If your score was 23-39, you should learn to read the question.
If your score was 8-22, you are at least honest.
If your score was 0-7, you are totally useless and have no deductive ability
whatsoever.
For the full explanation,
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/KoksDoppler.htm
Androcles.
| - Randy
Paul B. Andersen
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> skrev i melding news:38h9k09j4aciqc17l...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 15:08:32 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> skrev i melding news:jov4k0p051bgj5ege...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 11:47:28 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
>
> >> >Yep.
> >> >And the obvious reason is that the GPS wouldn't work without it.
> >> >Since this "free fall correction" was predicted by GR with amazing
> >> >precision, the very fact that the GPS works is a confirmation of GR.
> >>
> >> Crap. The GR correction incorporates a fictitious velocity component.
> >
> >Fact 1: GR predicts that clocks in GPS orbit will run fast by 38 us a day.
> >Fact 2: The GPS prove that clocks in GPS orbit run fast by 38 us/day.
>
> Crap.
> the clocks are funed tuned empirically and continuously.
> The GR correction is a complete myth.
Another cycle?
OK.
How often are the correctional data uploaded to
the satellites, Henri?
By how much can the clocks be allowed to drift
off synch during that period, Henri?
By how much can the clock rate be wrong to achieve
that, Henry?
How does that compare to the GR correction, Henri?
There is no way you will answer these questions, is there?
The reason why you won't is obvious.
> >Don't let us quarrel about facts.
> >
> >Can you please explain which part of the GR prediction is fictitious?
>
> The whole thing.
> Clocks do not change rates due to velocity.
>
> You have now agreed on that.
> You have agreed that clock A DOES not run slower than moving clock B. (other
> thread)
Facts never impress you, does it?
You can make up your own in Wonderland, right? :-)
Paul
Henri Wilson
>ele...@yahoo.gr (Mike) wrote in message news:<9c1b39be.04090...@posting.google.com>...
>> exactly, that's what we are talking about. It's amazng, you ask the
>> questions yourself and you answer them yourself but when someone gives
>> the same answer you rebut.
>
>You didn't give the same answer, you gave some nonsense about
>how you don't believe that the necessary corrections match
>the GR predictions.
>
>Do you accept that the clocks are set to run fast?
>Do you accept that we can tell if they run fast?
>Do you accept that the amount they run fast is the
>same amount, to better than 1 part in 1000, as predicted
>by GR?
>
>> You do not need a modern physics to operate GPS. All you need is to
>> measure the drift and correct for that. It's that simple.
>
>That's correct.
>
>> What's the big deal. GPS is assumed to
>> provide evidence to corroborate GR but that's all.
>
>That's also correct. However, GR is the only theory we have
>that predicts this shift, and it predicts it to within one
>part in 1000.
WRONG!!!
Paul Andersen claims it is correct to 1 part in 10^8900000000044500000005555
But of course there could be some experimental error since the clock moves only
7.3cms in the supposed GR time correction.
I mean.....maybe, the clock wasn't quite where the DHR CDs thought it was.
>
>If that were the only supporting evidence for GR, I'd say
>the case isn't extremely strong. However, we have a number
>of predictions of GR in a range of settings over the last
>100 years, and every one of them agrees with experimental
>observation to very high precision. In most cases, to the
>limits of our ability to measure.
>
>GR is the only theory we have that predicts ANY of those
>effects, let alone all of them.
Bull. GR simply reinforces the view that light accelerates down a gravity well
just like all other matter.
>
>> Just adjust the
>> weights and it will corraborate any compansatory theory with a metric,
>> affine or scalar tensor. So what?
>
>I'd say not. Can you show me another theory that predicts the
>GPS clock effect as well as the precession of mercury and
>the wavelength-independent gravitational lensing? That would
>do for a start.
>
>Is your position this: "Hey all we know is that all the
>experiments for 100 years agree with the GR predictions.
Bull! The faithful can always see evidence everywhere.
>How is that proof?" If that's your position, I'd say it's
>all the "proof" we can ask of any scientific theory. Could
>there be a place where GR breaks down and another theory
>does as well for even more of the experimental record?
>Sure. We haven't found it yet, but I'm confident it's
>out there. However, I'm afraid it will look even less like
>classical Newtonian physics than GR does.
>
> - Randy
HW.
Henri Wilson
It is an adjustment for the fact that atomic clocks run slightly fast when in
free fall, Ghost.
Purely mechanical.
Try sending a grandfather clock into orbit if you don't believe me.
>
>Other predictions include those pertaining to supernovae; the
>Crab Nebula in particular should have glowed for more than
>a hundred years, were it the case that c'=c+v. That it
>didn't is a fairly good disproof (IMO) of Newtonian light
>theory, and at least partial confirmation of Einsteinian.
>Other confirmations use more contemporary supernovae, but
>a spectograph should readily confirm double-lines (one
>advancing, one receding), for example.
Crap. All circular logic.
>
>>
>> Paul
>>
HW.
Eric Gisse
[snip]
>>> Can you please explain which part of the GR prediction is fictitious?
>>
>>Pedant point: predictions cannot be fictitious or factual;
>>they merely can be confirmed, unconfirmed or disproven,
>>or perhaps ridiculous if they go against the grain of
>>readily-confirmed observations.
>>
>>That said, I'd say the confirmation has been general and
>>repeated here. All GPS satellites since the first one
>>(NTS-2?) have had the relativistic adjustment.
>
>It is an adjustment for the fact that atomic clocks run slightly fast when in
>free fall, Ghost.
>Purely mechanical.
Oh?
Why does a 'purely mechanical' phenomenoa follow GR?
>
>Try sending a grandfather clock into orbit if you don't believe me.
>
>>
>>Other predictions include those pertaining to supernovae; the
>>Crab Nebula in particular should have glowed for more than
>>a hundred years, were it the case that c'=c+v. That it
>>didn't is a fairly good disproof (IMO) of Newtonian light
>>theory, and at least partial confirmation of Einsteinian.
>>Other confirmations use more contemporary supernovae, but
>>a spectograph should readily confirm double-lines (one
>>advancing, one receding), for example.
>
>Crap. All circular logic.
Your logic train derailed long ago. I can see the fire from here.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>
>
>HW.
>
>www.users.bigpond.com
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message news:<38h9k09j4aciqc17l...@4ax.com>...
>> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 15:08:32 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
>
>> >Fact 1: GR predicts that clocks in GPS orbit will run fast by 38 us a day.
>> >Fact 2: The GPS prove that clocks in GPS orbit run fast by 38 us/day.
>>
>> Crap.
>> the clocks are funed tuned empirically and continuously.
>> The GR correction is a complete myth.
>
>Here is a link to the GPS Interface Control Document
>http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/icd200cw1234.pdf
Thanks Myxo. 160 pdf pages!
