Is The Theory of Relativity Fatally Flawed?

[Persol]

You have wrongfully assaulted me and my character in all these places. I have posted the truth in all these places.

I think not. In the last TWO DAYS you have lied/misinterpretted/misrepresented/spammed:
the use of relativity in GPS
the compressibility issue
the issue of reverse transforms
your 'woe is me, I'm so abused' post

People have posted the GPS explanations already, as they did the last time you brought this up. If you are to ignorant/stupid/dishonest/lazy to read them... well that's your problem. But don't pretend for a second like nobody hasn't shot your idea out of the sky, stomped all over it, then dropped in the river.

Just because you fish you old mistakes up again doesn't mean we need to see them.

 

[MacM]

I think not. In the last TWO DAYS you have lied/misinterpretted/misrepresented/spammed:
the use of relativity in GPS

Funny. I have posted 4 papers, one by a scientist involved in the GPS project responsible for such timing considerations, one just a qualified dissident and one from HP that details how the systems are calibrated and what relavistic affects are compenstated for and one by the government.

All of wich are in total opposition to you above comment.

I'll repeat it here one last time. "Relative Velocity between the Clocks does not produce a change in tick rate of either clock". The clocks are preset for two consideration (neither relative velocity between clocks) on earth before launch.

Reaching orbit the preset tick rates remain stable with no shift between the pre-launch calibration. "RELATIVE VELOCITY HAD NO AFFECT ON THE CLOCK"

THE CLOCKS ARE OPERATED BY A ut SYSTEM!!! All of this is spelled out in plain english. You saying I don't understand is an outright sham.

Either put up or shut up.

Compressbiity

Covered in that post. Nothing there ot talk about until you perform.

the issue of reverse transforms

Responded to in that thread. I did mis-read your post, but you also mis-read and mis-represented in your response. So take a break. There is nothing there.

our 'woe is me, I'm so abused' post[/quote]

I have no idea what you mean other than maybe my vote post on selective banning. that is not a "woe is me" thread. I really don't give a shit what you say other than I would much jprefer to see some actual discussion of the issue and knock off the worthless distracting bullshit.

You simply bullshit because YOU CANN NOT respond in any other way. You have lost the GPS arguement, so lets just say we won and hedoen't know it" Ha. Do you actually think others won't read the material I linkd and referanced. I have stated the facts as they are. Learn to live with the fact that GPS doesn't use SR correction between clocks.

Why? Because none shows up when they put the clocks in space. Imagine that.

People have posted the GPS explanations already, as they did the last time you brought this up. If you are to ignorant/stupid/dishonest/lazy to read them... well that's your problem. But don't pretend for a second like nobody hasn't shot your idea out of the sky, stomped all over it, then dropped in the river.

BULL. I have osted the actual calibration jproceedures. Dinosaur for example posted a paper by an astronomer which in passing mentioned that GPS had to have relavistic adjustments. His resume'' showed he was primarily involved with telescope imaging. There was nothing in his resume that even mentioned Relativity.

And his statement was still true. It was just off oint. The relavistic adjustments made had nothing to do with relative velocity between clocks. Quit dancing the two step and get specific. I have and you lose.

Just because you fish you old mistakes up again doesn't mean we need to see them.

[post=717132]Indisputable GPS Facts[/post]

Again talk is cheap. The facts are on the table in the GPS thread.. Now go cry in your beer.

 

[Paul T]

Funny. I have posted 4 papers, one by a scientist involved in the GPS project responsible for such timing considerations, one just a qualified dissident and one from HP that details how the systems are calibrated and what relavistic affects are compenstated for and one by the government.

I happen to read that HP's paper. The funny thing is that the paper claim nothing as MacM claimed. In fact, according to that paper, atomic clocks carried by satelites are constructed on earth to lose 38.4 microseconds per day, so that when they are in space they appear to be running at the right rate. This 38.4 microseconds is to correct 7.2 microseconds time lost due to the satelites motion (SR related) and 45.6 microseconds time gain due to gravitational red-shift (GR related). This can be found on page 11 of the said paper (link provided below for easy reference).

http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/AN1272.pdf

Something wrong with MacM ability to understand what he reads...or, I wonder...did he read his recommended paper at all? Whatever it is, he just wrong.

 

[MacM]

I happen to read that HP's paper. The funny thing is that the paper claim nothing as MacM claimed. In fact, according to that paper, atomic clocks carried by satelites are constructed on earth to lose 38.4 microseconds per day, so that when they are in space they appear to be running at the right rate. This 38.4 microseconds is to correct 7.2 microseconds time lost due to the satelites motion (SR related) and 45.6 microseconds time gain due to gravitational red-shift (GR related). This can be found on page 11 of the said paper (link provided below for easy reference).

http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/AN1272.pdf

Something wrong with MacM ability to understand what he reads...or, I wonder...did he read his recommended paper at all? Whatever it is, he just wrong.

