GPS atomic clock corrections without Einstein
Dave
corrections in GPS satellites. GR predicts a speed up of 45900 nanosec
per day (due to lower gravitational field) and SR a slowdown of 7200
nanosecs per day (due to moving clock). The total is 38700 nanosec per
day which agrees well with experiment. The Einstein worshipping cult in
today's scientific establishment are making statements like this- "
There is no better illustration of the unpredictable payback of
fundamental science than the story of Albert Einstein and the Global
Positioning System...the next time your plane approaches an airport in
bad weather, and you just happen to be wondering 'what good is basic
science', think about Einstein and the GPS tracker in the cockpit,
guiding you to a safe landing."
So can all this be explained without Einstein? Yep, and it's a lot
simpler. GR effects can easily be explained by assuming light is slowed
down by a tiny amount in a gravitational field.
Consider an object of mass m approaching a planet of mass M from
infinite distance to distance R, it gains an energy of GmM/R
Consider a photon of light in outer space with an apparent mass m°=E/c²,
it would gain in apparent mass by an amount Gm°M/Rc² by entering the
gravitational field.
Now assume that linear momentum is preserved for the photon:
(m° + Gm°M/Rc²)v = m°c
where v is velocity of light in gravitational field, c is velocity in
outer space.
This gives v=c/[1 + GM/Rc²] as reduced speed of light in a gravitational
field.
Let's plug in values (SI units) for the Earth's surface:
R=6.378e6, G=6.67e-11, M=5.98e24, v=299,792,458.6
We only know the most accurate value of "c" on Earth, which is actually
v in this theory and the best current measurement (as far as I am aware)
for Earth's surface is 299,792,458.6 ± 0.3 m/sec by NBS in 1983.
Using a calculator with a built-in equation solver, this gives
c=299,792,458.8086 m/s in outer space, 21 cm/sec higher than the value
on the Earth's surface but the difference would be currently
undetectable since the current measurement capability has a standard
deviation of 30 cm/sec.
Now use this value of c to calculate v at the GPS satellite elevation of
R=26.6e6 metres. This gives v=299,792,458.7586 m/s, 15.86 cm/sec higher
than on Earth's surface. Due to the very slightly higher speed of light
at this elevation an atomic clock speeds up by a factor
299792458.7586/299792458.6 Now subtract 1 from this, then multiply by
86400 for the number of seconds in a day, then multiply by 10^9 to
convert seconds to nanoseconds and we get a value of 45,706 nanosecs per
day as the atomic clock gain, which is very close to the 45900 given by GR.
This simple theory does not require curved space-time which is a
consequence of insisting that c is constant. Also the speed up effect on
a clock is limited to an electomagnetically based clock like an atomic
clock. GR predicts all clocks would speed up (since time itself is being
modified), so leads to the paradox of a pendulum clock (if it was
possible to make a super accurate one) which should slow down as g
(accel due to gravity) reduces according to normal mechanics, speeding
up in a lower gravitational field according to GR.
The theory of light slowing down in a gravitational field can also be
applied to predict the deflection of starlight in a solar eclipse (which
was the original experimental evidence which led to the acceptance of
GR) and gives very good results. See this online paper->
http://publish.aps.org/eprint/gateway/eplist/aps1997aug08_002
The fairly small SR contribution to GPS atomic clock adjustment also
does not depend exclusively on Einstein. SR is mathematically equivalent
to LET (lorentz Ether Theory), an earlier theory developed by Lorentz.
Finally someone may have noticed I used E=mc² above which is surely a
major idea that can only be derived from SR? No, Einstein didn't invent
that either, the idea that E is at least proportional to mc² was
reasonably well known at the turn of the 20th century, Einstein simply
unified E=mc² into SR and had a habit of writing papers without any
supporting references. The history of other scientists contribution to
the E=mc² equation is given in this link->
http://mathweb.mathsci.usna.edu/faculty/herrmannra/ein.htm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Dave" <djga...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:bjib3k$2ve$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
[snip]
> The theory of light slowing down in a gravitational field can also be
> applied to predict the deflection of starlight in a solar eclipse (which
> was the original experimental evidence which led to the acceptance of
> GR) and gives very good results. See this online paper->
> http://publish.aps.org/eprint/gateway/eplist/aps1997aug08_002
See below...
>
> The fairly small SR contribution to GPS atomic clock adjustment also
> does not depend exclusively on Einstein. SR is mathematically equivalent
> to LET (lorentz Ether Theory), an earlier theory developed by Lorentz.
>
> Finally someone may have noticed I used E=mc² above which is surely a
> major idea that can only be derived from SR? No, Einstein didn't invent
> that either, the idea that E is at least proportional to mc² was
> reasonably well known at the turn of the 20th century, Einstein simply
> unified E=mc² into SR and had a habit of writing papers without any
> supporting references.
Supporting references of the online "paper"
http://publish.aps.org/eprint/gateway/epget/aps1997aug08_002/derived/gravlitf.pdf
| REFERENCES
| 1. Quoted from Einstein, The Life and Times, by R.W.
| Clark, Avon Books, NY, NY, 1972, p. 181.
| 2. From the internet, sr7.html at zebu.uoregon.edu.
| 1997
| 3. R.L. Collins, from the APS eprint server,
| aps1997jun30_003.
| 4. The MathCad program used to calculate the
| deflection is available on request to the author.
Very impressive list of supporting references.
Dirk Vdm
Titan Point
> The Einstein worshipping cult in
> today's scientific establishment are making statements like this- "
This reminds me - Dirk its your turn to spin the Einstein idol while
reciting all 19 basic partial differential equations.
We'll be all in a circle, encouraging all future experiments to conform to
Einstein's predictions and keep the Universe in harmony.
Stephen Speicher pays the bar tab THIS TIME. No forgetting your credit
card, my friend...
Joe Fischer
:[snip ego trip]
: So can all this be explained without Einstein? Yep, and it's a lot
: down by a tiny amount in a gravitational field.
I think you have a little problem (besides
the delusional ego and the anti-einstein agenda).
Frequency is increased as the radio signals
fall toward Earth, nothing is slowed down in the
downward GPS signals.
Joe Fischer
--
3
Perfectly Innocent
I'm very interested in what you've posted. You are very welcome to
post your very interesting comment in this thread:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=580
Sorry, registration with a real email address is required but very
easy.
You may want to check out the parallel thread: "VSL (Variable Speed of
Light) Relativity" and contribute to that also.
Best wishes,
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=580
Bruce Pew
You might consider referencing somebody who isn't clueless. Just for
the fun of it how about doing making a prediction for the
International Space Station. Make r_average for the orbit.
Old Physics
If the atomic clock ticks slower at the surface of the earth and
the measured SoL is c in both frames, then light must propagate slower
at the surface. Since there is no change in the number of wavecrests
in the radio signal, this explains the blueshift. I note that Dirk,
Titan and yourself don't seem to have any argument with Dave's
numbers.
Tom Roberts has scolded me for asking this type of question. The
SoL is invarient locally but not globally.
Stephen Kearney
Dirk Van de moortel
"Old Physics" <skea...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:13fd3446.0309...@posting.google.com...
[snip]
> I note that Dirk,
> Titan and yourself don't seem to have any argument with Dave's
> numbers.
I haven't looked at his numbers.
I never look at their numbers.
Dirk Vdm
Joe Fischer
: Joe Fischer <grav...@shell1.iglou.com> wrote in message news:<3f5cf...@news.iglou.com>...
:> I think you have a little problem (besides
:> the delusional ego and the anti-einstein agenda).
:>
:> Frequency is increased as the radio signals
:> fall toward Earth, nothing is slowed down in the
:> downward GPS signals.
: If the atomic clock ticks slower at the surface of the earth and
: the measured SoL is c in both frames,
The clock at the surface doesn't tick slower,
the clock in the satellite ticked the same before
it was sent up as it does now.
: then light must propagate slower at the surface.
It does because it has to move through air,
but that isn't the reason for the change in wavelength.
: Since there is no change in the number of wavecrests
: in the radio signal, this explains the blueshift.
Shake your head so we can hear the rattle,
there is a change in the number of wavecrests,
that is the reason for the increased wavelength.
: I note that Dirk,
: Titan and yourself don't seem to have any argument with Dave's
: numbers.
: Tom Roberts has scolded me for asking this type of question. The
: SoL is invarient locally but not globally.
: Stephen Kearney
The speed of light is not definable, the
measured speed of light is, and in vacuum it is
always c.
Stick to funny books.
Joe Fischer
--
3
Old Physics
Mr. Fischer,
You might not want to look up the facts about the GPS, or the GR
FAQs of this newsgroup, because you would find that GR predicts the
time dilation that Dave cited. What he ignored was that GR makes the
same argument, gravity slows time and this is the reason for the
apparent increase in frequency. In literature about the GPS, it is
sometimes rounded off to about 50000 nano seconds per day, for ease in
explaining its importance. sk
Bruce Pew
Dave
How about a prediction for the ISS? Set the ISS orbit for r_average.
Then we can compare your prediction with the prediction for GR.
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Old Physics" <skea...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13fd3446.03090...@posting.google.com...
...
> You might not want to look up the facts about the GPS, or the GR
> FAQs of this newsgroup, because you would find that GR predicts the
> time dilation that Dave cited. What he ignored was that GR makes the
> same argument, gravity slows time and this is the reason for the
> apparent increase in frequency. In literature about the GPS, it is
> sometimes rounded off to about 50000 nano seconds per day, for ease in
> explaining its importance.
Joe is on one of those "orbital resonances" we were discussing. Sometimes
he is lucid and rational, other times he becomes delusional and rancid. It
may be his thyroid medication...
David A. Smith
HenriWilson
Please explain what you mean by "gravity slows time"
Are you suggesting that TIME has a 'time rate of change'?
Henri Wilson.
See my animations and physics book at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
HenriWilson
Dave is right. Light speeds up as it falls to ground.
GPS clocks also speed up when in free fall.
György Szondy
- there was no change in the speed of light
- there was no gravitational red-shift
- the clock-rate was a function of the graviatational potential
- the spacetime would be flat.
This is a good-enough approximation for the weak field of the Earth,
but it is neither and ether nor a GR based thing. However, it has much
closer to ether and Linear Relativity (special case of Brans-Dicke
gravitation) because of the definition of time. (time!=clock)
Of course all of these theories are describing the same thing,
therefore the same corrections will be applied. The difference is in
the interpretation. Is time or clock that is slowed down? If time,
then there is a graviational redshift. If clock then there is no
graviational redshift.
Cheers,
György
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding
news:mo2ulvo7o3p7em1ce...@4ax.com...
> >Dave <djga...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:<bjib3k$2ve$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>...
[..]
> >> GR effects can easily be explained by assuming light is slowed
> >> down by a tiny amount in a gravitational field.
[..]
> >> Using a calculator with a built-in equation solver, this gives
> >> c=299,792,458.8086 m/s in outer space, 21 cm/sec higher than the value
> >> on the Earth's surface
[..].
> >> Now use this value of c to calculate v at the GPS satellite elevation of
> >> R=26.6e6 metres. This gives v=299,792,458.7586 m/s, 15.86 cm/sec higher
> >> than on Earth's surface.
>
> Dave is right. Light speeds up as it falls to ground.
:-)
Paul
HenriWilson
wrote:
The Pound Rebka experiment proved that.
Bruce Pew
Dave is wrong and so are you. The radial velocity for light wrt the
remote observer is
dr/dt = (1-2M/r)
Figure it out Henri. M_Earth is .00444 meter. r_Earth is 6.371x10^6
meter. r_satellite is 26.6x10^6 meter.
The order of delta ratio is
dr/dt_satellite = 299,999,999.7 m/s / dr/dt_Earth = 299,999,999.6 m/s
The order of delta ratio is so miniscule as to not have any bearing on
any calculation for the GPS. You got it wrong because for the remote
observer the radial remote velocity of light decreases as r decreases.
For the local observer it is always measured as c in a vacuum. None of
this has anything to do with the delta time intervals measured between
GPS satellite and GPS Earthbased atomic clocks. Apparently Dave
doesn't want to do the calc for the ISS so we can compare his
prediction to the GR prediction [which I'll do if Dave shows up].
HenriWilson
Please define 'time slowing down'.
>
>Cheers,
>György
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:vv4vlvoq9lb4nl0b1...@4ax.com...