>
>Please read section 3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan. Then try to repeat what
>you've just written without proving yourself to be a liar.
>
>Not just hopelessly ignorant. Not just incredibly stupid. But a liar.
So how do the clock errors in other free fall orbits compare with the supposed
'GPS correction'?
How is it that DHR CDs never talk about them at all.
>
>Myxococcus xanthus
HW.
Henri Wilson
wrote:
I will now answer these questions.
The first thing that happens when a clock is placed into orbit is that its
frequency is SOFTWARE adjusted so that it will be the same as that of the
ground clocks.
>
>> >Don't let us quarrel about facts.
>> >
>> >Can you please explain which part of the GR prediction is fictitious?
>>
>> The whole thing.
>> Clocks do not change rates due to velocity.
>>
>> You have now agreed on that.
>> You have agreed that clock A DOES not run slower than moving clock B. (other
>> thread)
>
>Facts never impress you, does it?
>You can make up your own in Wonderland, right? :-)
Paul, will you describe exactly how you would design an experiment that will
check the rate of an orbiting clock.
>
>Paul
>
HW.
Henri Wilson
>greenf...@hotmail.com (Jim Greenfield) wrote in message news:<3c4afb26.04090...@posting.google.com>...
>> Yep. Sure as eggs, if the frequency change is checked against the
>> standard target, it will show the drift!!!!!! "The frequency is
>> altering: therefore, because c'=c+v , the time MUST be altered, in
>> order to maintain accuracy.
>> It is Oh, so obvious, but so is the unlikelyhood of 40 virgins in
>> heaven, and look at the 100s of millions of "believers".
>
>I know you guys are automatically suspicious of all things
>relativity, but you're going to have to explain to me
>why you think that it's so hard to compare two clocks
>and tell if one is running fast, or that you think
>the idea of comparing two clocks involves some deep
>modern physics.
>
> - Randy
GPS clocks are corrected on the ground for a change that occurs when they are
placed in free fall and are cutting the Earth's magnetic and gravity fields.
This is a purely mechanical/physical change in the clocks. It has absolutely
nothing to do with any silly theory that claims TIMEFLOW is affected by
gravity.
What difference would that make to any clock?
It is pure coincidence that the GR correction (including the fictitious
'velocity component') just happens to be of the same order as the observed
change in rate.
The same kind of error can be predicted using Young's Modulus.
It also just happens to be close to 3.(v/c)^2. So what.
When any of you DHR CDs can show that the GR correction works for ALL orbit
diameters, then someone might start to believe you.
HW.
Randy Poe
Been studying at the Henri Wilson "make it up if you don't
like the real answer" school of physics, I see.
> | Please mark the following statements true or false:
> |
> | - Physicists predicted that GPS clocks would gain 38 us/day if
> | they frequency was not altered relative to clocks on the ground.
>
> True.
Correct.
> |
> | - A steady gain of 38 us/day was observed when GPS satellites
> | were run with unadjusted clocks.
> False.
Oopsie.
"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."
-Neil Ashby, General Relativity in the Global Positioning System
in "Matters of Gravity", ed. Jorge Pullin.
> | - The GPS atomic clocks are altered in such a way that, when on the
> | ground, they lose 38 us/day.
> True.
Good.
> |
> | - GPS clocks on station gain or lose less than 0.02 us/day.
>
> True. They are maintained at that rate by groundstation signals.
Huh? Which rate are you talking about? The clock rate is not
adjusted by ground station signals. Nobody corrects anything
near 38 usec in a single day. Not even 1 microsecond. Not even
0.1 microsecond. Once every 24 hours, a correction on the order
of 0.02 microseconds per day is made. Do you understand that
this means that the correction of 38 usec/day is correct to
within one part in 1000, that otherwise the error would be
a lot bigger than 0.02 usec?
Do you realize that the rate is NEVER adjusted? So what do you
mean by "they are maintained at that rate"?
> 3/4 isn't bad, huh?
1.5/4. You correctly marked the lsst one true, then made up
a procedure that is not part of GPS.
> Now try mine.
>
> Stella flies to TurnAround at 0.9898c and returns (at the same speed) after
> an absence of 14 years. Terence, her twin bother, stays home. Every year,
> her time, Stella emails Terence a birthday card. Terence does the same, his
> time.
> They do this via dish antenna connected to the internet.
>
> 1) How far is it to TurnAround, to the nearest light year?
> a) 1 light year
> b) 7 light years
> c) 4 light years
> d) Other (specify)
> e) Don't know.
By whose ruler? Terence says it is 7 ly. Stella, if I did the
math right, measures a transition of 1 ly. Assuming she sent
a birthday card before launch, she sends her second card around
the time she arrives at TurnAround.
>
> 2) How long does it take Stella to get to TurnAround (nearest year)?
> a) 1 year
> b) 7 years
> c) 4 years
> d) Other (specify)
> e) Don't know
According to whom? Stella says 1 year, Terence says 7.
>
> 3) How long does Terence think it takes Stella to get to TurnAround?
See above.
>
> 4) How long does Terence think it takes Stella for the round trip?
As you said in setting up the problem, 14 years.
> 5) How many birthday cards does Terence send Stella?
Depends on when the birthdays were relative to launch, doesn't it?
Again, assume there was a birthday just before launch. Then
Terence sends a total of 15, the last upon Stella's triumphant
return home.
>
> 6) How many birthday cards does Stella send Terence?
See above. On the assumptions I made above, she sends him a 3rd
when she arrives back at Earth.
> 7) How many birthday cards does Stella receive?
That would be 15. Learn to count. One at launch, 13 in transit,
the last one at arrival home.
> 8) How many birthday cards does Terence receive?
He receives all the cards Stella sent, 3 in total.
- Randy
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> On 9 Sep 2004 07:54:08 -0700, poespa...@yahoo.com (Randy Poe) wrote:
>
>
>>greenf...@hotmail.com (Jim Greenfield) wrote in message news:<3c4afb26.04090...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>>>Yep. Sure as eggs, if the frequency change is checked against the
>>>standard target, it will show the drift!!!!!! "The frequency is
>>>altering: therefore, because c'=c+v , the time MUST be altered, in
>>>order to maintain accuracy.
>>>It is Oh, so obvious, but so is the unlikelyhood of 40 virgins in
>>>heaven, and look at the 100s of millions of "believers".
>>
>>I know you guys are automatically suspicious of all things
>>relativity, but you're going to have to explain to me
>>why you think that it's so hard to compare two clocks
>>and tell if one is running fast, or that you think
>>the idea of comparing two clocks involves some deep
>>modern physics.
>>
>> - Randy
>
>
> GPS clocks are corrected on the ground for a change that occurs when they are
> placed in free fall and are cutting the Earth's magnetic and gravity fields.