Only a couple problems with your post Paul T.

You say nothing that I haven't said expect you forget to say what the SR correction was for and how it is calculated. Perhaps you didn't understand what they said but I did and I pointed out exactly where they said it.

Now if you want to contend that they make relavistic adjustment in the design of the clocks to compensate for SR due to relative motion between the clocks. then please point out where that is either said or inferred.

Keep in mind they are pretty specific about what they are doing and why.

The only referance point in the system is the earth's axis. Not the surface clock. Now try wiggeling on this a bit more. You haven't gotten there yet.

You really should stop and think. Just as I have argued against the reciprocity or SRT - You do not see any reverse corrections for data coming from the orbit clock to earth because the earth clock is running slow according to it.

No. The entire calibration is from one preferred frame according to LR not reversable frames view of SRT. It really would be hard to get the earth clocks to obey the GPS function using SR don't you think. I see no clocks running nor calibrated to be slower than the orbit clock.

 

[phoenix2634]

MacM,

The use of SR and GR is implied, inferred, stated or whatever term you want to use in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 on page 11 of the link you provided.

http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/AN1272.pdf

From paragraph 1:

"...Fortunately, an understanding of relativity is not necessary to gain an understanding of how GPS works. The relativistic terms are accounted for in the design of the satellite clocks and in the receivers that properly process the data..."

Paragraph 2:

"The orbit period for GPS places them at a distance of about 4.2 earth radii from the center of the earth as illustrated by the feet of the tripod in Figure 5. The relativistic velocities of the space vehicle (SV) clocks cause them to lose about 7.2 millionths of a second (7.2 microseconds) per day with respect to the earth. On the other hand, their altitude (often called the gravitational redshift) causes them to gain 45.6 microseconds per day. The net is a gain of 38.4 microseconds per day. This accumulation is enormous compared to the few nanoseconds synchronization accuracy desired for the system, since a microsecond is 1,000 times a nanosecond. The SV clocks are constructed on earth to lose 38.4 microseconds per day, so that when they are in space they appear to be running at the right rate."

Paragraph 3:

"Because the earth is rotating and generally all receivers are moving, the relative velocities and positions between SV clock and receiver clock have to be accommodated in the receiver software. It is not known that all receivers are performing this calculation correctly. This is a receiver manufacturer’s responsibility. Just due to the rotating earth alone, hundreds of nanoseconds of error can occur in synchronizing clocks around the globe unless the calculations are done correctly."

Paragraph 4:

"The U.S. Air Force has created an interface control document (ICD 200-B) which describes how to perform these calculations. Once the relativity is properly included, GPS can be thought of in a traditional time-of-flight way. By measuring the time of arrival (TOA) of a signal — knowing the time it began and its velocity — the range or distance between the sender and the receiver can be easily calculated."

.

 

[Paul T]

phoenix2634, thanks for pointed those out.

 

[James R]

So, MacM, what makes the Earth's axis so special? Is it an absolutely stationary point in the universe? Does the entire universe revolve around the Earth after all? Maybe Ptolemy was right.

 

[Yuriy]

Hah, Phoenix2634, big deal - to cach MacM one more time on lie about cited source!...

 

[MacM]

MacM,

The use of SR and GR is implied, inferred, stated or whatever term you want to use in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 on page 11 of the link you provided.

http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/AN1272.pdf

From paragraph 1:

"...Fortunately, an understanding of relativity is not necessary to gain an understanding of how GPS works. The relativistic terms are accounted for in the design of the satellite clocks and in the receivers that properly process the data..."

Paragraph 2:

"The orbit period for GPS places them at a distance of about 4.2 earth radii from the center of the earth as illustrated by the feet of the tripod in Figure 5. The relativistic velocities of the space vehicle (SV) clocks cause them to lose about 7.2 millionths of a second (7.2 microseconds) per day with respect to the earth. On the other hand, their altitude (often called the gravitational redshift) causes them to gain 45.6 microseconds per day. The net is a gain of 38.4 microseconds per day. This accumulation is enormous compared to the few nanoseconds synchronization accuracy desired for the system, since a microsecond is 1,000 times a nanosecond. The SV clocks are constructed on earth to lose 38.4 microseconds per day, so that when they are in space they appear to be running at the right rate."

Paragraph 3:

"Because the earth is rotating and generally all receivers are moving, the relative velocities and positions between SV clock and receiver clock have to be accommodated in the receiver software. It is not known that all receivers are performing this calculation correctly. This is a receiver manufacturer’s responsibility. Just due to the rotating earth alone, hundreds of nanoseconds of error can occur in synchronizing clocks around the globe unless the calculations are done correctly."