You didn't get it, did you?
Dave says that the speed of light is slower at the Earth's surface
than it is at higher altidudes, and you say that he is right because
"light speeds up as it falls to the ground".
Do you still say Dave is right? :-)
Paul
HenriWilson
HenriWilson
What is M_earth?
>
>The order of delta ratio is
>
>dr/dt_satellite = 299,999,999.7 m/s / dr/dt_Earth = 299,999,999.6 m/s
>
>The order of delta ratio is so miniscule as to not have any bearing on
>any calculation for the GPS. You got it wrong because for the remote
>observer the radial remote velocity of light decreases as r decreases.
>For the local observer it is always measured as c in a vacuum. None of
>this has anything to do with the delta time intervals measured between
>GPS satellite and GPS Earthbased atomic clocks. Apparently Dave
>doesn't want to do the calc for the ISS so we can compare his
>prediction to the GR prediction [which I'll do if Dave shows up].
Apparently no SRian wants to know the rate shift of clocks in the ISS.
Bruce Pew
M_Earth is the mass of the Earth in geometricized units.
G/c^2=7.424x10^-28 meter/kilogram. When you factor this to the Earths
mass in kg you get .00444 meter.
>
> >
> >The order of delta ratio is
> >
> >dr/dt_satellite = 299,999,999.7 m/s / dr/dt_Earth = 299,999,999.6 m/s
> >
> >The order of delta ratio is so miniscule as to not have any bearing on
> >any calculation for the GPS. You got it wrong because for the remote
> >observer the radial remote velocity of light decreases as r decreases.
> >For the local observer it is always measured as c in a vacuum. None of
> >this has anything to do with the delta time intervals measured between
> >GPS satellite and GPS Earthbased atomic clocks. Apparently Dave
> >doesn't want to do the calc for the ISS so we can compare his
> >prediction to the GR prediction [which I'll do if Dave shows up].
>
> Apparently no SRian wants to know the rate shift of clocks in the ISS.
Most the folks who participate in the newsgroup and have a background
in relativity don't need me to do that calculation. Apparently Dave
isn't going to respond.
HenriWilson
wrote:
My statement should have read:
Dave is possibly right. The speed of light measured in flat gravity might be
dependent on the strength of the field. But since we do not have any evidence
that this might be true, best not to take it too seriously.
However we DO know that light speeds up as it falls.
>
>Paul
>
Henri Wilson.
See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
HenriWilson
OK.
>>
>> >
>> >The order of delta ratio is
>> >
>> >dr/dt_satellite = 299,999,999.7 m/s / dr/dt_Earth = 299,999,999.6 m/s
>> >
>> >The order of delta ratio is so miniscule as to not have any bearing on
>> >any calculation for the GPS. You got it wrong because for the remote
>> >observer the radial remote velocity of light decreases as r decreases.
>> >For the local observer it is always measured as c in a vacuum. None of
>> >this has anything to do with the delta time intervals measured between
>> >GPS satellite and GPS Earthbased atomic clocks. Apparently Dave
>> >doesn't want to do the calc for the ISS so we can compare his
>> >prediction to the GR prediction [which I'll do if Dave shows up].
>>
>> Apparently no SRian wants to know the rate shift of clocks in the ISS.
>
>Most the folks who participate in the newsgroup and have a background
>in relativity don't need me to do that calculation. Apparently Dave
>isn't going to respond.
>>
It isn't just the calculation we want to see. It is also the observed rate
change.
>>
>>
>> Henri Wilson.
>>
>> See my animations and physics book at:
>> http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
Henri Wilson.
See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
Bruce Pew
I don't know whether there is an atomic clock on the ISS. All I was
offering Dave was an opportunity to see whether his prediction for the
ISS would be isomorphic with the prediction GR makes. He seemed to
claim that was the case. He also claimed it was easier to make the
prediction using the method he described. Undoubtedly thats erronious
since he needed an 'equation solver' while all I need is the
derivation from the Schwarzschild metric and a 10 digit hand held
calc..
HenriWilson
Well just calculating an answer certainly doesn't mean that the equation used
is correct.
Like I said, SRians all want to hide the figures for the ISS or communication
satelites in geo-stationary orbits.
The required GPS correction, caused by the clock changing it rate in free fall,
just happens to be close to the GR prediction.
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:65oamvkahq7evn709...@4ax.com...
> Like I said, SRians all want to hide the figures for the ISS or communication
> satelites in geo-stationary orbits.
>
> The required GPS correction, caused by the clock changing it rate in free fall,
> just happens to be close to the GR prediction.
Henry at his very best! :-)
Henry Wilson knows that measurements are done in the ISS and
geosynchronous satellites which falsifies GR. But since these measurements
are hidden by the establishment, Henry Wilson doesn't know about
the measurements he knows are made.
So GR is obviously falsified.
All the other experiments, H&K, Alley, Vessot and GPS,
only happens to be close to the GR prediction to a precision
of one part per 10^12 (for the GPS)
Obviously a coincidence.
The REAL reason for why the GPS clocks are observed
to run fast, is OBVIOUSLY that a 2 mm long steel rod
freed from a 1g acceleration would be lengthened by
the same factor as the increase in clock rate.
THAT can obviously be no coincidence.
Henry Wilson has thoroughly demolished GR.
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:l6q9mvslrq11k5qsl...@4ax.com...
But Dave is possibly right when saying the opposite? :-)
Paul
Bruce Pew
The good thing is you are full of crap. And the other good thing is
you are ignorant of the facts. After so much verbosity [over so much
Earthtime], on your part, it doesn't say much for your ability to
comprehend experimental results or theoretical models.
HenriWilson
wrote:
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:l6q9mvslrq11k5qsl...@4ax.com...
>> >You didn't get it, did you?
>> >Dave says that the speed of light is slower at the Earth's surface
>> >than it is at higher altidudes, and you say that he is right because
>> >"light speeds up as it falls to the ground".
>> >
>> >Do you still say Dave is right? :-)
>>
>> My statement should have read:
>>
>> Dave is possibly right. The speed of light measured in flat gravity might be
>> dependent on the strength of the field. But since we do not have any evidence
>> that this might be true, best not to take it too seriously.
>>
>> However we DO know that light speeds up as it falls.
>
>But Dave is possibly right when saying the opposite? :-)
Dave is tallking about light speed across flat gravity. I am referring to light
speed in the direction of a gravity gradient.
Two very different scenarios.
>
>Paul
>
Henri Wilson.
See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
HenriWilson
wrote:
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:65oamvkahq7evn709...@4ax.com...
>
>> Like I said, SRians all want to hide the figures for the ISS or communication
>> satelites in geo-stationary orbits.
>>
>> The required GPS correction, caused by the clock changing it rate in free fall,
>> just happens to be close to the GR prediction.
>
>Henry at his very best! :-)
>
>Henry Wilson knows that measurements are done in the ISS and
>geosynchronous satellites which falsifies GR. But since these measurements
>are hidden by the establishment, Henry Wilson doesn't know about
>the measurements he knows are made.
>So GR is obviously falsified.
Right Paul! You are starting to see the light.
>
>All the other experiments, H&K, Alley, Vessot and GPS,
>only happens to be close to the GR prediction to a precision
>of one part per 10^12 (for the GPS)
>Obviously a coincidence.
All suspect.
In all cases, the operators knew the answer that would support relativity.
No such experiment can be believed.
>
>The REAL reason for why the GPS clocks are observed
>to run fast, is OBVIOUSLY that a 2 mm long steel rod
>freed from a 1g acceleration would be lengthened by
>the same factor as the increase in clock rate.
>THAT can obviously be no coincidence.
the GPS clock rates have never been accurately measured so how can the
'correction' be compared with the 'GR prediction? There are too many other
corrections and orbit uncertainties.
>
>Henry Wilson has thoroughly demolished GR.
....about twenty times at the last count.
>
>Paul
>
>
Henri Wilson.
See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
HenriWilson
Well just provide the facts and I might accept them.
How does the signal frequency of a communications satellite change when in
orbit?
How much does the rate of a clock on board same appear to change when measured
by the ground observer?
>>
Henri Wilson.
See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
Bruce Pew
> On 15 Sep 2003 11:01:48 -0700, va...@cox.net (Bruce Pew) wrote:
>
> >He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote in message news:<65oamvkahq7evn709...@4ax.com>...
> >> On 14 Sep 2003 18:16:09 -0700, va...@cox.net (Bruce Pew) wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Well just calculating an answer certainly doesn't mean that the equation used
> >> is correct.
> >> Like I said, SRians all want to hide the figures for the ISS or communication
> >> satelites in geo-stationary orbits.
> >>
> >> The required GPS correction, caused by the clock changing it rate in free fall,
> >> just happens to be close to the GR prediction.
> >
> >The good thing is you are full of crap. And the other good thing is
> >you are ignorant of the facts. After so much verbosity [over so much
> >Earthtime], on your part, it doesn't say much for your ability to
> >comprehend experimental results or theoretical models.
>
> Well just provide the facts and I might accept them.
>
> How does the signal frequency of a communications satellite change when in
> orbit?
> How much does the rate of a clock on board same appear to change when measured
> by the ground observer?
You continually show that you have no intention of accepting any
facts. The time intervals measured by GPS satellite based and Earth
based atomic clocks doesn't have anything to do with 'signal frequency
of a communication satellite' or appearances of any sort. It is a fact
of nature that the GPS system wouldn't function properly without
compensating for time dilation effects due to relative motion and
position in the gravity well of GPS satellite based and Earth based
atomic clocks. Regardless of what ignorant beliefs you have.
HenriWilson
>He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote in message news:<namcmvkqjke5gde66...@4ax.com>...
>> On 15 Sep 2003 11:01:48 -0700, va...@cox.net (Bruce Pew) wrote:
>>
>> >He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote in message news:<65oamvkahq7evn709...@4ax.com>...
>> >> On 14 Sep 2003 18:16:09 -0700, va...@cox.net (Bruce Pew) wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> Well just calculating an answer certainly doesn't mean that the equation used
>> >> is correct.
>> >> Like I said, SRians all want to hide the figures for the ISS or communication
>> >> satelites in geo-stationary orbits.
>> >>
>> >> The required GPS correction, caused by the clock changing it rate in free fall,
>> >> just happens to be close to the GR prediction.
>> >
>> >The good thing is you are full of crap. And the other good thing is
>> >you are ignorant of the facts. After so much verbosity [over so much
>> >Earthtime], on your part, it doesn't say much for your ability to
>> >comprehend experimental results or theoretical models.
>>
>> Well just provide the facts and I might accept them.
>>
>> How does the signal frequency of a communications satellite change when in
>> orbit?
>> How much does the rate of a clock on board same appear to change when measured
>> by the ground observer?
>
>You continually show that you have no intention of accepting any
>facts. The time intervals measured by GPS satellite based and Earth
>based atomic clocks doesn't have anything to do with 'signal frequency
>of a communication satellite' or appearances of any sort.
Ah! but it has. Probably too subtle for you though. See my partly finished demo
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/fallingwave.exe
>It is a fact
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:c1mcmv0t516629a19...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 11:54:08 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:65oamvkahq7evn709...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> Like I said, SRians all want to hide the figures for the ISS or communication
> >> satelites in geo-stationary orbits.
> >>
> >> The required GPS correction, caused by the clock changing it rate in free fall,
> >> just happens to be close to the GR prediction.
> >
> >Henry at his very best! :-)
> >
> >Henry Wilson knows that measurements are done in the ISS and
> >geosynchronous satellites which falsifies GR. But since these measurements
> >are hidden by the establishment, Henry Wilson doesn't know about
> >the measurements he knows are made.
> >So GR is obviously falsified.
>
> Right Paul! You are starting to see the light.
Quite.
GR is OBVIOUSLY falsified by a lot of unknown experiments.
> >All the other experiments, H&K, Alley, Vessot and GPS,
> >only happens to be close to the GR prediction to a precision
> >of one part per 10^12 (for the GPS)
> >Obviously a coincidence.
>
> All suspect.
> In all cases, the operators knew the answer that would support relativity.
> No such experiment can be believed.
Quite.
They are OBVIOUSLY all fakes.
The Great Conspiracy at work.