>
> This is a purely mechanical/physical change in the clocks. It has absolutely
> nothing to do with any silly theory that claims TIMEFLOW is affected by
> gravity.
>
> What difference would that make to any clock?
If you haven't noticed: clocks *measure* timeflow.
> It is pure coincidence that the GR correction (including the fictitious
> 'velocity component') just happens to be of the same order as the observed
> change in rate.
Pure coincidence??? Man, you are *really* in plain denial.
Is it also pure coincidence that the shift of Mercury's perihelion is
exactly ad predicted by GR?
Is it also pure coincidence that the light deflection at the sun is
exactly as predicted by GR?
Is it also pure coincidence that gravitational red shift is exactly as
predicted by GR?
Is it also pure coincidence that binary pulsars lose energy exactly as
predicted by GR?
Is it also pure coincidence that the time dilation measured by
Haefele&Keating was exactly as predicted by GR & SR?
> The same kind of error can be predicted using Young's Modulus.
Feel free to show the calculation.
> It also just happens to be close to 3.(v/c)^2. So what.
Feel free to present a physical explanation why it should be close
to 3 (v/c)^2.
> When any of you DHR CDs can show that the GR correction works for ALL orbit
> diameters, then someone might start to believe you.
All? How many different diameters do we have to test until you begin to
"believe"?
Bye,
Bjoern
Androcles
Less than 0.02 us/day, of course! Fucking hell, you brought it up!
Don't you know what rate you were talking about?
| The clock rate is not
| adjusted by ground station signals.
Even my quite accurate wristwatch drifts 1.5 minutes/year, and I adjust
it twice a year. There are no perfect clocks, and certainly no perfect human
beings. Some even snip what I write, hoping it will go away.
I regret to inform of this FACT, but groundstations DO send signals to
satellites that synchronize satellite time with ground time. If they didn't,
the GPS clock would gain of lose more than the error bound you permitted,
0.02 us/day. Because the system is automatic, and because it was designed by
engineers who really don't give a damn about relativity, The GPS clock
is told what the time is, it does not engage in a polite conversation along
the lines of
GroundStation: "Good morning, GPS clock, how are you?"
Sat: "Oh, fine thanks, but I had a scare last night. A meteorite nearly hit
me."
GS: "Oh dear, sorry to hear that. It must have been very frightening. Heart
stopping even! Did your heart skip a beat?"
Sat: "You know, I really think it might have."
GS: "Well, let's find out, shall we? What time do you have right now?"
Sat: "Oh, it's ....(giving time)
GS: "Tut tut... it seems that scare really did cause a problem. Here, I'll
give the right time, then you can accurate again"
Sat: "Oh, thank you so much, GS! See you in 12 hours, have a nice morning."
GS: "You to!"
| Nobody corrects anything
| near 38 usec in a single day. Not even 1 microsecond. Not even
| 0.1 microsecond. Once every 24 hours, a correction on the order
| of 0.02 microseconds per day is made.
You don't seem to be aware that the orbital period of the satellite
is 12 hours, not 24, and that there are 5 ground stations.
| Do you understand that
| this means that the correction of 38 usec/day is correct to
| within one part in 1000, that otherwise the error would be
| a lot bigger than 0.02 usec?
The ground station is not going to skip a pass of the GPS, it
operates automatically. I really think you are bullshitting,
to be honest with you. At the very least it would correct 0.01 us
every 12 hours, but it doesn't really care, it's automatic.
|
| Do you realize that the rate is NEVER adjusted? So what do you
| mean by "they are maintained at that rate"?
That's contradictory, isnt it? If the satellite lost 0.02us/day
it would lose 7 us/year, or 73 us/decayear.
Of course the rate is adjusted. I think you are bullshitting.
|
| > 3/4 isn't bad, huh?
|
| 1.5/4. You correctly marked the lsst one true, then made up
| a procedure that is not part of GPS.
I think you are living in cloud-cuckoo land. Ground stations DO
update satellites.
|
| > Now try mine.
| >
| > Stella flies to TurnAround at 0.9898c and returns (at the same speed)
after
| > an absence of 14 years. Terence, her twin bother, stays home. Every
year,
| > her time, Stella emails Terence a birthday card. Terence does the same,
his
| > time.
| > They do this via dish antenna connected to the internet.
| >
| > 1) How far is it to TurnAround, to the nearest light year?
| > a) 1 light year
| > b) 7 light years
| > c) 4 light years
| > d) Other (specify)
| > e) Don't know.
|
| By whose ruler?
There is no imaginary ruler. There's an imaginary star 7 lightyears
away, if you want a reference. Eight light years away (on the Y-axis)
Sirius A and Sirius B orbit a common barycentre with a period
of 50 years.
Terence says it is 7 ly.
Yes, but you don't get any points for repeating part of the question unless
asked to do so.
| Stella, if I did the
| math right, measures a transition of 1 ly.
Oh, you mean Stella can travel a distance of 7 light years in 1 year!
That's a speed of 7c, isn't it?
Sirius would advance it's orbit by 7/50 * 360 ~= 50 degrees for Terence
and 7 degrees for Stella, disobeying Kepler's laws. You've
forgotten "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all
frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good."
Kepler's laws are equations of mechanics.
Score 0.
| Assuming she sent
| a birthday card before launch, she sends her second card around
| the time she arrives at TurnAround.
Birthday cards before launch and after landing don't count.
I specifically said it was sent via email using a dish antenna.
That should obviously imply the cards were sent during the trip.
Score -1 for incorrect assumption.
| >
| > 2) How long does it take Stella to get to TurnAround (nearest year)?
| > a) 1 year
| > b) 7 years
| > c) 4 years
| > d) Other (specify)
| > e) Don't know
|
| According to whom? Stella says 1 year, Terence says 7.
Answer was: e) Don't know.
Score for this question, a generous 5.
Total score so far: 4.
|
| >
| > 3) How long does Terence think it takes Stella to get to TurnAround?
|
| See above.
Oopsie. Answer given was: e) Don't know.
The correct answer was b).
Score 0 for this question.
Total so far, 4.
| >
| > 4) How long does Terence think it takes Stella for the round trip?
|
| As you said in setting up the problem, 14 years.
Right! (I thought you might get that one.)
But you've snipped the results, defacing the exam paper, so
I can give you 5 points for being observant, but subtract 2 for
doodling.
Total score so far, 7.
|
| > 5) How many birthday cards does Terence send Stella?
|
| Depends on when the birthdays were relative to launch, doesn't it?
They are twins. Score -1 for idiotic question.
| Again, assume there was a birthday just before launch. Then
| Terence sends a total of 15, the last upon Stella's triumphant
| return home.