Paragraph 4:

"The U.S. Air Force has created an interface control document (ICD 200-B) which describes how to perform these calculations. Once the relativity is properly included, GPS can be thought of in a traditional time-of-flight way. By measuring the time of arrival (TOA) of a signal — knowing the time it began and its velocity — the range or distance between the sender and the receiver can be easily calculated."

.

Generically there is nothing wrong with these statements. Relativity is indeed required for the system to operate. What you and others continue to ignore is what relavistic affects are they talking about. It is not relative velocity between clocks using SR where there can be no preferred referance frame.

They deliberately use LR which requires a preferred referance frame and eliminates the reciprocity inherent in SR. That reciprocity affect does not physically occur, hence SR predictions are not physical, they are illusionary as a consequence of failing to use relativty as it functions in the real world.

The orbit clock does not see the earth clock run slow. That is the physical reality. According to SR the earth bound surface clock must run slow. No compensation for nor allowance for that is made in GPS. Yet you cannot show me the earth clock that runs slow in the GPS system view. SR is false.

Not in its mathematicl form but in its assumptions regarding referance frames.

LR uses the same mathematics. But by using the ECI frame does ot compute time due to any relative velocity between clocks.

 

[MacM]

I think not. In the last TWO DAYS you have lied/misinterpretted/misrepresented/spammed:
the use of relativity in GPS
the compressibility issue
the issue of reverse transforms
your 'woe is me, I'm so abused' post

People have posted the GPS explanations already, as they did the last time you brought this up. If you are to ignorant/stupid/dishonest/lazy to read them... well that's your problem. But don't pretend for a second like nobody hasn't shot your idea out of the sky, stomped all over it, then dropped in the river.

Just because you fish you old mistakes up again doesn't mean we need to see them.

This has no technical value and can be completely ignored. Nothing here addresses the official facts and physical observations and realities of the GPS system.

 

[MacM]

phoenix2634, thanks for pointed those out.

Thanks for what showin gthat you too do not understand GPS and lack sufficient vision to see that SR hs been dumped in favor of LR. That LR works and shows that predictions of SR to not occur.

Nice analysis.

 

[MacM]

So, MacM, what makes the Earth's axis so special? Is it an absolutely stationary point in the universe? Does the entire universe revolve around the Earth after all? Maybe Ptolemy was right.

Perhaps it is time James R, since ou seem actually logical to a oint. that ou investigate what is being done and why.

The ECI is what is called a "Local Preferred frame of referance". It is a feature of LR and works, where SR cannot work. No SR based concept can operate a GPSystem.

That should tell you something about the reality of the SRT theory.

 

[MacM]

Hah, Phoenix2634, big deal - to cach MacM one more time on lie about cited source!...

Glad to see you take this position and stick your foot in your mouth once again.

The only people caught here have been the Relativists such as yourself. Now perhaps you will for the first time in this thread actually say something that has technical merit and stop depending on your innuendo and slander which is losing this debate for you.

The primary formulas when used are basically the same in LR and SR. It is the selection of frames that makes the differance. A differance which can no longer be ignored and swept under the rug using circular arguement of the past.

GPS uses LR frame referance. Using an SR frame referance cannot work in that it requires the earth clock to run sslow from the orbiting clocks view.

The mathematics regarding relavistic changes is the same formula when such affect is applicable.

However using LR based frames it becomes unidirections and that fits physical reality and current observation.

Guess what. You are wrong and I am right. Makes you sick at the stomach doesn't it Yuriy.

 

[geistkiesel]

Glad to see you take this position and stick your foot in your mouth once again.


Guess what. You are wrong and I am right. Makes you sick at the stomach doesn't it Yuriy.

If the postulate regarding the measure of absolute motion as impossible to measure or detect and measuring and detecting absolute motions is violated on its face by conscious and goal oriented purposeful intent, then, then the postulate is offensively impotent on its face for if proved violated then as the postilates applicaion of force is improper for whenj hman observatiion is proved erorneous,s postulate far off the mark, was not correct; forces have been exchanged in clear violation of basic human understandinjg of quantum mechnics as taught to us by your self righteous redisigning what is best keft augners of natural on nartuak activityas it is proved violation in fron t of the axiom no ,ption, theory lisesandn having cong=fessed ti have proved that law as fakse on its gacewcan any reply nyrntioneasuring the absolute velocity of inertial frames and calculate the absolute velocity of each frame constitutes violationof the postulate; relative veluve velocity,gar cinreibute tio the relative and absilute motion od this post<motion of the twp inerntial frame sand velocoties ofmotion what affect on SR can we reasonably expect

 

[Paul T]

Generically there is nothing wrong with these statements. Relativity is indeed required for the system to operate. What you and others continue to ignore is what relavistic affects are they talking about. It is not relative velocity between clocks using SR where there can be no preferred referance frame.