> >The REAL reason for why the GPS clocks are observed
> >to run fast, is OBVIOUSLY that a 2 mm long steel rod
> >freed from a 1g acceleration would be lengthened by
> >the same factor as the increase in clock rate.
> >THAT can obviously be no coincidence.
>
> the GPS clock rates have never been accurately measured so how can the
> 'correction' be compared with the 'GR prediction? There are too many other
> corrections and orbit uncertainties.
Of course, Henry.
The truth is that it is OBVIOUSLY impossible for
a GPS receiver to determine the time with the 10 ns precision
required to determine the position within few metres.
The GPS can OBVIOUSLY not work.
It is only a myth upheld by the establishment.
Part of the Great Conspiracy.
And how can anybody believe that the GPS clocks are
monitored multiple times every day and their reading measured
to a precision of few ns?
These datafiles:
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gps_datafiles.html
are OBVIOUSLY fakes.
Part of the Great Conspiracy.
We can agree on that, can't we?
> >
> >Henry Wilson has thoroughly demolished GR.
>
> ....about twenty times at the last count.
Only twenty times?
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:qajdmvka6gkb4uu8t...@4ax.com...
A very subtle explanation, indeed.
The time information coded on the carrier obviously changes
when the carrier falls to the ground.
Since USNO has ignored this effect,
these data are obviously invalid:
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gps_datafiles.html
and the GPS doesn't work.
Right?
Paul, not knowing where he is
Bruce Pew
Your demo is bullshit henri [without even looking at it {I don't
download files from card carrying knuckleheads}]. Remaining ignorant
is your choice, but there is nothing in the derivation of the
dt_satellite/dt_Earth formula which would indicate anything you've
said has anything to do with deriving a delta correction for time
interval ratio between GPS satellite based and Earth based atomic
clocks.
That is the fact.
HenriWilson
wrote:
If a researcher's funding depends on him coming up with the answer expected by
the physics mafia, what kind of conclusions are his experiments likely to show?
>
>> >The REAL reason for why the GPS clocks are observed
>> >to run fast, is OBVIOUSLY that a 2 mm long steel rod
>> >freed from a 1g acceleration would be lengthened by
>> >the same factor as the increase in clock rate.
>> >THAT can obviously be no coincidence.
>>
>> the GPS clock rates have never been accurately measured so how can the
>> 'correction' be compared with the 'GR prediction? There are too many other
>> corrections and orbit uncertainties.
>
>Of course, Henry.
>The truth is that it is OBVIOUSLY impossible for
>a GPS receiver to determine the time with the 10 ns precision
>required to determine the position within few metres.
>The GPS can OBVIOUSLY not work.
>It is only a myth upheld by the establishment.
>Part of the Great Conspiracy.
Paul, you must know by now that 4E-10 x 3770m/s amounts to an error of only
about 7cms per orbit.
>
>And how can anybody believe that the GPS clocks are
>monitored multiple times every day and their reading measured
>to a precision of few ns?
>
>These datafiles:
>http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gps_datafiles.html
>are OBVIOUSLY fakes.
>Part of the Great Conspiracy.
>
>We can agree on that, can't we?
Well all we really know is that the clocks change rates when in free fall. I
don't think anyone has worked out the exact physical explanation for this.
>
>> >
>> >Henry Wilson has thoroughly demolished GR.
>>
>> ....about twenty times at the last count.
>
>Only twenty times?
>
>Paul
>
HenriWilson
wrote:
>
Nah. Carrier frequency doesn't change.
>
>Since USNO has ignored this effect,
>these data are obviously invalid:
>http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gps_datafiles.html
>and the GPS doesn't work.
>
>Right?
>
>Paul, not knowing where he is
>
Maybe conversion is just around the corner.
HenriWilson
>He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote in message news:<qajdmvka6gkb4uu8t...@4ax.com>...
>> On 15 Sep 2003 23:51:22 -0700, va...@cox.net (Bruce Pew) wrote:
>>
>> >You continually show that you have no intention of accepting any
>> >facts. The time intervals measured by GPS satellite based and Earth
>> >based atomic clocks doesn't have anything to do with 'signal frequency
>> >of a communication satellite' or appearances of any sort.
>>
>> Ah! but it has. Probably too subtle for you though. See my partly finished demo
>> http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/fallingwave.exe
>
>Your demo is bullshit henri [without even looking at it {I don't
>download files from card carrying knuckleheads}].
Only a real knuckle head would comment on something he hasn't even looked at
and about which he knows absolutely nothing.
>Remaining ignorant
>is your choice, but there is nothing in the derivation of the
>dt_satellite/dt_Earth formula which would indicate anything you've
>said has anything to do with deriving a delta correction for time
>interval ratio between GPS satellite based and Earth based atomic
>clocks.
>
>That is the fact.
Afraid of the truth are you pew?
Bruce Pew
> On 16 Sep 2003 11:30:43 -0700, va...@cox.net (Bruce Pew) wrote:
>
> >He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote in message news:<qajdmvka6gkb4uu8t...@4ax.com>...
> >> On 15 Sep 2003 23:51:22 -0700, va...@cox.net (Bruce Pew) wrote:
> >>
>
> >> >You continually show that you have no intention of accepting any
> >> >facts. The time intervals measured by GPS satellite based and Earth
> >> >based atomic clocks doesn't have anything to do with 'signal frequency
> >> >of a communication satellite' or appearances of any sort.
> >>
> >> Ah! but it has. Probably too subtle for you though. See my partly finished demo
> >> http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/fallingwave.exe
> >
> >Your demo is bullshit henri [without even looking at it {I don't
> >download files from card carrying knuckleheads}].
>
> Only a real knuckle head would comment on something he hasn't even looked at
> and about which he knows absolutely nothing.
>
> >Remaining ignorant
> >is your choice, but there is nothing in the derivation of the
> >dt_satellite/dt_Earth formula which would indicate anything you've
> >said has anything to do with deriving a delta correction for time
> >interval ratio between GPS satellite based and Earth based atomic
> >clocks.
>
>
> >
> >That is the fact.
>
> Afraid of the truth are you pew?
Physics isn't about truth henri. Truth is a relative concept. Whats
true to you surely isn't true to me. Physics is about creating models
which make predictions that can be tested empirically. Crackpots tend
to use the term truth alot when they think they are discussing
physics. The GPS is a continuing verification of a prediction derived
from relativity theory.
HenriWilson
We have discussed all this at length previously.
The GPS system works perfectly well without any so called 'GR correction'.
However to reduce the required daily correction, the clock rates are offset
before launch to compensate for the 'free fall' error.
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:j93fmvsvcforvt18s...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:45:50 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
> wrote:
>
> >Quite.
> >They are OBVIOUSLY all fakes.
> >The Great Conspiracy at work.
>
> If a researcher's funding depends on him coming up with the answer expected by
> the physics mafia, what kind of conclusions are his experiments likely to show?
This statement is a beautiful study in Wilsonian logic. :-)
To get an experiment funded, you must know what the results
of the experiment will be before it is done, and assure that
it will not falsify any theory.
[..]
> >Of course, Henry.
> >The truth is that it is OBVIOUSLY impossible for
> >a GPS receiver to determine the time with the 10 ns precision
> >required to determine the position within few metres.
> >The GPS can OBVIOUSLY not work.
> >It is only a myth upheld by the establishment.
> >Part of the Great Conspiracy.
>
> Paul, you must know by now that 4E-10 x 3770m/s amounts to an error of only
> about 7cms per orbit.
What you mean is that if the clocks were NOT corrected
according to GR, they would run 19 us wrong per orbit,
and during 19 us, the satellite moves ca. 7 cm.
It is interesting to note that you keep repeating this idiocy,
despite the fact that you know very well that it is utterly
irrelevant. (As if the point with the GPS is to determine
the position of the satellites! :-) )
If the GPS clocks were 19 us out of synch from
the GPS coordinated time, it would lead to an error
of c*19 us = 16 km in the position calculated by
the GPS receiver.
Of course you know this, Henry.
So why the hell do you repeat those stupid 7 cm?
The truth is of course that if the clocks were a mere 10 ns
out of synch from the GPS coordinated time, it would
lead to ca. 3 m error in the position. As this is the
order of magnitude of the actual precision of the GPS,
it shows that the GPS clocks cannot deviate from
the GPS coordinated time by more than ca 10 ns.
The very fact that the GPS actually make it possible to
determine the position within few metres prove that
the GPS satellite clocks never deviates from the GPS
coordinated time by more than a very few tens of ns.
This shows that the GR correction is correct within
the precision of the clocks - ca. 10^-12.
And don't pull those "empirical corrections" again.
Sure, the very point with the monitoring stations (the data
from which you can find in the URL below), IS to upload
correctional data to the satellites. But you know very well
that this can be done at the very most once per orbit, which
means that the satellites has to run at least 12 hours without
corrections. And during those 12 hours, the clocks don't drift
out of synch by more than at most a few tents of ns,
which is a few parts in 10^12 - the precision of the clocks.
What I will never understand is that despite the fact that
you know all what I have told you above very well,
you are still able to repeat all the factually wrong claims
you made before you learned how the GPS works.
Why do you keep repeating what you know is wrong, Henry?
Are you actually able to fool yourself to believe what you
know is wrong?
If you are, it must indeed be a real weird mental condition.
> >And how can anybody believe that the GPS clocks are
> >monitored multiple times every day and their reading measured
> >to a precision of few ns?
> >
> >These datafiles:
> >http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gps_datafiles.html
> >are OBVIOUSLY fakes.
> >Part of the Great Conspiracy.
> >
> >We can agree on that, can't we?
>
> Well all we really know is that the clocks change rates when in free fall. I
> don't think anyone has worked out the exact physical explanation for this.
This is an admission of that these data files show that
the clocks from the ground are observed to change rate,
and that this change of rate is measured with high precision.
The point you are doing your best to wave away is that this
carefully monitored change of rate is exactly as predicted by GR,
to a precision within the precision of the clocks, a few parts in 10^12.
To insist that this is a mere coinsidence, and that the real reason
for the observed change in clock rate is something entirely different
from the relative speed and difference in gravitational potential
predicted by GR, is of course so stupid that only a Henry Wilson can claim it.
Youngs modulus! Indeed! :-)
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:qn3fmvc220csjst2r...@4ax.com...
But the timing information coded on the carrier does?
I think you better explain yourself, Henry.
In what way does you demo explain why the timing
information transmitted by the satellites show that
that the rate of the GPS clocks are as predicted by GR?
Will you give us that subtle explanation, please?
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:7p4gmv4h374l09f7m...@4ax.com...
> The GPS system works perfectly well without any so called 'GR correction'.
> However to reduce the required daily correction, the clock rates are offset
> before launch to compensate for the 'free fall' error.
So the 4.46*10^-10 rate correction isn't the GR correction,
it is the "free fall correction" predicted by Henry Wilson.
And since the predicted 4.46*10^-10 GR -- eh "Wilson correction"
which is empirically verified to be correct within few parts in 10^12
might have been found empirically and uploaded to the satellites,
(which in principle is possible - if the satellites had been built to
change the rate of the clocks in flight - which they aren't),
Wilsonian logic tells us that the GR prediction, which is experimentally
verified to be correct within few parts in 10^12, doesn't confirm GR.
GR is OBVIOUSLY wrong, it only happens to predict the rate
correctly with a precision of few parts in 10^12.
The "Wilson's prediction" OTOH - which happens to be exactly equal to
the GR prediction - is however experimentally verified,
which confirms "Wilson's free fall theory".
"Wilson's free fall theory" is thus OBVIOUSLY correct.
BTW, Henry,
would you please repeat your derivation of the 4.46*10^10
change in rate predicted by the "free fall theory"?
Wasn't it something with Young's factor?
I have no doubt that you are able to show that it is no
coincidence that your theory predicts exactly the correct
change in rate.
I am looking forward to your derivation.
Paul, waiting
HenriWilson
wrote:
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:j93fmvsvcforvt18s...@4ax.com...
>> >Of course, Henry.
>> >The truth is that it is OBVIOUSLY impossible for
>> >a GPS receiver to determine the time with the 10 ns precision
>> >required to determine the position within few metres.
>> >The GPS can OBVIOUSLY not work.
>> >It is only a myth upheld by the establishment.
>> >Part of the Great Conspiracy.
>>
>> Paul, you must know by now that 4E-10 x 3770m/s amounts to an error of only
>> about 7cms per orbit.