Oopsie. 14 years, 14 birthday cards! You must be a relativist,
you surely think like one.
Total score so far, 6.
| >
| > 6) How many birthday cards does Stella send Terence?
|
| See above. On the assumptions I made above, she sends him a 3rd
| when she arrives back at Earth.
Oopsie. You've forgotten the frequency.
Doppler shift, according to Einstein, is
f' = f .sqrt( [1+v/c] / [1-v/c]) which works out at
14:1 for the return trip. So if Stella returns in 1 year,
Terence receives 14 cards in that year. Since he cannot
receive a card unless it was sent, and Stella sends
then one per year her time, she must be 14 years older
when she returns.
You used the wrong math, the Einstein Lorentz version
that is contradicted by the Einstein Doppler version.
You might have gotten away with the Andersen Transforms,
which I'll quote:
"That is, we can reverse the directions of the frames
which is the same as interchanging the frames,
which - as I have told you a LOT of times,
OBVIOUSLY will lead to the transform:
t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
or:
tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen
Total score so far, 6.
|
| > 7) How many birthday cards does Stella receive?
|
| That would be 15. Learn to count. One at launch, 13 in transit,
| the last one at arrival home.
Oopsie. 14 cards, but lose 5 points for being arrogant and
telling ME to count YOUR assumptions.
Total score so far, 1.
|
| > 8) How many birthday cards does Terence receive?
|
| He receives all the cards Stella sent,
Correct.
| 3 in total.
Oopsie. Lose 1 more point for snipping the page where
you could have found the correct answers.
Here it is again.
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/KoksDoppler.htm
Your total score was zero.
Androcles.
Myxococcus xanthus
We do. You never listen. You plug your ears, close your eyes and go
"wah, wah, wah" to shut out all sight and sound of any evidence that
goes against your prejudices.
Why do you think you are the target of so much amusement around here?
Try the GLONASS Interface Control Document
http://www.spatial.maine.edu/~leick/PDF-files/glonass.pdf
GLONASS satellites are in 11.5 hour orbits, and the required
relativistic correction is deltaF/F = -4.36e-10 = a required
correction of 37.7 microseconds per day.
Compare this with GPS satellites in 12 hour orbits, which require a
deltaF/F correction of -4.4647e-10 = a required correction of 38.575
microseconds per day.
This is a huge and continuously verified difference between the two
systems.
Your pitifully inadequate "gravitational stress" hypothesis predicts
the SAME required correction for all satellites in free fall orbits,
which is totally at variance with observation.
Myxococcus xanthus
Androcles
If you haven't noticed, no two clocks are identical. Not even GPS clocks.
Androcles
|
|
| > It is pure coincidence that the GR correction (including the fictitious
| > 'velocity component') just happens to be of the same order as the
observed
| > change in rate.
|
| Pure coincidence??? Man, you are *really* in plain denial.
|
| Is it also pure coincidence that the shift of Mercury's perihelion is
| exactly ad predicted by GR?
Feel free to show the calculation.
| Is it also pure coincidence that the light deflection at the sun is
| exactly as predicted by GR?
Feel free to show the calculation.
| Is it also pure coincidence that gravitational red shift is exactly as
| predicted by GR?
Feel free to show the calculation.
| Is it also pure coincidence that the time dilation measured by
| Haefele&Keating was exactly as predicted by GR & SR?
Now you are really grasping at straws, because it wasn't.
Feel free to show the calculation.
| > The same kind of error can be predicted using Young's Modulus.
|
| Feel free to show the calculation.
|
|
| > It also just happens to be close to 3.(v/c)^2. So what.
|
| Feel free to present a physical explanation why it should be close
| to 3 (v/c)^2.
|
|
|
| > When any of you DHR CDs can show that the GR correction works for ALL
orbit
| > diameters, then someone might start to believe you.
|
| All? How many different diameters do we have to test until you begin to
| "believe"?
How many contradictions do we have to shove in your face until you come to
your senses?
The Seven Deadly Sins of Special Relativity.
For quotations following, reference:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein)
1) "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body",
a totally unproven assumption without any evidence to support it.
2) "In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant- the velocity of light in empty
space.",
an admitted assumption that is quite worthless when there is any
relative motion between A and B, yet essential to the derivation of the
remainder of Einstein's nonsense.
3) The equation
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) ,
the ½ of which is derived from 2) above and is tantamount to saying
(1/3 + 2/3)/2 = 1/3.
4) The missing 0' from that equation, since x' = x-vt, hence 0' = 0-vt,
and the equation should be
½[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
at the very least.
5) The further assumption "IF we place x' = x-vt ... " without considering
IF we place x' = x+vt, from which we derive (using Einstein's method)
tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen
6) The statements
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
and
"It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by
composition with a velocity less than that of light. For this case we obtain
V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
which are contradictory, the first being Galilean, the second being
contrary to the vector addition of velocities, an axiom of a vector space.
7) The lack of a check to verify the theory is self-consistent by feeding
the new PoR given in 6) into the equation given in 3) and finding a total
failure.
Check:
(t1-t)/(t2-t)*[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/V+x'/V)] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/V)
Androcles.
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
> news:ci6bl4$d1u$1...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
> | Henri Wilson wrote:
[snip]
> | > This is a purely mechanical/physical change in the clocks. It has
> | > absolutely
> | > nothing to do with any silly theory that claims TIMEFLOW is affected by
> | > gravity.
> | >
> | > What difference would that make to any clock?
> |
> | If you haven't noticed: clocks *measure* timeflow.
>
> If you haven't noticed, no two clocks are identical. Not even GPS clocks.
> Androcles
I have noticed that. How is that relevant to the point here?
[snip]
> | Is it also pure coincidence that the shift of Mercury's perihelion is
> | exactly ad predicted by GR?
>
> Feel free to show the calculation.
It's a bit long to present it in a newsgroup post, don't you think?
Why don't you open a textbook on GR and look for yourself?
> | Is it also pure coincidence that the light deflection at the sun is
> | exactly as predicted by GR?
>
> Feel free to show the calculation.
It's a bit long to present it in a newsgroup post, don't you think?
Why don't you open a textbook on GR and look for yourself?
> | Is it also pure coincidence that gravitational red shift is exactly as
> | predicted by GR?
>
> Feel free to show the calculation.
It's a bit long to present it in a newsgroup post, don't you think?
Why don't you open a textbook on GR and look for yourself?
> | Is it also pure coincidence that the time dilation measured by
> | Haefele&Keating was exactly as predicted by GR & SR?
>
> Now you are really grasping at straws, because it wasn't.
It was, liar.
> Feel free to show the calculation.
Err, see their own articles.
[snip]
> | All? How many different diameters do we have to test until you begin to
> | "believe"?