Why bother about a preferred reference frame? There are earth reference frame and satelites reference frame. They only need to make sure that the earth clock and satelite clock tally one to another. Why someone need a preferred reference frame to do that? Your recommeded HP's paper tell us how that was done.

They deliberately use LR which requires a preferred referance frame and eliminates the reciprocity inherent in SR. That reciprocity affect does not physically occur, hence SR predictions are not physical, they are illusionary as a consequence of failing to use relativty as it functions in the real world.

You had been shown that on page 11 of the paper, those GPS satelites clock were corrected for effect related to SR and GR. Could you please refer us the page and paragraph in that paper proving that "They deliberately use LR which requires a preferred referance frame and eliminates the reciprocity inherent in SR".

The orbit clock does not see the earth clock run slow. That is the physical reality. According to SR the earth bound surface clock must run slow. No compensation for nor allowance for that is made in GPS. Yet you cannot show me the earth clock that runs slow in the GPS system view. SR is false.

WRONG. Due to effect attributed to SR, the satelite's clock runs slower than earth clock. However, due to effect attributed to GR, the satelite's clock runs faster than earth clock. Effect due to GR is more dominant (read page 11 of the paper please). The net result is the satelite's clock runs faster than earth clock. That's why the correction was done by constructing the satelite clock to lose time. It is again wrong for you to say that "No compensation for nor allowance for that is made in GPS". Do you really have ability to read, actually? You seem to be having problem to just read appropriately, read what the paper says and stop playing with your own silly idea. I think nobody here interested on your delutional idea.

Not in its mathematicl form but in its assumptions regarding referance frames.

LR uses the same mathematics. But by using the ECI frame does ot compute time due to any relative velocity between clocks.

What we are interested is, where in the paper it says that LR (not SR or GR) was what they considered when they designed GPS?

 

[Yuriy]

PaulT,
How many times this Liar should catch you on the same hook: give you a new citation as a divine truth, you start reading cited work only to find out that this crazy one more time did falsification, lied about facts in this work? You can not find today even among the most double-dyed anti-relativists even a one, except our Liar, who bases his rejection of SRT on the ground of the following three assertions:
1. Rested Ether fulfils entire Universe,
2. There is no limit for speed of material bodies;
3. There are no Lorentz transformations.
and at that ties these 3 idiotic assertions with … Lorentz, calling them Lorentz Relativity.
If Lorentz would resurrect and come on our Forum and read what we are discussing today, he will die for the second time…

 

[MacM]

Why bother about a preferred reference frame? There are earth reference frame and satelites reference frame. They only need to make sure that the earth clock and satelite clock tally one to another. Why someone need a preferred reference frame to do that? Your recommeded HP's paper tell us how that was done.

It sure the hell does. It selects the earths axis, not the surface clock. The earth axis makes a local absolute referance frame (that is the LR approach, compared to referancing the surface clock where the two observers sustain relative motion and each must be able to be considered at rest depending on view point (the SR aproach)

You had been shown that on page 11 of the paper, those GPS satelites clock were corrected for effect related to SR and GR.[/q



Could you please refer us the page and paragraph in that paper proving that "They deliberately use LR which requires a preferred referance frame and eliminates the reciprocity inherent in SR".



WRONG. Due to effect attributed to SR, the satelite's clock runs slower than earth clock. However, due to effect attributed to GR, the satelite's clock runs faster than earth clock. Effect due to GR is more dominant (read page 11 of the paper please). The net result is the satelite's clock runs faster than earth clock. That's why the correction was done by constructing the satelite clock to lose time. It is again wrong for you to say that "No compensation for nor allowance for that is made in GPS". Do you really have ability to read, actually? You seem to be having problem to just read appropriately, read what the paper says and stop playing with your own silly idea. I think nobody here interested on your delutional idea.



What we are interested is, where in the paper it says that LR (not SR or GR) was what they considered when they designed GPS?

 

[Persol]

It sure the hell does. It selects the earths axis, not the surface clock. The earth axis makes a local absolute referance frame (that is the LR approach, compared to referancing the surface clock where the two observers sustain relative motion and each must be able to be considered at rest depending on view point (the SR aproach)

I don't suppose you've considered the amount of this effect?

 

[MacM]

I don't suppose you've considered the amount of this effect?

7.2 micro-seconds/day I believe. So what?

 

[Paul T]

MacM,

Still waiting for your post about the page number in that HP's paper about "They deliberately use LR which requires a preferred referance frame and eliminates the reciprocity inherent in SR". Are you going to give us some light on that anytime soon?