>
>What you mean is that if the clocks were NOT corrected
>according to GR, they would run 19 us wrong per orbit,
>and during 19 us, the satellite moves ca. 7 cm.
>
>It is interesting to note that you keep repeating this idiocy,
>despite the fact that you know very well that it is utterly
>irrelevant. (As if the point with the GPS is to determine
>the position of the satellites! :-) )
>If the GPS clocks were 19 us out of synch from
>the GPS coordinated time, it would lead to an error
>of c*19 us = 16 km in the position calculated by
>the GPS receiver.
Fortunately the navigational system was not designed by SRians. If it had we
would have planes and ships crashing and running aground all over the world.
The GPS works on knowing where you are wrt the position of the orbiting clock
(actually 3 or 4 orbiting clocks). If the clock is 7cms from where you think it
is, that is the size of your positioning error.
>
>Of course you know this, Henry.
>So why the hell do you repeat those stupid 7 cm?
>
>The truth is of course that if the clocks were a mere 10 ns
>out of synch from the GPS coordinated time, it would
>lead to ca. 3 m error in the position. As this is the
>order of magnitude of the actual precision of the GPS,
>it shows that the GPS clocks cannot deviate from
>the GPS coordinated time by more than ca 10 ns.
>
>The very fact that the GPS actually make it possible to
>determine the position within few metres prove that
>the GPS satellite clocks never deviates from the GPS
>coordinated time by more than a very few tens of ns.
>This shows that the GR correction is correct within
>the precision of the clocks - ca. 10^-12.
The readings of the orbiting clocks relative to the ground clocks is
irrelevant. Time intervals (any difference) cancel out.
The main criterion is that all the orbiting clocks are in close synch so that
triangulation (four sided) will be accurate.
>
>And don't pull those "empirical corrections" again.
>Sure, the very point with the monitoring stations (the data
>from which you can find in the URL below), IS to upload
>correctional data to the satellites. But you know very well
>that this can be done at the very most once per orbit, which
>means that the satellites has to run at least 12 hours without
>corrections. And during those 12 hours, the clocks don't drift
>out of synch by more than at most a few tents of ns,
>which is a few parts in 10^12 - the precision of the clocks.
This is about clock stability. It is not related to the preset 'free fall
correction'.
>
>What I will never understand is that despite the fact that
>you know all what I have told you above very well,
>you are still able to repeat all the factually wrong claims
>you made before you learned how the GPS works.
Why would anyone want multiply the clock error by the speed of light to
calculate the positioning error of the system?
Obviously one must multiply the clock error by the orbiting speed of the
clock..
>
>Why do you keep repeating what you know is wrong, Henry?
>Are you actually able to fool yourself to believe what you
>know is wrong?
>
>If you are, it must indeed be a real weird mental condition.
You simply cannot fave the truth Paul. The 'GR correction' (actually 'free fall
correction) plays no important part in the GPS system.
>
>> >And how can anybody believe that the GPS clocks are
>> >monitored multiple times every day and their reading measured
>> >to a precision of few ns?
>> >
>> >These datafiles:
>> >http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gps_datafiles.html
>> >are OBVIOUSLY fakes.
>> >Part of the Great Conspiracy.
>> >
>> >We can agree on that, can't we?
>>
>> Well all we really know is that the clocks change rates when in free fall. I
>> don't think anyone has worked out the exact physical explanation for this.
>
>This is an admission of that these data files show that
>the clocks from the ground are observed to change rate,
>and that this change of rate is measured with high precision.
>The point you are doing your best to wave away is that this
>carefully monitored change of rate is exactly as predicted by GR,
>to a precision within the precision of the clocks, a few parts in 10^12.
Paul, maths does NOT cause physics. Maths describes physics within certain
axioms.
If you have at your fingertips an obscure equation that appears to describe
something that is observed, then please try to discover the physical process
that lies behind that equation. In other words, WHY DO THE CLOCKS CHANGE RATES
WHEN IN FREE FALL?
Plaease don't tell me "AN EQUATION CAUSES IT "
>
>To insist that this is a mere coinsidence, and that the real reason
>for the observed change in clock rate is something entirely different
>from the relative speed and difference in gravitational potential
>predicted by GR, is of course so stupid that only a Henry Wilson can claim it.
>
>Youngs modulus! Indeed! :-)
Do you have any physical explanation at all?
HenriWilson
wrote:
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:qn3fmvc220csjst2r...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:06:48 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
>> >> >You continually show that you have no intention of accepting any
>> >> >facts. The time intervals measured by GPS satellite based and Earth
>> >> >based atomic clocks doesn't have anything to do with 'signal frequency
>> >> >of a communication satellite' or appearances of any sort.
>> >>
>> >> Ah! but it has. Probably too subtle for you though. See my partly finished demo
>> >> http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/fallingwave.exe
>> >
>> >A very subtle explanation, indeed.
>> >The time information coded on the carrier obviously changes
>> >when the carrier falls to the ground.
>>
>> Nah. Carrier frequency doesn't change.
>
>But the timing information coded on the carrier does?
>
>I think you better explain yourself, Henry.
>In what way does you demo explain why the timing
>information transmitted by the satellites show that
>that the rate of the GPS clocks are as predicted by GR?
>
>Will you give us that subtle explanation, please?
I wish I could Paul. But apparently nobody knows why cesium clocks change rates
when freed of internal weight stresses.
The best I can give you is that YM might have a lot to do with it. At least it
is around the same order of magnitude.
>
>Paul
György Szondy
> On 10 Sep 2003 05:04:23 -0700, gyorgy...@hotmail.com (György Szondy) wrote:
>
> >Joe Fischer <grav...@shell1.iglou.com> wrote in message news:<3f5cf...@news.iglou.com>...
> >> Dave <djga...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> :[snip ego trip]
> >> : So can all this be explained without Einstein? Yep, and it's a lot
> >> : simpler. GR effects can easily be explained by assuming light is slowed
> >>
> >> the delusional ego and the anti-einstein agenda).
> >>
> >> Frequency is increased as the radio signals
> >> fall toward Earth, nothing is slowed down in the
> >> downward GPS signals.
> >>
> >> Joe Fischer
> >GPS is do calculated as if
> >- there was no change in the speed of light
> >- there was no gravitational red-shift
> >- the clock-rate was a function of the graviatational potential
> >- the spacetime would be flat.
> >
> >This is a good-enough approximation for the weak field of the Earth,
> >but it is neither and ether nor a GR based thing. However, it has much
> >closer to ether and Linear Relativity (special case of Brans-Dicke
> >gravitation) because of the definition of time. (time!=clock)
> >
> >Of course all of these theories are describing the same thing,
> >therefore the same corrections will be applied. The difference is in
> >the interpretation. Is time or clock that is slowed down? If time,
> >then there is a graviational redshift. If clock then there is no
> >graviational redshift.
>
> Please define 'time slowing down'.
g_00 changes ...
>
> >
> >Cheers,
> >György
>
>
> Henri Wilson.
>
Bruce Pew
Paul asked the excellent question. Show us the derivation [goofy
animations don't count]. 'Free fall error'? From previous comments by
you and Dave I got the impression that you both think that there is
something wrong with
dr/dt = (1-2M/r) [remote radial velocity of light].
Is this what you mean by 'free fall error', the remote observer
reckons the radial falling light velocity to be < c ? Or do you mean
that there is some error in the free fall orbit of the clocks? BTW
henri any physical theory predictions which are tested and verified
can't be wrong. Regardless of how they arrive at the prediction. Since
you are going to be making a prediction based on your theory how about
making a prediction for the ISS so I can compare it with GR?
HenriWilson
wrote:
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:7p4gmv4h374l09f7m...@4ax.com...
>> The GPS system works perfectly well without any so called 'GR correction'.
>> However to reduce the required daily correction, the clock rates are offset
>> before launch to compensate for the 'free fall' error.
>
>So the 4.46*10^-10 rate correction isn't the GR correction,
>it is the "free fall correction" predicted by Henry Wilson.
>
>And since the predicted 4.46*10^-10 GR -- eh "Wilson correction"
>which is empirically verified to be correct within few parts in 10^12
>might have been found empirically and uploaded to the satellites,
>(which in principle is possible - if the satellites had been built to
>change the rate of the clocks in flight - which they aren't),
>Wilsonian logic tells us that the GR prediction, which is experimentally
>verified to be correct within few parts in 10^12, doesn't confirm GR.
>GR is OBVIOUSLY wrong, it only happens to predict the rate
>correctly with a precision of few parts in 10^12.
>The "Wilson's prediction" OTOH - which happens to be exactly equal to
>the GR prediction - is however experimentally verified,
>which confirms "Wilson's free fall theory".
>"Wilson's free fall theory" is thus OBVIOUSLY correct.
It is easy to prove that I am right.
Just give me the figures for cesium clock rate changes in other orbits.
>
>BTW, Henry,
>would you please repeat your derivation of the 4.46*10^10
>change in rate predicted by the "free fall theory"?
>Wasn't it something with Young's factor?
>I have no doubt that you are able to show that it is no
>coincidence that your theory predicts exactly the correct
>change in rate.
Paul, neither I nor anyone else has a theory as to why these clocks change
rates in free fall - as they are observed to do.
The reason why nobody has a theory is that the physics establishment is happy
to delude itself into believing that the change is caused by a maths equation
and therefore doesn't try to take the matter any further.
>
>I am looking forward to your derivation.
>
>Paul, waiting
>
>
Bruce Pew
Its not caused by math [math is a useful tool for creating theoretical
physics models]. What do you mean nobody has a theory? What do you
think GR is?
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:27fhmvc12cdqhlkna...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:30:10 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:j93fmvsvcforvt18s...@4ax.com...
>
> >> >Of course, Henry.
> >> >The truth is that it is OBVIOUSLY impossible for
> >> >a GPS receiver to determine the time with the 10 ns precision
> >> >required to determine the position within few metres.
> >> >The GPS can OBVIOUSLY not work.
> >> >It is only a myth upheld by the establishment.
> >> >Part of the Great Conspiracy.
> >>
> >> Paul, you must know by now that 4E-10 x 3770m/s amounts to an error of only
> >> about 7cms per orbit.
> >
> >What you mean is that if the clocks were NOT corrected
> >according to GR, they would run 19 us wrong per orbit,
> >and during 19 us, the satellite moves ca. 7 cm.
> >
> >It is interesting to note that you keep repeating this idiocy,
> >despite the fact that you know very well that it is utterly
> >irrelevant. (As if the point with the GPS is to determine
> >the position of the satellites! :-) )
> >If the GPS clocks were 19 us out of synch from
> >the GPS coordinated time, it would lead to an error
> >of c*19 us = 16 km in the position calculated by
> >the GPS receiver.
correction: c*19 us = 5.7 km
> Fortunately the navigational system was not designed by SRians. If it had we
> would have planes and ships crashing and running aground all over the world.
>
> The GPS works on knowing where you are wrt the position of the orbiting clock
> (actually 3 or 4 orbiting clocks). If the clock is 7cms from where you think it
> is, that is the size of your positioning error.
And if you get the transit time of the signal wrong by 19us,
6.7 km is your positioning error.
The receiver gets its time from the satellites (that's why 4 are used).
If the satellites are out of synch from each other by 19 us,
the positioning error would be kilometres.
The GPS wouldn't work.
> >Of course you know this, Henry.
> >So why the hell do you repeat those stupid 7 cm?
> >
> >The truth is of course that if the clocks were a mere 10 ns
> >out of synch from the GPS coordinated time, it would
> >lead to ca. 3 m error in the position. As this is the
> >order of magnitude of the actual precision of the GPS,
> >it shows that the GPS clocks cannot deviate from
> >the GPS coordinated time by more than ca 10 ns.
> >
> >The very fact that the GPS actually make it possible to
> >determine the position within few metres prove that
> >the GPS satellite clocks never deviates from the GPS
> >coordinated time by more than a very few tens of ns.
> >This shows that the GR correction is correct within
> >the precision of the clocks - ca. 10^-12.
>
> The readings of the orbiting clocks relative to the ground clocks is
> irrelevant. Time intervals (any difference) cancel out.
>
> The main criterion is that all the orbiting clocks are in close synch so that
> triangulation (four sided) will be accurate.
Absolutely right, Henry.