>
> How many contradictions do we have to shove in your face until you come to
> your senses?
Name even one contradiction between the predictions of GR and experiment.
> The Seven Deadly Sins of Special Relativity.
Hint: the topic here was General Relativity.
> For quotations following, reference:
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
> ("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein)
>
> 1) "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
> which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body",
> a totally unproven assumption without any evidence to support it.
Hint: no assumption in science is ever proven. For support, try e.g.
this experiment: Alvager, Farley, Kjellman & Wallin, PRL 12, 260, (1964)
> 2) "In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
> 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant- the velocity of light in empty
> space.",
> an admitted assumption that is quite worthless when there is any
> relative motion between A and B, yet essential to the derivation of the
> remainder of Einstein's nonsense.
Idiot. That assumption follow from the assumption (1) above.
> 3) The equation
> ―[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) ,
> the ― of which is derived from 2) above and is tantamount to saying
> (1/3 + 2/3)/2 = 1/3.
It says nothing like that.
> 4) The missing 0' from that equation, since x' = x-vt, hence 0' = 0-vt,
> and the equation should be
> ―[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
> at the very least.
0 is 0. It makes no sense to write 0'.
> 5) The further assumption "IF we place x' = x-vt ... " without considering
> IF we place x' = x+vt, from which we derive (using Einstein's method)
> tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen
Your point?
> 6) The statements
> "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
> when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
> and
> "It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by
> composition with a velocity less than that of light. For this case we obtain
> V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
> which are contradictory, the first being Galilean, the second being
> contrary to the vector addition of velocities, an axiom of a vector space.
The wording here is unfortunate. One has to consider that Einstein
wanted to make the situation clear to his readers, who obviously were
accustomed to Galilean relativity. Hence the strange formulation in the
first quote.
> 7) The lack of a check to verify the theory is self-consistent by feeding
> the new PoR given in 6) into the equation given in 3) and finding a total
> failure.
> Check:
> (t1-t)/(t2-t)*[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/V+x'/V)] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/V)
It makes no sense at all to insert the equation from (6) into
the one in (3). Thanks for demonstrating yet again that you haven't
got the faintest clue of SR.
Bye,
Bjoern
The Ghost In The Machine
<fsegg@!SPAMuaf.edu>
wrote
on Mon, 13 Sep 2004 14:11:13 -0800
<vl6ck0h3ockk5goig...@4ax.com>:
> On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:40:14 GMT, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>> Can you please explain which part of the GR prediction is fictitious?
>>>
>>>Pedant point: predictions cannot be fictitious or factual;
>>>they merely can be confirmed, unconfirmed or disproven,
>>>or perhaps ridiculous if they go against the grain of
>>>readily-confirmed observations.
>>>
>>>That said, I'd say the confirmation has been general and
>>>repeated here. All GPS satellites since the first one
>>>(NTS-2?) have had the relativistic adjustment.
>>
>>It is an adjustment for the fact that atomic clocks run slightly fast when in
>>free fall, Ghost.
>>Purely mechanical.
>
> Oh?
>
> Why does a 'purely mechanical' phenomenoa follow GR?
Because all phenomena follow GR, of course. ;-) Of course,
modern atomic fountain clocks have their atoms in free-fall anyway.
>
>>
>>Try sending a grandfather clock into orbit if you don't believe me.
>>
>>>
>>>Other predictions include those pertaining to supernovae; the
>>>Crab Nebula in particular should have glowed for more than
>>>a hundred years, were it the case that c'=c+v. That it
>>>didn't is a fairly good disproof (IMO) of Newtonian light
>>>theory, and at least partial confirmation of Einsteinian.
>>>Other confirmations use more contemporary supernovae, but
>>>a spectograph should readily confirm double-lines (one
>>>advancing, one receding), for example.
>>
>>Crap. All circular logic.
>
> Your logic train derailed long ago. I can see the fire from here.
I'll admit to being curious about where the circularity is.
[1] Assume c' = c+v.
[2] Work out the brightness curve of a supernova about 7,000 lightyears away,
expanding to 10 lightyears (as estimated from here) after 950 years.
[3] Wonder why the observations don't quite match [2]. :-)
Somehow, I don't see it; looks very straightforward from here.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>
>>
>>HW.
>>
>>www.users.bigpond.com
>
The Ghost In The Machine
<andr...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk>
wrote
on Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:17:28 GMT
<ICk1d.466$PI.55...@news-text.cableinet.net>:
FSVO "returns". If the deceleration at TurnAround is greater than
100 m/s/s, the results may be of some interest to the coroner... :-P
However, the effect is great enough so that the multi-month acceleration
issue is usually ignored.
> an absence of 14 years. Terence, her twin bother, stays home. Every year,
> her time, Stella emails Terence a birthday card. Terence does the same, his
> time.
> They do this via dish antenna connected to the internet.
Are you diagramming the Twin Paradox or the Turing Test? :-)
>
> 1) How far is it to TurnAround, to the nearest light year?
> a) 1 light year
> b) 7 light years
> c) 4 light years
> d) Other (specify)
> e) Don't know.
d) 7.072 lightyears, as the "14 years" is specified in Terence's frame.
>
> 2) How long does it take Stella to get to TurnAround (nearest year)?
> a) 1 year
> b) 7 years
> c) 4 years
> d) Other (specify)
> e) Don't know
a) Assuming instantaneous acceleration, just under 1 year subjective.
>
> 3) How long does Terence think it takes Stella to get to TurnAround?
> a) 1 year
> b) 7 years
> c) 4 years
> d) Other (specify)
> e) Don't know
d) Just under 13 years, if I'm computing it correctly. (It's an issue
regarding communications, as Stella's redshifts.)
>
> 4) How long does Terence think it takes Stella for the round trip?
> a) 2 years
> b) 14 years
> c) 8 years
> d) Other (specify)
> e) Don't know
b) 14 years, in Terence's frame.
>
> 5) How many birthday cards does Terence send Stella?
> a) 2
> b) 14
> c) 8
> d) Other (specify)
> e) Don't know
b) 14.
>
>
> 6) How many birthday cards does Stella send Terence?
> a) 2
> b) 14
> c) 8
> d) Other (specify)
> e) Don't know
a) 2.
>
> 7) How many birthday cards does Stella receive?
> a) 2
> b) 14
> c) 8
> d) Other (specify)
> e) Don't know
b) 14, assuming a "birthday card" is a "light-o-gram".
>
> 8) How many birthday cards does Terence receive?
> a) 2
> b) 14
> c) 8
> d) Other (specify)
> e) Don't know
a) 2. It's all she has time for.
>
> Score:
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> 1: a) 0. b) 5. c) 1 d) 0. e) 1.
> 2: a) 0. b) 5. c) 2 d) 0. e) 1.