The satellites must be kept in synch with each other to
a precision of few tens of nanoseconds.
The fact that the GPS works, show that this is actually
achieved.
So how are the satellites kept in synch with each other?
Let's let Henry Wilson teach us:
Henry Wilson wrote August 2001:
| Paul, let me explain.
| Around the world there are a number of fixed locations that are used to
| monitor the GPS time signals. Their latitudes and longitudes are well
| known.
| IF A GPS CLOCK CAUSES THEIR COORDINATES TO VARY,
| IT IS POSSIBLE TO
| CALCULATE THE ERROR IN THAT CLOCK.
| It's drift is then calculated and sent along with its time signals.
What you forgot to mention, is that those ground stations,
who know where they are, can calculate the error in the reading
of the GPS clock only if it has a reference to compare it to.
So the ground stations have clocks, and these clocks must
obviously be kept in synch with each other, AND in synch
with the master clock at USNO.
Thus ALL the clocks, the satellite clocks, the ground stations clocks
and the master clock are kept in synch with each other, and the time
they are kept in synch with is called the GPS coordinated time.
The RATE of the clocks in this coordinated time is defined by
the ground clocks (actually the master clock at USNO).
That's why the rate of the satellite clocks is GR-corrected to
run synchronously to the GPS-coordinated time.
> >And don't pull those "empirical corrections" again.
> >Sure, the very point with the monitoring stations (the data
> >from which you can find in the URL below), IS to upload
> >correctional data to the satellites. But you know very well
> >that this can be done at the very most once per orbit, which
> >means that the satellites has to run at least 12 hours without
> >corrections. And during those 12 hours, the clocks don't drift
> >out of synch by more than at most a few tents of ns,
> >which is a few parts in 10^12 - the precision of the clocks.
>
> This is about clock stability. It is not related to the preset 'free fall
> correction'.
You are babbling.
If you think something is wrong in the following,
please point out exactly what:
You know very well that uploading of corrections
can be done at the very most once per orbit, which
means that the satellites has to run at least 12 hours without
corrections. And during those 12 hours, the clocks don't drift
out of synch by more than at most a few tents of ns,
which is a few parts in 10^12 - the precision of the clocks.
This shows that the GR-correction is correct within
the precision of the clocks.
> >What I will never understand is that despite the fact that
> >you know all what I have told you above very well,
> >you are still able to repeat all the factually wrong claims
> >you made before you learned how the GPS works.
>
> Why would anyone want multiply the clock error by the speed of light to
> calculate the positioning error of the system?
Don't play an idiot, Henry.
If a satellite clock is wrong, then the transit time to that satellite
would be wrong.
Are you actually telling me that you don't understand
why you have to mutiply that error with the speed
of light to get the error in the distance to the satellite?
> Obviously one must multiply the clock error by the orbiting speed of the
> clock.
To find the error in the position of the satellite, yes.
But as you have pointed out, this position is not sensitive
to clock error. Actually the deviation from the nominal
orbit is much more important that the clock error when
it comes to tetermine the position of the satellite.
BUT THAT'S NOT THE PROBLEM.
WE WANT TO FIND THE POSITION OF THE RECEIVER!
That's done by finding the distance to the satellite.
It is the calculation of the _distance_ that is critical, _not_
the position of the satellite.
How the hell can you pretend that you still are failing
to understand this?
I can't belive that is possible.
> >Why do you keep repeating what you know is wrong, Henry?
> >Are you actually able to fool yourself to believe what you
> >know is wrong?
> >
> >If you are, it must indeed be a real weird mental condition.
>
> You simply cannot fave the truth Paul. The 'GR correction' (actually 'free fall
> correction) plays no important part in the GPS system.
1. The FACT that the GPS actually works prove conclusively
that the satellite clocks never deviate from the GPS-coordinated
time by more than a few tens of ns.
Can you refute this, Henry? Be specific. No hand waving.
Point out exactly what is wrong, if anything.
2. The GPS clocks are factually corrected according to
the GR prediction.
Can you refute this, Henry? Be specific. No handwaving.
Point out exactly what is wrong, if anything.
3. Uploading of corrections can be done at the very most
once per orbit, which means that the satellites has to run
at least 12 hours without corrections. And during those
12 hours, the clocks don't drift out of synch by more than
at most a few tents of ns, which is a few parts in 10^12 -
the precision of the clocks.
Can you refute this, Henry? Be specific. No hand waving.
Point out exactly what is wrong, if anything.
4. The above shows that the GR prediction is correct
within a the precision of the clocks, which is better
than 1 part in 10^-11.
Can you refute this, Henry? Be specific. No hand waving.
Point out exactly what is wrong, if anything.
5. GPS prove the predictions of GR to be correct,
GPS thus confirms GR.
Can you refute this, Henry? Be specific. No hand waving.
Point out exactly what is wrong, if anything.
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:aeghmvgqru2js077q...@4ax.com...
I see.
So when Henry Wilson wrote:
| Ah! but it has. Probably too subtle for you though. See my partly finished demo
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/fallingwave.exe
He was babbling.
So that's settled.
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:amghmvgpg8f8216jk...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 11:28:16 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:7p4gmv4h374l09f7m...@4ax.com...
> >> The GPS system works perfectly well without any so called 'GR correction'.
> >> However to reduce the required daily correction, the clock rates are offset
> >> before launch to compensate for the 'free fall' error.
> >
> >So the 4.46*10^-10 rate correction isn't the GR correction,
> >it is the "free fall correction" predicted by Henry Wilson.
> >
> >And since the predicted 4.46*10^-10 GR -- eh "Wilson correction"
> >which is empirically verified to be correct within few parts in 10^12
> >might have been found empirically and uploaded to the satellites,
> >(which in principle is possible - if the satellites had been built to
> >change the rate of the clocks in flight - which they aren't),
> >Wilsonian logic tells us that the GR prediction, which is experimentally
> >verified to be correct within few parts in 10^12, doesn't confirm GR.
> >GR is OBVIOUSLY wrong, it only happens to predict the rate
> >correctly with a precision of few parts in 10^12.
> >The "Wilson's prediction" OTOH - which happens to be exactly equal to
> >the GR prediction - is however experimentally verified,
> >which confirms "Wilson's free fall theory".
> >"Wilson's free fall theory" is thus OBVIOUSLY correct.
>
> It is easy to prove that I am right.
Of course.
That's what I said, wasn't it?
> Just give me the figures for cesium clock rate changes in other orbits.
>
> >
> >BTW, Henry,
> >would you please repeat your derivation of the 4.46*10^10
> >change in rate predicted by the "free fall theory"?
> >Wasn't it something with Young's factor?
> >I have no doubt that you are able to show that it is no
> >coincidence that your theory predicts exactly the correct
> >change in rate.
>
> Paul, neither I nor anyone else has a theory as to why these clocks change
> rates in free fall - as they are observed to do.
>
> The reason why nobody has a theory is that the physics establishment is happy
> to delude itself into believing that the change is caused by a maths equation
> and therefore doesn't try to take the matter any further.
Newton's first law of motion is F = ma
It doesn't explain why a mass accelerates when you push it.
It only predict that it will.
And that's all we can ask of a theory.
" Neither I nor anyone else has a theory as to why these masses
accelerates when you push them - as they are observed to do.
The reason why nobody has a theory is that the physics establishment is happy
to delude itself into believing that the change is caused by the maths equation
F = ma, and therefore doesn't try to take the matter any further."
Meaningless babble.
Paul
HenriWilson
>He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote in message news:<7p4gmv4h374l09f7m...@4ax.com>...
>> On 16 Sep 2003 23:40:19 -0700, va...@cox.net (Bruce Pew) wrote:
>>
>> >> >That is the fact.
>> >>
>> >> Afraid of the truth are you pew?
>> >
>> >Physics isn't about truth henri. Truth is a relative concept. Whats
>> >true to you surely isn't true to me. Physics is about creating models
>> >which make predictions that can be tested empirically. Crackpots tend
>> >to use the term truth alot when they think they are discussing
>> >physics. The GPS is a continuing verification of a prediction derived
>> >from relativity theory.
>>
>> We have discussed all this at length previously.
>> The GPS system works perfectly well without any so called 'GR correction'.
>> However to reduce the required daily correction, the clock rates are offset
>> before launch to compensate for the 'free fall' error.
>
>Paul asked the excellent question. Show us the derivation [goofy
>animations don't count]. 'Free fall error'? From previous comments by
>you and Dave I got the impression that you both think that there is
>something wrong with
>
>dr/dt = (1-2M/r) [remote radial velocity of light].
>
>Is this what you mean by 'free fall error', the remote observer
>reckons the radial falling light velocity to be < c ? Or do you mean
>that there is some error in the free fall orbit of the clocks?
No, the remote observer reckons falling light speeds up, just like anything
else.
>BTW
>henri any physical theory predictions which are tested and verified
>can't be wrong. Regardless of how they arrive at the prediction. Since
>you are going to be making a prediction based on your theory how about
>making a prediction for the ISS so I can compare it with GR?
The ISS clocks, if any, will appear to be running faster by 38ms per day.
Radio signals from the ISS will (probably) not change frequency. The change
will be too small to detect anyway.
HenriWilson
That isn't a definition. It is a result of.
>
>>
>> >
>> >Cheers,
>> >György
>>
>>
>> Henri Wilson.
>>
>> See my animations and physics book at:
>> http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
Henri Wilson.
See my animations at:
YBM
> On 17 Sep 2003 13:27:39 -0700, gyorgy...@hotmail.com (György Szondy) wrote:
>
>
>>He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote in message news:<01h0mvcove5gh2a7t...@4ax.com>...
>>
>>>On 10 Sep 2003 05:04:23 -0700, gyorgy...@hotmail.com (György Szondy) wrote:
>>>Please define 'time slowing down'.
>>
>>g_00 changes ...
>
>
> That isn't a definition. It is a result of.
Don't try to make people think you know what is the question about,
it just doesn't work.
HenriWilson
wrote:
But if all the clocks are out by the same amount, continuous empirical
correcting overcomes this.
>The receiver gets its time from the satellites (that's why 4 are used).
>If the satellites are out of synch from each other by 19 us,
>the positioning error would be kilometres.
>The GPS wouldn't work.
Agreed, it is important that all orbiting clocks are in close synch with each
other. (but not necessarily with the ground clock, so long as the difference is
known accurately.)
Naturally it is much easier to correct them if they are running at the same
rate as the ground clocks. That is why the 'free fall' offset is built into
them before launch.
>
>The RATE of the clocks in this coordinated time is defined by
>the ground clocks (actually the master clock at USNO).
>That's why the rate of the satellite clocks is GR-corrected to
>run synchronously to the GPS-coordinated time.
I think you meant to say 'free fall corrected'.
Yes, all right Paul, I know what you are saying. It is obviously important to
keep all orbiting clocks in close synch. One clock cannot be19us out or the
triangulation will be a long way out.
>
>How the hell can you pretend that you still are failing
>to understand this?
>I can't belive that is possible.
>
>> >Why do you keep repeating what you know is wrong, Henry?
>> >Are you actually able to fool yourself to believe what you
>> >know is wrong?
>> >
>> >If you are, it must indeed be a real weird mental condition.
>>
>> You simply cannot fave the truth Paul. The 'GR correction' (actually 'free fall
>> correction) plays no important part in the GPS system.
>
>1. The FACT that the GPS actually works prove conclusively
> that the satellite clocks never deviate from the GPS-coordinated
> time by more than a few tens of ns.
>
>Can you refute this, Henry? Be specific. No hand waving.
>Point out exactly what is wrong, if anything.
>
>2. The GPS clocks are factually corrected according to
> the GR prediction.
>
>Can you refute this, Henry? Be specific. No handwaving.
>Point out exactly what is wrong, if anything.
For one thing, the claimed 'velocity component' doesn't exist.
For another, the exact required correction has probably never been accurately
determined.
>
>3. Uploading of corrections can be done at the very most
> once per orbit, which means that the satellites has to run
> at least 12 hours without corrections. And during those
> 12 hours, the clocks don't drift out of synch by more than
> at most a few tents of ns, which is a few parts in 10^12 -
> the precision of the clocks.
>
>Can you refute this, Henry? Be specific. No hand waving.
>Point out exactly what is wrong, if anything.
Paul when have I ever disputed that the free fall correction is necessary.
All I ask is that you provide a physical reason for its necessity, not a maths
one.
There must be a plain ordinary physical reasons why these clocks change rates
when in free fall. What are they.
>
>4. The above shows that the GR prediction is correct
> within a the precision of the clocks, which is better
> than 1 part in 10^-11.
>
>Can you refute this, Henry? Be specific. No hand waving.
>Point out exactly what is wrong, if anything.
That includes the fictitious velocity component.
>
>5. GPS prove the predictions of GR to be correct,
> GPS thus confirms GR.
>
>Can you refute this, Henry? Be specific. No hand waving.
>Point out exactly what is wrong, if anything.
The GR correction at this orbit just happens to be close to the required one
for these clocks. It is nowhere near correct for other orbits or other clocks.
HenriWilson
wrote:
No, that is a different problem altogether.
>
>So that's settled.
>
>Paul
>
HenriWilson
wrote:
No . It was a=F/m
Others seized upon the alternative 'F=ma' to try to create a definition of
force.
Obviously (balanced) forces can exist without accelerations.
>It doesn't explain why a mass accelerates when you push it.
>It only predict that it will.
>And that's all we can ask of a theory.
A maths theory maybe - but a physical theory can go a lot further than that.
>
>" Neither I nor anyone else has a theory as to why these masses
> accelerates when you push them - as they are observed to do.
> The reason why nobody has a theory is that the physics establishment is happy
> to delude itself into believing that the change is caused by the maths equation
> F = ma, and therefore doesn't try to take the matter any further."
>
>Meaningless babble.
>
>Paul
>
>
>
YBM
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 13:58:51 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
> wrote:
>>Newton's first law of motion is F = ma
>
>
> No . It was a=F/m
> Others seized upon the alternative 'F=ma' to try to create a definition of
> force.
> Obviously (balanced) forces can exist without accelerations.
I just love the kind of stupidity you expressed in this small part of
dialog :
- Newton's first law of motion is F = ma
- No . It was a=F/m
Anyway, without even knowing it, you put your finger in a very
interesting question, probably too subtle for you :
How can you be so sure that F=ma (as well as a=F/m) is not a plain
definition of what a force is ?
(hint : please, take at least ten years - you'll need it - before
trying to respond something meaningfull)
György Szondy
> On 17 Sep 2003 13:27:39 -0700, gyorgy...@hotmail.com (György Szondy) wrote:
>
> >He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote in message news:<01h0mvcove5gh2a7t...@4ax.com>...
> >>
> >> Please define 'time slowing down'.
> >g_00 changes ...
>
> That isn't a definition. It is a result of.
1.) The original definition is : time = atomic-clock
Therefore we interprete our experience so that g_00 is changing, 'time
is slowing down'
2.) Other definition colud be g_00 = -1 (more or less global time:
only SR is applied)
In this case time != atomic-clock -> 'atomic-clock is slowing down'
due to the gravitational potential.
Both set of definitions is usable, however we use 1.) in GR and 2.) in
GPS.
Etherists are also tend to use 2.) but there are other issues as they
are using flat Minkowskian space and a scalar or tensor field for the
speed of light.
Cheers,
György
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:g7akmvcg53v42vdsd...@4ax.com...
No refutation.
> >2. The GPS clocks are factually corrected according to
> > the GR prediction.
> >
> >Can you refute this, Henry? Be specific. No handwaving.
> >Point out exactly what is wrong, if anything.
>
> For one thing, the claimed 'velocity component' doesn't exist.
> For another, the exact required correction has probably never been accurately
> determined.
I said no hand waving.
No refutation.
> >3. Uploading of corrections can be done at the very most
> > once per orbit, which means that the satellites has to run
> > at least 12 hours without corrections. And during those
> > 12 hours, the clocks don't drift out of synch by more than
> > at most a few tents of ns, which is a few parts in 10^12 -
> > the precision of the clocks.
> >
> >Can you refute this, Henry? Be specific. No hand waving.
> >Point out exactly what is wrong, if anything.
>
> Paul when have I ever disputed that the free fall correction is necessary.
> All I ask is that you provide a physical reason for its necessity, not a maths
> one.
> There must be a plain ordinary physical reasons why these clocks change rates
> when in free fall. What are they.
No refutation.
> >4. The above shows that the GR prediction is correct
> > within a the precision of the clocks, which is better
> > than 1 part in 10^-11.
> >
> >Can you refute this, Henry? Be specific. No hand waving.
> >Point out exactly what is wrong, if anything.
>
> That includes the fictitious velocity component.
I said no hand waving.
No refutation.
> >5. GPS prove the predictions of GR to be correct,
> > GPS thus confirms GR.
> >
> >Can you refute this, Henry? Be specific. No hand waving.
> >Point out exactly what is wrong, if anything.
>
So we can sum it up like this:
- Henry Wilson knows that the GPS clocks factually
are corrected by the GR predicted factor 4.4647E-10 prior to launch.
- Henry Wilson knows that the fact that the GPS actually works
prove that the corrected clocks during the minimum 12 hours
between corrections stay in synch with the GPS coordinated time
within the precision of the clocks - that is better than one part in 10^11.
- Henry Wilson knows that 4.4647E-10 rate correction predicted by GR
is verified to be correct within a precision better than one part in 10^11.
This puts Henry Wilson's statement:
| The GPS clock rates have never been accurately measured so how can the
| 'correction' be compared with the 'GR prediction? There are too many other
| corrections and orbit uncertainties.
in perspective.
But of course, Henry Wilson is known to be able to know
mutually exclusive facts.
> The GR correction at this orbit just happens to be close to the required one
> for these clocks.
So Henry Wilson claim that when the predictions of a theory
are proven to be correct within the precision of the measurements,
which in this case is better than one part in 10^11, the theory is NOT
confirmed because the theory just happen to predict the correct value.
Henry Wilson at his very best. :-)
> It is nowhere near correct for other orbits or other clocks.
Henry Wilson at his very best! :-)
All the other known experiments, H&K, Alley and Vessot,
only happens to be close to the GR prediction and
can thus be ignored.
But Henry Wilson knows that measurements are done in the ISS and
geosynchronous satellites which falsifies GR. But since these measurements
are hidden by the establishment, Henry Wilson doesn't know about
the measurements he knows are made.
So Henry knows that the GR predictions for the other orbits
and other clocks in these unknown experiments are nowhere
near the unknown results of the unknown experiments he knows about.
This makes it clear that Henry Wilson has overthrown GR!
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:utlcmv4bapch97ltn...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 12:00:49 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:l6q9mvslrq11k5qsl...@4ax.com...
>
> >> >You didn't get it, did you?
> >> >Dave says that the speed of light is slower at the Earth's surface
> >> >than it is at higher altidudes, and you say that he is right because
> >> >"light speeds up as it falls to the ground".
> >> >
> >> >Do you still say Dave is right? :-)
> >>
> >> My statement should have read:
> >>
> >> Dave is possibly right. The speed of light measured in flat gravity might be
> >> dependent on the strength of the field. But since we do not have any evidence
> >> that this might be true, best not to take it too seriously.
> >>
> >> However we DO know that light speeds up as it falls.
> >
> >But Dave is possibly right when saying the opposite? :-)
>
> Dave is tallking about light speed across flat gravity. I am referring to light
> speed in the direction of a gravity gradient.
> Two very different scenarios.
Indeed?
According to Dave, the speed of the light that has "fallen
down" from a higher altitude is lower when it reaches the ground
than it was when it started.
You are stating:
"Dave is possibly right."
AND you are stating:
"However we DO know that light speeds up as it falls"
You have done this quite a number of times, Henry:
Someone say that SR/GR is wrong by some reason.
You agree without realizing that the someone is claiming
something which is contrary to what you are claiming.
I find that funny.
And it's even more funny to see your acrobatic
manoeuvres to evade having to admit your blunder.
Paul, entertained
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:cfckmvs541h7mug7d...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 13:58:51 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
> wrote:
> >
> >Newton's first law of motion is F = ma
> >It only predict that it will.
> >And that's all we can ask of a theory.
>
> A maths theory maybe - but a physical theory can go a lot further than that.
So all known theories of physics including Newtonian Mechanics
are "maths theories" as opposed to "physical theories".
How can a theory be physical?
What IS a "physical theory"?
Can you name a "physical theory"?
Paul
HenriWilson
wrote:
You just don't get it do you Paul?
Just because photons accelerate as they fall VERTICALLY doesn't mean that
HORIZIONTALLY measured light speed will be higher at ground level than in
space.
HenriWilson
wrote:
I don't dispute the fact that clocks change rates when in free fall, no.
You have yet to give a physical explanation for this reason for this change.
>
>> >4. The above shows that the GR prediction is correct
>> > within a the precision of the clocks, which is better
>> > than 1 part in 10^-11.
>> >
>> >Can you refute this, Henry? Be specific. No hand waving.
>> >Point out exactly what is wrong, if anything.
>>
>> That includes the fictitious velocity component.
>
>I said no hand waving.
>No refutation.
>
>> >5. GPS prove the predictions of GR to be correct,
>> > GPS thus confirms GR.
>> >
>> >Can you refute this, Henry? Be specific. No hand waving.
>> >Point out exactly what is wrong, if anything.
>>
>
>So we can sum it up like this:
>- Henry Wilson knows that the GPS clocks factually
> are corrected by the GR predicted factor 4.4647E-10 prior to launch.
>- Henry Wilson knows that the fact that the GPS actually works
> prove that the corrected clocks during the minimum 12 hours
> between corrections stay in synch with the GPS coordinated time
> within the precision of the clocks - that is better than one part in 10^11.
>- Henry Wilson knows that 4.4647E-10 rate correction predicted by GR
> is verified to be correct within a precision better than one part in 10^11.
Paul, if you remove the fictitious 'velocity component, your famous 'GR
correction' is at least 20% out.
By the way, when are you going to produce the 'GR corrections' for other
orbits?
>
>This puts Henry Wilson's statement:
>| The GPS clock rates have never been accurately measured so how can the
>| 'correction' be compared with the 'GR prediction? There are too many other
>| corrections and orbit uncertainties.
>in perspective.
>
>But of course, Henry Wilson is known to be able to know
>mutually exclusive facts.
>
>> The GR correction at this orbit just happens to be close to the required one
>> for these clocks.
>
>So Henry Wilson claim that when the predictions of a theory
>are proven to be correct within the precision of the measurements,
>which in this case is better than one part in 10^11, the theory is NOT
>confirmed because the theory just happen to predict the correct value.
the theory is at least 20% out.
>
>Henry Wilson at his very best. :-)
>
>> It is nowhere near correct for other orbits or other clocks.
>
>Henry Wilson at his very best! :-)
>
>All the other known experiments, H&K, Alley and Vessot,
>only happens to be close to the GR prediction and
>can thus be ignored.
Only a fool would believe any of them.
>
>But Henry Wilson knows that measurements are done in the ISS and
>geosynchronous satellites which falsifies GR. But since these measurements
>are hidden by the establishment, Henry Wilson doesn't know about
>the measurements he knows are made.
>So Henry knows that the GR predictions for the other orbits
>and other clocks in these unknown experiments are nowhere
>near the unknown results of the unknown experiments he knows about.
>
>This makes it clear that Henry Wilson has overthrown GR!
Many times.
HenriWilson
My god! I think I have managed to stimulate YBM's braiin into some kind of low
level activity!
HenriWilson
wrote:
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:cfckmvs541h7mug7d...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 13:58:51 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >Newton's first law of motion is F = ma
>> >It doesn't explain why a mass accelerates when you push it.
>> >It only predict that it will.
>> >And that's all we can ask of a theory.
>>
>> A maths theory maybe - but a physical theory can go a lot further than that.
>
>So all known theories of physics including Newtonian Mechanics
>are "maths theories" as opposed to "physical theories".
>
>How can a theory be physical?
>What IS a "physical theory"?
>Can you name a "physical theory"?
You can see some of them simulated on my web page.
HenriWilson
Thanks Gyorgy.
You are wrong. You people make a simple problem appear terribly difficult so
that many otherwise useless mathematicians can get a job.
Time rate of flow changes when the differential dt1/dt2 varies (for reasons not
yet understood). Here t1 and t2 are different subdimensions of time just as x,y
and z are different subdimensions of space.