> 3: a) 0. b) 5. c) 3 d) 0. e) 1.
> 4: a) 0. b) 5. c) 3 d) 0. e) 1.
> 5: a) 0. b) 5. c) 3 d) 0. e) 1.
> 6: a) 0. b) 5. c) 3 d) 0. e) 1.
> 7: a) 0. b) 5. c) 4 d) 0. e) 1.
> 8: a) 0. b) 5. c) 4 d) 0. e) 1.
>
> If your score was 40, you are a truly logical thinker.
> If your score was 23-39, you should learn to read the question.
> If your score was 8-22, you are at least honest.
> If your score was 0-7, you are totally useless and have no deductive ability
> whatsoever.
All b's are consistent with Galilean physics, which isn't all that
consistent.
Now, let's try a different question.
A supernova 7,000 lightyears away explodes in about A.D. 1054,
leaving a nebula that is now roughly 10 light-years in diameter.
What is observed during the explosion?
a) The "new star" shows up immediately and is visible during daylight
for some weeks and fades after about a year from the night sky.
b) A bright "star" is visible for over a century, changing color
during its lifetime.
c) A mutant space goat appears over the sky and makes funny noises.
d) A neutrino pulse feeds into the Sun, causing a solar spot.
>
> For the full explanation,
> http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/KoksDoppler.htm
> Androcles.
> | - Randy
>
>
Paul B. Andersen
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> skrev i melding news:5p9ck05f2g8on131q...@4ax.com...
Will but don't?
> The first thing that happens when a clock is placed into orbit is that its
> frequency is SOFTWARE adjusted so that it will be the same as that of the
> ground clocks.
Is too, is too. So there!
Paul
Androcles
| Androcles wrote:
| > "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message
| > news:ci6bl4$d1u$1...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
| > | Henri Wilson wrote:
|
|
| [snip]
|
| > | > This is a purely mechanical/physical change in the clocks. It has
| > | > absolutely
| > | > nothing to do with any silly theory that claims TIMEFLOW is affected
by
| > | > gravity.
| > | >
| > | > What difference would that make to any clock?
| > |
| > | If you haven't noticed: clocks *measure* timeflow.
| >
| > If you haven't noticed, no two clocks are identical. Not even GPS
clocks.
| > Androcles
|
| I have noticed that. How is that relevant to the point here?
It wasn't me that said clocks measure 'timeflow', whatever that is.
What was the relevance of your point?
Learn something.
Time is independent of the clock. Clocks are oscillators, and measurement
in a clock is COUNTING the oscillations. Now go and count the oscillations
of Ganymede about Jupiter from a ground telescope and from the orbitting
HST. You'll find they are EXACTLY the same. Apparently you are unable to
count.
|
|
| [snip]
|
|
| > | Is it also pure coincidence that the shift of Mercury's perihelion is
| > | exactly ad predicted by GR?
| >
| > Feel free to show the calculation.
|
| It's a bit long to present it in a newsgroup post, don't you think?
Provide a link. I think you don't know what you are talking about and are
bluffing.
| Why don't you open a textbook on GR and look for yourself?
Why should *I* bother? It is your ridiculous claim, not mine. The burden of
proof is on the claimant. I think you are parroting hearsay, gossip that
you've
overheard somewhere and you are a rumour-monger.
|
|
| > | Is it also pure coincidence that the light deflection at the sun is
| > | exactly as predicted by GR?
| >
| > Feel free to show the calculation.
|
| It's a bit long to present it in a newsgroup post, don't you think?
Provide a link. I think you don't know what you are talking about and are
bluffing.
| Why don't you open a textbook on GR and look for yourself?
Why should *I* bother? It is your ridiculous claim, not mine. The burden of
proof is on the claimant. I think you are parroting hearsay, gossip that
you've
overheard somewhere and you are a rumour-monger, spreading lies.
|
| > | Is it also pure coincidence that gravitational red shift is exactly as
| > | predicted by GR?
| >
| > Feel free to show the calculation.
|
| It's a bit long to present it in a newsgroup post, don't you think?
Provide a link. I think you don't know what you are talking about and are
bluffing.
| Why don't you open a textbook on GR and look for yourself?
Why should *I* bother? It is your ridiculous claim, not mine. The burden of
proof is on the claimant. I think you are parroting hearsay, gossip that
you've
overheard somewhere and you are a rumour-monger, spreading lies.
I'm calling you a fucking liar. Defend yourself.
|
| > | Is it also pure coincidence that the time dilation measured by
| > | Haefele&Keating was exactly as predicted by GR & SR?
| >
| > Now you are really grasping at straws, because it wasn't.
|
| It was, liar.
I'm calling you a fucking liar, full of shit. Defend yourself. Put up or
shut up.
|
| > Feel free to show the calculation.
|
| Err, see their own articles.
Why should *I* bother? It is your ridiculous claim, not mine. The burden of
proof is on the claimant. I think you are parroting hearsay, gossip that
you've
overheard somewhere and you are a rumour-monger, spreading lies.
I'm calling you a fucking lying bullshitting stupid cunt. Defend yourself.
|
| [snip]
|
|
| > | All? How many different diameters do we have to test until you begin
to
| > | "believe"?
| >
| > How many contradictions do we have to shove in your face until you come
to
| > your senses?
|
|
| Name even one contradiction between the predictions of GR and experiment.
Sure. Time as measured by HST, done by counting the orbits of Ganymede, the
daily rotation of the Earth, the orbits of Mercury, the phases of the moon,
the yearly orbit of the Earth-Moon system about the sun, or any other
oscillator in the universe, is exactly the same as measured on Earth. That's
five experiments plus infinity that contradict GR, because a clock is an
oscillator and a counter, and clocks measure time, and you are a fucking
stupid idiot, just like Einstein.
|
|
| > The Seven Deadly Sins of Special Relativity.
|
| Hint: the topic here was General Relativity.
Hint: SR is a subset of GR.
Hint: You are a fucking lying bullshitter.
|
| > For quotations following, reference:
| > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| > ("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein)
| >
| > 1) "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
| > which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body",
| > a totally unproven assumption without any evidence to support it.
|
| Hint: no assumption in science is ever proven.
Hint: Scientists don't make assumptions. They study Nature.
Only idiots like Einstein make assumptions.
| For support, try e.g.
| this experiment: Alvager, Farley, Kjellman & Wallin, PRL 12, 260, (1964)
Light emitted inside a beryllium block is called light in a vacuum. Fucking
lying bastards, the lot of them.
| > 2) "In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
| > 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant- the velocity of light in
empty
| > space.",
| > an admitted assumption that is quite worthless when there is any
| > relative motion between A and B, yet essential to the derivation of the
| > remainder of Einstein's nonsense.
|
| Idiot. That assumption follow from the assumption (1) above.