The units of time flow are seconds/second.
YBM
>>I just love the kind of stupidity you expressed in this small part of
>>dialog :
>>
>>- Newton's first law of motion is F = ma
>>- No . It was a=F/m
>>
>>Anyway, without even knowing it, you put your finger in a very
>>interesting question, probably too subtle for you :
>>
>>How can you be so sure that F=ma (as well as a=F/m) is not a plain
>>definition of what a force is ?
>>
>>(hint : please, take at least ten years - you'll need it - before
>>trying to respond something meaningfull)
>
>
> My god! I think I have managed to stimulate YBM's braiin into some kind of low
> level activity!
I said ten years, not ten hours. Do you want ten more ?
Bruce Pew
As usual you are confused. The Shapiro delay can be derived from
integrating
dr/dt = (1-2M/r) [radial velocity of light]
Subsequently your comment is completely at odds with respect to
empirical evidence. With respect to the remote observer [dr/dt]_radial
velocity light = 0 when r = 2M. For decreasing r, dr/dt decreases. Get
it henri?
>
> >BTW
> >henri any physical theory predictions which are tested and verified
> >can't be wrong. Regardless of how they arrive at the prediction. Since
> >you are going to be making a prediction based on your theory how about
> >making a prediction for the ISS so I can compare it with GR?
>
> The ISS clocks, if any, will appear to be running faster by 38ms per day.
>
> Radio signals from the ISS will (probably) not change frequency. The change
> will be too small to detect anyway.
It has nothing to do with appearances. Claiming that the delta between
GPS satellite and Earthbased clocks is an apparent effect is the
fodder of ignorant cranks.
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:6m3nmv42u2mp3d932...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 10:10:32 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
> wrote:
> >So we can sum it up like this:
> >- Henry Wilson knows that the GPS clocks factually
> > are corrected by the GR predicted factor 4.4647E-10 prior to launch.
> >- Henry Wilson knows that the fact that the GPS actually works
> > prove that the corrected clocks during the minimum 12 hours
> > between corrections stay in synch with the GPS coordinated time
> > within the precision of the clocks - that is better than one part in 10^11.
> >- Henry Wilson knows that 4.4647E-10 rate correction predicted by GR
> > is verified to be correct within a precision better than one part in 10^11.
>
> Paul, if you remove the fictitious 'velocity component, your famous 'GR
> correction' is at least 20% out.
Henry at his very best! :-)
If the predictions of GR had been 20% different from what
it actually is, the prediction would have been 20% wrong.
> By the way, when are you going to produce the 'GR corrections' for other
> orbits?
So it's settled.
Henry knows all this.
But in the next posting pretend not to,
and repeat statements like this:
> >This puts Henry Wilson's statement:
> >| The GPS clock rates have never been accurately measured so how can the
> >| 'correction' be compared with the 'GR prediction? There are too many other
> >| corrections and orbit uncertainties.
> >in perspective.
> >
> >But of course, Henry Wilson is known to be able to know
> >mutually exclusive facts.
> >
> >> The GR correction at this orbit just happens to be close to the required one
> >> for these clocks.
> >
> >So Henry Wilson claim that when the predictions of a theory
> >are proven to be correct within the precision of the measurements,
> >which in this case is better than one part in 10^11, the theory is NOT
> >confirmed because the theory just happen to predict the correct value.
>
> the theory is at least 20% out.
.. if its predictions had been 20% different from what it is.
Henry Wilson can answer everything I throw at him! :-)
> >Henry Wilson at his very best. :-)
> >
> >> It is nowhere near correct for other orbits or other clocks.
> >
> >Henry Wilson at his very best! :-)
> >
> >All the other known experiments, H&K, Alley and Vessot,
> >only happens to be close to the GR prediction and
> >can thus be ignored.
>
> Only a fool would believe any of them.
Of course, Henry.
The Great Conspiracy and all that.
> >But Henry Wilson knows that measurements are done in the ISS and
> >geosynchronous satellites which falsifies GR. But since these measurements
> >are hidden by the establishment, Henry Wilson doesn't know about
> >the measurements he knows are made.
> >So Henry knows that the GR predictions for the other orbits
> >and other clocks in these unknown experiments are nowhere
> >near the unknown results of the unknown experiments he knows about.
> >
> >This makes it clear that Henry Wilson has overthrown GR!
>
> Many times.
Indeed, Henry.
You have pointed out that GR would have been wrong if its
correct predictions had been different from what they are.
That obviously overthrows GR.
And you have pointed out that you think the predictions
of GR would be wrong for those experiments which
are never done.
That obviously overthrows GR.
And you have pointed out that you chose to believe
that all experiments confirming GR are fakes.
That obviously overthrows GR.
Paul, overthrown
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:6d4nmvg7lnk1dm7ur...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 19:59:55 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:cfckmvs541h7mug7d...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 13:58:51 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Newton's first law of motion is F = ma
> >> >It doesn't explain why a mass accelerates when you push it.
> >> >It only predict that it will.
> >> >And that's all we can ask of a theory.
> >>
> >> A maths theory maybe - but a physical theory can go a lot further than that.
> >
> >So all known theories of physics including Newtonian Mechanics
> >are "maths theories" as opposed to "physical theories".
> >
> >How can a theory be physical?
> >What IS a "physical theory"?
> >Can you name a "physical theory"?
>
> You can see some of them simulated on my web page.
Giving up, Henry?
You don't know a "physical theory" might be, but you know
it goes further than predicting physical consequences,
it causes them.
Right? :-)
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:c93nmvo6okmr0t1vj...@4ax.com...
So when you said:
"We DO know that light speeds up as it falls"
that is not contrary to what Dave said, which is:
"Light slows down as it falls",
because if you in stead of saying: "light speeds up as it falls"
had said "light doesn't speed up when it doesn't fall",
then you wouldn't have said "light speeds up as it falls",
and if you hadn't said that, it would not have been
contrary to what Dave said, and both you and Dave are right.
Have I got it now?
Paul, enjoing the acrobatics
HenriWilson
wrote:
Paul, I realise that not even an Srian could be as dumb as you are trying to
make out. So enjoy your little joke while you can.
Does a TW measurement of light speed along a flat piece of ground involve
'falling photons'?l
HenriWilson
wrote:
Of course, because you are wrong.
The real rate of clocks DOES NOT change with velocity alone. Proof: trivial
(unless an aetehr exists)
We know the ground observer measures the real rate of the orbiting clocks wrt
the original frame (on account of the fact that tehre are no tick fairies)
Therefore to include a velocity component in the so-called 'GR correction' is
purely a trick to make it appear accurate.
>
>> >Henry Wilson at his very best. :-)
>> >
>> >> It is nowhere near correct for other orbits or other clocks.
>> >
>> >Henry Wilson at his very best! :-)
>> >
>> >All the other known experiments, H&K, Alley and Vessot,
>> >only happens to be close to the GR prediction and
>> >can thus be ignored.
>>
>> Only a fool would believe any of them.
>
>Of course, Henry.
>The Great Conspiracy and all that.
I suppose you believe jesus christ walked on water and cured blind men too, eh
Paul?
>
>> >But Henry Wilson knows that measurements are done in the ISS and
>> >geosynchronous satellites which falsifies GR. But since these measurements
>> >are hidden by the establishment, Henry Wilson doesn't know about
>> >the measurements he knows are made.
>> >So Henry knows that the GR predictions for the other orbits
>> >and other clocks in these unknown experiments are nowhere
>> >near the unknown results of the unknown experiments he knows about.
>> >
>> >This makes it clear that Henry Wilson has overthrown GR!
>>
>> Many times.
>
>Indeed, Henry.
>
>You have pointed out that GR would have been wrong if its
>correct predictions had been different from what they are.
>That obviously overthrows GR.
>
>And you have pointed out that you think the predictions
>of GR would be wrong for those experiments which
>are never done.
>That obviously overthrows GR.
>
>And you have pointed out that you chose to believe
>that all experiments confirming GR are fakes.
>That obviously overthrows GR.
Since GR requires a fictitious factor to make its predictions match observed
results then the theory is obviously wrong.
>
>Paul, overthrown
>
completely
HenriWilson
wrote:
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:6d4nmvg7lnk1dm7ur...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 19:59:55 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:cfckmvs541h7mug7d...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 13:58:51 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Newton's first law of motion is F = ma
>> >> >It doesn't explain why a mass accelerates when you push it.
>> >> >It only predict that it will.
>> >> >And that's all we can ask of a theory.
>> >>
>> >> A maths theory maybe - but a physical theory can go a lot further than that.
>> >
>> >So all known theories of physics including Newtonian Mechanics
>> >are "maths theories" as opposed to "physical theories".
>> >
>> >How can a theory be physical?
>> >What IS a "physical theory"?
>> >Can you name a "physical theory"?
>>
>> You can see some of them simulated on my web page.
>
>Giving up, Henry?
>You don't know a "physical theory" might be, but you know
>it goes further than predicting physical consequences,
>it causes them.
>Right? :-)
It explains the cause to a certain level of knowledge.
A maths theory simply describes the observed physics.
A maths theory can predict previously unobserved physics. But it cannot cause
the physics.
If a maths theory describes a physics process, then there is a physical
principle behind that theory.
HenriWilson
Nonsense. The frequency change measured in the Pound-Rebka experiment (one of
the few that is believable) is completely indicative of light speeding up as it
falls, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER MASSIVE OBJECT.
>>
>> >BTW
>> >henri any physical theory predictions which are tested and verified
>> >can't be wrong. Regardless of how they arrive at the prediction. Since
>> >you are going to be making a prediction based on your theory how about
>> >making a prediction for the ISS so I can compare it with GR?
>
>
>>
>> The ISS clocks, if any, will appear to be running faster by 38ms per day.
>>
>> Radio signals from the ISS will (probably) not change frequency. The change
>> will be too small to detect anyway.
>
>It has nothing to do with appearances. Claiming that the delta between
>GPS satellite and Earthbased clocks is an apparent effect is the
>fodder of ignorant cranks.
You are very confused.
The real rates of the orbiting clocks are obsered directly on the ground.
('real' as measured in the original earth frame.)
The orbiting clocks have changed rates.
Bruce Pew
Dummy, frequency of the light has nothing to do with the velocity.
What you are trying to say is the Pound-Rebka experiment falsifys GR.
This is the derived radial velocity of light wrt the GR bookkeeper
dr/dt = (1-2M/r)
dr/dt_GPS satellite shell = (1 - 2(.00444)m/26.6x10^6m) = .999999999
dr/dt_GPS earth surface = (1 -2(.00444)m/6.371x10^6m) = .999999998
We could measure the grav redshift for this scenerio and it would
match the GR prediction just like the Pound-Rebka experiment did. You
are clueless.
>
> >>
> >> >BTW
> >> >henri any physical theory predictions which are tested and verified
> >> >can't be wrong. Regardless of how they arrive at the prediction. Since
> >> >you are going to be making a prediction based on your theory how about
> >> >making a prediction for the ISS so I can compare it with GR?
> >
> >
> >>
> >> The ISS clocks, if any, will appear to be running faster by 38ms per day.
> >>
> >> Radio signals from the ISS will (probably) not change frequency. The change
> >> will be too small to detect anyway.
> >
> >It has nothing to do with appearances. Claiming that the delta between
> >GPS satellite and Earthbased clocks is an apparent effect is the
> >fodder of ignorant cranks.
>
> You are very confused.
> The real rates of the orbiting clocks are obsered directly on the ground.
> ('real' as measured in the original earth frame.)
> The orbiting clocks have changed rates.
Make sense dummy. This stuff is way over your head, you should find a
different hobby.
YBM
[...]
> A maths theory simply describes the observed physics.
> A maths theory can predict previously unobserved physics. But it cannot cause
> the physics.
>
> If a maths theory describes a physics process, then there is a physical
> principle behind that theory.
So well, so good about "math theories" ! What about "visual basic
theories" ?
HenriWilson
The blue shift observed in the Pound-Rebka xpt confirms that photons accelerate
down a gravity well like anything else.
If you are so knowledgeable, please tell me what 'light frequency' actually
means.
>
>>
>> >>
>> >> >BTW
>> >> >henri any physical theory predictions which are tested and verified
>> >> >can't be wrong. Regardless of how they arrive at the prediction. Since
>> >> >you are going to be making a prediction based on your theory how about
>> >> >making a prediction for the ISS so I can compare it with GR?
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> The ISS clocks, if any, will appear to be running faster by 38ms per day.
>> >>
>> >> Radio signals from the ISS will (probably) not change frequency. The change
>> >> will be too small to detect anyway.
>> >
>> >It has nothing to do with appearances. Claiming that the delta between
>> >GPS satellite and Earthbased clocks is an apparent effect is the
>> >fodder of ignorant cranks.
>>
>> You are very confused.
>> The real rates of the orbiting clocks are obsered directly on the ground.
>> ('real' as measured in the original earth frame.)
>> The orbiting clocks have changed rates.
>
>Make sense dummy. This stuff is way over your head, you should find a
>different hobby.
You are way behind, matey.
What aspect of light gives rise to the sensation of 'frequency'?
Paul B. Andersen
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 13:19:34 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:6m3nmv42u2mp3d932...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> correction' is at least 20% out.
> >
> >Henry at his very best! :-)
> >
> >If the predictions of GR had been 20% different from what
> >it actually is, the prediction would have been 20% wrong.
> >
> >> the theory is at least 20% out.
> >
> >.. if its predictions had been 20% different from what it is.
> >
> >Henry Wilson can answer everything I throw at him! :-)
>
> Of course, because you are wrong.
>
> The real rate of clocks DOES NOT change with velocity alone. Proof: trivial
> (unless an aetehr exists)
>
> We know the ground observer measures the real rate of the orbiting clocks wrt
> the original frame (on account of the fact that tehre are no tick fairies)
>
> Therefore to include a velocity component in the so-called 'GR correction' is
> purely a trick to make it appear accurate.
So since Henry Wilson thinks the predictions of GR should
have been different from what they are, we can conclude
that GR is wrong because its predictions are correct.
If THAT doesn't falsify GR .....!
> >> >Henry Wilson at his very best. :-)
> >> >
> >> >> It is nowhere near correct for other orbits or other clocks.
> >> >
> >> >Henry Wilson at his very best! :-)
> >> >
> >> >All the other known experiments, H&K, Alley and Vessot,
> >> >only happens to be close to the GR prediction and
> >> >can thus be ignored.
> >>
> >> Only a fool would believe any of them.
> >
> >Of course, Henry.
> >The Great Conspiracy and all that.
>
> I suppose you believe jesus christ walked on water and cured blind men too, eh
> Paul?
Beautiful, Henry.
The experiments made by Hafele & Keating, Alley and Vessot
are obviously faked unless all the stories in the Bible are true.
It takes a genius like Henry Wilson to see that logical connection.
Well done!
Paul, impressed
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:ophpmv8b58pkpfkib...@4ax.com...
But "physical theories" can cause the physics? :-)
> If a maths theory describes a physics process, then there is a physical
> principle behind that theory.
And behind the physical principle behind the theory
there are turtles all the way down?
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:a5hpmvk3d10eatgon...@4ax.com...
So when you, Henry Wilson, wrote:
"We DO know that light speeds up as it falls"
which is clearly contrary to what Dave said,
you didn't mean to say anything involving 'falling photons'
but were referring to a TW measurement of light speed
along a flat piece of ground ?
You are really something, Henry. :-)
Paul, enjoying the breathtaking acrobatics
Bruce Pew
It doesn't confirm anything of the sort henri. "Accelerate down a
gravity well...", light? You remain ignorant by choice. Your version
of the Pound-Rebka results would falsify GR [obviously you are an
ignorant crank so we can just ignore your 'crankiness'].
>
> If you are so knowledgeable, please tell me what 'light frequency' actually
> means.
Not what you think it does knucklehead.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >BTW
> >> >> >henri any physical theory predictions which are tested and verified
> >> >> >can't be wrong. Regardless of how they arrive at the prediction. Since
> >> >> >you are going to be making a prediction based on your theory how about
> >> >> >making a prediction for the ISS so I can compare it with GR?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> The ISS clocks, if any, will appear to be running faster by 38ms per day.
> >> >>
> >> >> Radio signals from the ISS will (probably) not change frequency. The change
> >> >> will be too small to detect anyway.
> >> >
> >> >It has nothing to do with appearances. Claiming that the delta between
> >> >GPS satellite and Earthbased clocks is an apparent effect is the
> >> >fodder of ignorant cranks.
> >>
> >> You are very confused.
> >> The real rates of the orbiting clocks are obsered directly on the ground.
> >> ('real' as measured in the original earth frame.)
> >> The orbiting clocks have changed rates.
> >
> >Make sense dummy. This stuff is way over your head, you should find a
> >different hobby.
>
> You are way behind, matey.
>
> What aspect of light gives rise to the sensation of 'frequency'?
Frequency isn't a sensation dummy.
HenriWilson
wrote:
I can see I will have to make up another of my demos to explain this simple
phenomenon.
The fact that photons speed up as they fall does NOT contradict the statement
that measured TWLS along a flat surface DECREASES with increasing gravity.
The two principles are unrelated. Can you not see that?
HenriWilson
wrote:
Relativistic faith serves to prove that the power of indoctrination has not
changed in two thousand years.
HenriWilson
wrote:
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:ophpmv8b58pkpfkib...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 13:40:24 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> You can see some of them simulated on my web page.
>> >
>> >Giving up, Henry?
>> >You don't know a "physical theory" might be, but you know
>> >it goes further than predicting physical consequences,
>> >it causes them.
>> >Right? :-)
>>
>> It explains the cause to a certain level of knowledge.
>>
>> A maths theory simply describes the observed physics.
>> A maths theory can predict previously unobserved physics. But it cannot cause
>> the physics.
>
>But "physical theories" can cause the physics? :-)
I didn't say that.
A physical theory can explain the physical cause to a certain level of
knowledge.
The physical 'cause' will certainly never be just an abstract piece of maths.
>
>> If a maths theory describes a physics process, then there is a physical
>> principle behind that theory.
>
>And behind the physical principle behind the theory
>there are turtles all the way down?
Well you pull your 'tick fairies' out of a hat whenever it suits you. Why not
some turtles to go with them?
HenriWilson
>He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote in message news:<54uqmv8ruhu2tgnb8...@4ax.com>...
>> On 20 Sep 2003 19:53:15 -0700, va...@cox.net (Bruce Pew) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >We could measure the grav redshift for this scenerio and it would
>> >match the GR prediction just like the Pound-Rebka experiment did. You
>> >are clueless.
>>
>> The blue shift observed in the Pound-Rebka xpt confirms that photons accelerate
>> down a gravity well like anything else.
>
>It doesn't confirm anything of the sort henri. "Accelerate down a
>gravity well...", light? You remain ignorant by choice. Your version
>of the Pound-Rebka results would falsify GR [obviously you are an
>ignorant crank so we can just ignore your 'crankiness'].
Why don't you read up on it instead of talking crap..
>
>
>>
>> If you are so knowledgeable, please tell me what 'light frequency' actually
>> means.
>
>Not what you think it does knucklehead.
'Frequency', as applied to light , is a measure of the number of photon
'wavecrests' arriving at an observer per second.
So smartarse, what does a photon 'wavecrest' look like?
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >BTW
>> >> >> >henri any physical theory predictions which are tested and verified
>> >> >> >can't be wrong. Regardless of how they arrive at the prediction. Since
>> >> >> >you are going to be making a prediction based on your theory how about
>> >> >> >making a prediction for the ISS so I can compare it with GR?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The ISS clocks, if any, will appear to be running faster by 38ms per day.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Radio signals from the ISS will (probably) not change frequency. The change
>> >> >> will be too small to detect anyway.
>> >> >
>> >> >It has nothing to do with appearances. Claiming that the delta between
>> >> >GPS satellite and Earthbased clocks is an apparent effect is the
>> >> >fodder of ignorant cranks.
>> >>
>> >> You are very confused.
>> >> The real rates of the orbiting clocks are obsered directly on the ground.
>> >> ('real' as measured in the original earth frame.)
>> >> The orbiting clocks have changed rates.
>> >
>> >Make sense dummy. This stuff is way over your head, you should find a
>> >different hobby.
>>
>> You are way behind, matey.
>>
>> What aspect of light gives rise to the sensation of 'frequency'?
>
>Frequency isn't a sensation dummy.
No because it doesn't exist. Light sometimes exhibits 'wavelength' - but never
'frequency'
Frequency is inferred.
György Szondy
because" instead this chetegorical "You are wrong" statement.
> You people
Are you something else? (GOD? - ;O) just joking...)
> make a simple problem appear terribly difficult so
> that many otherwise useless mathematicians can get a job.
Sorry, but I'm quite week in the mathematical part. However I know the
definitions of different space-time descriptions and understand how
the properties related to each othe in them. I mean time means
slightly different thing in each model.
>
> Time rate of flow changes when the differential dt1/dt2 varies (for reasons not
> yet understood). Here t1 and t2 are different subdimensions of time just as x,y
> and z are different subdimensions of space.
>
> The units of time flow are seconds/second.
What we can measuere is ticks of atomic clock - it can be considered
to measure time t=N*dT (called local time) or it can be considered not
being proper (using a kind of "zero potential" time)
t=N*dT(x,y,z,t)=t=N*dT(fi(x,y,z,t)).
There is no advanced mathematics in it, just physics, measurement and
logic...
Cheers,
György
YBM
[...]
> No because it doesn't exist. Light sometimes exhibits 'wavelength' - but never
> 'frequency'
>
> Frequency is inferred.
I see ;-) Just like Wilson exhibits "stupidity", "fun" is inferred.
Bruce Pew
> On 21 Sep 2003 10:21:13 -0700, va...@cox.net (Bruce Pew) wrote:
>
> >He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote in message news:<54uqmv8ruhu2tgnb8...@4ax.com>...
> >> On 20 Sep 2003 19:53:15 -0700, va...@cox.net (Bruce Pew) wrote:
> >>
>
> >> >
> >> >We could measure the grav redshift for this scenerio and it would
> >> >match the GR prediction just like the Pound-Rebka experiment did. You
> >> >are clueless.
> >>
> >> The blue shift observed in the Pound-Rebka xpt confirms that photons accelerate
> >> down a gravity well like anything else.
> >
> >It doesn't confirm anything of the sort henri. "Accelerate down a
> >gravity well...", light? You remain ignorant by choice. Your version
> >of the Pound-Rebka results would falsify GR [obviously you are an
> >ignorant crank so we can just ignore your 'crankiness'].
>
> Why don't you read up on it instead of talking crap..
Read up on what henri? Relativity? I think it is universally agreed
upon that henri wilson is a clueless nitwit wrt relativity. Your
interpretation of the Pound-Rebka experiment is further proof of this
fact.
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:1dksmvsjqs8qrh3f6...@4ax.com...
I can see that according to Dave, the speed of light
is given by the height, and is increasing with the height.
The consequence of that is that "falling light" will
decrease its speed as it falls.
I can see that this is contrary to your statement:
"We DO know that light speeds up as it falls"
The two principles are mutually exclusive.
Cant you see that?
Paul, getting bored of the stupid acrobatics
HenriWilson
wrote:
Congratulations Paul. Your theory anihilates the Pound-rebka results. You
have managed to prove that experimental evidence is not to be believed. So what
does that say for all those other sham 'experients' that you claim 'support
SR'?
HenriWilson
Come on then smartarse, tell me how and when a 'time periodic series of events'
was ever experimentally observed to be associated with light.
What is 'frequency' as applied to a photon?
All we know is that events 'arrive' at a particular frequency when light moves
towards us.
That is indicative of a moving 'spatial periodicity' not an intrinsic time
dependent one.
You people talk absolute crap all the time.
HenriWilson
Gyorgy, time 'moves'. Clocks integrate that movement to indicate an interval.
Intgrl dt1/dt2.dt2 = t1.
Can you not see that there must be more than one time subdimension.
What is so remarkable about that?
We never question that three spatial subdimensions exist.
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:s6tumvofhjp3bhhlp...@4ax.com...
My theory? Strange idea. It is Dave's theory, and it was
YOU, not me, who said it was correct.
But of course you are perfectly aware of that, so this is
another acrobatic manoeuvre to divert the attention from
the fact that you were wrong, which you now finally
have realized.
Your and Dave's theories are contradictory.
And they are both wrong.
Paul