Stupid lying cunt. It is independent of 1)
|
|
| > 3) The equation
| > ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
,
| > the ½ of which is derived from 2) above and is tantamount to saying
| > (1/3 + 2/3)/2 = 1/3.
|
| It says nothing like that.
Learn to think... oops, impossible for a moron... my mistake.
|
| > 4) The missing 0' from that equation, since x' = x-vt, hence 0' = 0-vt,
| > and the equation should be
| > ½[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
| > at the very least.
|
| 0 is 0. It makes no sense to write 0'.
You are thicker than three short planks with a tree trunk nailed to the
side.
If the frame origins coincide ANYWHEN, and they are displaced through motion
by a distance -vt, then 0' = 0-vt. You wouldn't know sense if it bit you in
the arse. Sheesh, you are dumber than moortel, and he was beaten in an IQ
test by a gorilla.
| > 5) The further assumption "IF we place x' = x-vt ... " without
considering
| > IF we place x' = x+vt, from which we derive (using Einstein's method)
| > tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| > xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen
|
| Your point?
Lost on you, obviously.|
|
|
| > 6) The statements
| > "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
| > when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
| > and
| > "It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by
| > composition with a velocity less than that of light. For this case we
obtain
| > V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
| > which are contradictory, the first being Galilean, the second being
| > contrary to the vector addition of velocities, an axiom of a vector
space.
|
| The wording here is unfortunate.
ROFLMAO!
The wording here is downright contradictory!
| One has to consider that Einstein
| wanted to make the situation clear to his readers,
Well, he failed. He wrote bullshit, and so do you.
| who obviously were
| accustomed to Galilean relativity.
So am I, and relativity is nonsense.
| Hence the strange formulation in the
| first quote.
Ohhh.... poor Einstein. Let's have a pity part for the idiot.|
|
|
| > 7) The lack of a check to verify the theory is self-consistent by
feeding
| > the new PoR given in 6) into the equation given in 3) and finding a
total
| > failure.
| > Check:
| > (t1-t)/(t2-t)*[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/V+x'/V)] =
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/V)
|
| It makes no sense at all to insert the equation from (6) into
| the one in (3). Thanks for demonstrating yet again that you haven't
| got the faintest clue of SR.
Is that what your schoolteacher told you in your math lessons?
It make no sense to check your work?
You never passed a math exam, did you?
How does a fucking stupid lying moron like you get through life?
Androcles.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <andr...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:pUH1d.582$hD4.6...@news-text.cableinet.net...
>
> "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
> news:ci6sj8$ii4$1...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
> | It makes no sense at all to insert the equation from (6) into
> | the one in (3). Thanks for demonstrating yet again that you haven't
> | got the faintest clue of SR.
>
> Is that what your schoolteacher told you in your math lessons?
> It make no sense to check your work?
> You never passed a math exam, did you?
> How does a fucking stupid lying moron like you get through life?
Stunning!
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/FuckingStupid.html
Title: "How does a fucking stupid lying moron like you get through life?"
Dirk Vdm
Randy Poe
> | > | - GPS clocks on station gain or lose less than 0.02 us/day.
> | >
> | > True. They are maintained at that rate by groundstation signals.
> |
> | Huh? Which rate are you talking about?
>
> Less than 0.02 us/day, of course! Fucking hell, you brought it up!
> Don't you know what rate you were talking about?
0.02 us/day isn't a "rate", it's the order of magnitude of
a random fluctuation. I have no clue what you mean when
talking about a "rate" of 0.02 us/day which is "maintained".
Some days they add 0.001 us. Some days they subtract 0.013.
Check the data, you can see exactly how much is added or
subtracted per day.
Remaining repetitive cluelessness snipped.
- Randy
Androcles
news:<KzA1d.297$jN.32...@news-text.cableinet.net>...
|
| > | > | - GPS clocks on station gain or lose less than 0.02 us/day.
| > | >
| > | > True. They are maintained at that rate by groundstation signals.
| > |
| > | Huh? Which rate are you talking about?
| >
| > Less than 0.02 us/day, of course! Fucking hell, you brought it up!
| > Don't you know what rate you were talking about?
|
| 0.02 us/day isn't a "rate", it's the order of magnitude of
| a random fluctuation.
Oh, I didn't know that dtau/dt was an order of magnitude of a random
fluctuation. Thanks for telling me. I guess dx/dt isn't a velocity, either.
| I have no clue what you mean when
| talking about a "rate" of 0.02 us/day which is "maintained".
We know relativists have no clue, that's been known for years.
| Some days they add 0.001 us. Some days they subtract 0.013.
Yeah sure...
| Check the data, you can see exactly how much is added or
| subtracted per day.
|
| Remaining repetitive cluelessness snipped.
Thank you, it is good you recognised your garbage.
| - Randy
Since we are done and useless idiots who snip are ignorami who are unable to
respond to logic, *plonk*
Androcles
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
> news:ci6sj8$ii4$1...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
> | Androcles wrote:
> | > "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
> message
> | > news:ci6bl4$d1u$1...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
> | > | Henri Wilson wrote:
> |
> |
> | [snip]
> |
> | > | > This is a purely mechanical/physical change in the clocks. It has
> | > | > absolutely
> | > | > nothing to do with any silly theory that claims TIMEFLOW is affected
> | > | > by gravity.
> | > | >
> | > | > What difference would that make to any clock?
> | > |
> | > | If you haven't noticed: clocks *measure* timeflow.
> | >
> | > If you haven't noticed, no two clocks are identical. Not even GPS
> | > clocks.
> | > Androcles
> |
> | I have noticed that. How is that relevant to the point here?
>
> It wasn't me that said clocks measure 'timeflow', whatever that is.
Ask Henri Wilson. He used the term first above.
> What was the relevance of your point?
Try to read again what Henri Wilson wrote above, and then try to
understand what my point was.
> Learn something.
> Time is independent of the clock. Clocks are oscillators, and measurement
> in a clock is COUNTING the oscillations.
Err, that's what I essentially said. Counting the oscillations is
measuring the timeflow.
> Now go and count the oscillations
> of Ganymede about Jupiter from a ground telescope and from the orbitting
> HST. You'll find they are EXACTLY the same.
How do you know?
> Apparently you are unable to count.
Apparently you are unable to support your assertions.
> | > | Is it also pure coincidence that the shift of Mercury's perihelion is
> | > | exactly as predicted by GR?
> | >
> | > Feel free to show the calculation.
> |
> | It's a bit long to present it in a newsgroup post, don't you think?
>
> Provide a link.
Do you think that every GR calculation is freely available online
somewhere?
Why don't you look into a textbook on GR simply?
Anyway: for more information on this, see the two links below.
> I think you don't know what you are talking about and are
> bluffing.
I've seen the full calculation in a lecture and in several books,
but no, obviously I do not know what I am talking about. Rrrriiigggghhhht.
The crucial steps are essentially using the Schwarzschild metric for
the spacetime around the sun, and then get the corrections to the
Newtonian gravitational potential from the metric tensor. Using that
improved potential, one can then do a perturbation analysis in order to
get the shift of the perihelion.
That last step is shown in detail here:
<http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/4310/physik/perihel/perihel.htm>
The Schwarzschild metric can be found here:
<http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SchwarzschildBlackHole.html>
> | Why don't you open a textbook on GR and look for yourself?
>
> Why should *I* bother?
You asked me to substantiate my claim. I simply tell you where you
can read this up.
> It is your ridiculous claim, not mine.
What is ridiculous about the claim?
> The burden of proof is on the claimant.
Yes. An I fulfilled that burden by telling you where you can read this
up: in any textbook on GR.
> I think you are parroting hearsay, gossip that you've
> overheard somewhere and you are a rumour-monger.
Wrong. Try again.
> | > | Is it also pure coincidence that the light deflection at the sun is
> | > | exactly as predicted by GR?
> | >
> | > Feel free to show the calculation.
> |
> | It's a bit long to present it in a newsgroup post, don't you think?
>
>
> Provide a link. I think you don't know what you are talking about and are
> bluffing.
>
> | Why don't you open a textbook on GR and look for yourself?
>
>
> Why should *I* bother? It is your ridiculous claim, not mine. The burden of
> proof is on the claimant. I think you are parroting hearsay, gossip that
> you've
> overheard somewhere and you are a rumour-monger, spreading lies.
Same comments as above (well, obviously with the exception of the
explanation and the links).
>
> | > | Is it also pure coincidence that gravitational red shift is exactly as
> | > | predicted by GR?
> | >
> | > Feel free to show the calculation.
> |
> | It's a bit long to present it in a newsgroup post, don't you think?
>
> Provide a link. I think you don't know what you are talking about and are
> bluffing.
>
>
> | Why don't you open a textbook on GR and look for yourself?
>
>
> Why should *I* bother? It is your ridiculous claim, not mine. The burden of
> proof is on the claimant. I think you are parroting hearsay, gossip that
> you've
> overheard somewhere and you are a rumour-monger, spreading lies.
> I'm calling you a fucking liar. Defend yourself.
Same comments as above (well, obviously with the exception of the
explanation and the links).
Oh, and a hint: switching to insults is a clear sign that you have no
arguments left.
> | > | Is it also pure coincidence that the time dilation measured by
> | > | Haefele&Keating was exactly as predicted by GR & SR?
> | >
> | > Now you are really grasping at straws, because it wasn't.
> |
> | It was, liar.
>
> I'm calling you a fucking liar, full of shit.
If that makes you happy...
> Defend yourself. Put up or shut up.
See the detailed analysis done my Minor Crank in this very newsgroup
about two years ago. The name of the thread was "Hafele and Keating
Revisited".
> | > Feel free to show the calculation.
> |
> | Err, see their own articles.
>
> Why should *I* bother? It is your ridiculous claim, not mine. The burden of
> proof is on the claimant. I think you are parroting hearsay, gossip that
> you've
> overheard somewhere and you are a rumour-monger, spreading lies.
> I'm calling you a fucking lying bullshitting stupid cunt. Defend yourself.
Same comments as above.
I *really* wonder why cranks so often feel the need to write answers
filled with so many insults and so much hate...
> | > | All? How many different diameters do we have to test until you begin
> | > | to "believe"?
> | >
> | > How many contradictions do we have to shove in your face until you come
> | > to your senses?
> |
> |
> | Name even one contradiction between the predictions of GR and experiment.
>
> Sure. Time as measured by HST, done by counting the orbits of Ganymede, the
> daily rotation of the Earth, the orbits of Mercury, the phases of the moon,
> the yearly orbit of the Earth-Moon system about the sun, or any other
> oscillator in the universe, is exactly the same as measured on Earth.
Please provide a reference to the data for this.
> That's
> five experiments plus infinity
Plus infinity? And *you* accused *me* that I can't count?
> that contradict GR, because a clock is an
> oscillator and a counter, and clocks measure time,
So why did you chide be for saying that clocks measure timeflow?
> and you are a fucking
> stupid idiot, just like Einstein.
Throwing insults around really makes you happy, right?
[snip]
> | > For quotations following, reference:
> | > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
> | > ("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein)
> | >
> | > 1) "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
> | > which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body",
> | > a totally unproven assumption without any evidence to support it.
> |
> | Hint: no assumption in science is ever proven.
>
> Hint: Scientists don't make assumptions. They study Nature.
> Only idiots like Einstein make assumptions.
LOL!!!!!
Thanks for showing that you haven't got the faintest clue of science.
> | For support, try e.g.
> | this experiment: Alvager, Farley, Kjellman & Wallin, PRL 12, 260, (1964)
>
> Light emitted inside a beryllium block is called light in a vacuum. Fucking
> lying bastards, the lot of them.
Feel free to point out how this changes the results of the experiment.
For starters, you could try to find out what the refraction index of
Beryllium is at the frequencies used.
[snip]
> | > 3) The equation
> | > ―[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
> ,
> | > the ― of which is derived from 2) above and is tantamount to saying
> | > (1/3 + 2/3)/2 = 1/3.
> |
> | It says nothing like that.
>
> Learn to think... oops, impossible for a moron... my mistake.
Yes, indeed, it is impossible for you to think. You demonstrated this
nicely both here and below.
[snip remainder - this *really* becomes too much nonsense and insults!]
Bye,
Bjoern
Myxococcus xanthus
> "Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> | 0.02 us/day isn't a "rate", it's the order of magnitude of
> | a random fluctuation.
>
> Oh, I didn't know that dtau/dt was an order of magnitude of a random
> fluctuation. Thanks for telling me. I guess dx/dt isn't a velocity, either.
After being corrected on what apparently is a long-term
misunderstanding on your part, you deliberately distort Randy's
explanation to try to prove him stupid or something. Totally pathetic
on your part, Androcles.
> | Some days they add 0.001 us. Some days they subtract 0.013.
>
> Yeah sure...
The data is readily accessible on the Internet. Randy is absolutely
correct.
http://earth-info.nga.mil/GandG/sathtml/Welcome.html
Of course, you won't bother looking up the data, since you don't
believe anything that goes against your misconceptions.
Myxococcus xanthus
Androcles
[snip]<- by Androcles.
| [snip remainder - this *really* becomes too much nonsense and insults!]<-
by Bjoern.
*plonk* <- by Androcles.