Is time universal? NO (and its proof)

[MacM]

GPS requires relativity, or it wouldn't work.

Yep. They do use GR. By your own admission on this forum they do not use SRT. So what is the point? Trying to confuse others into believing you meant SRT?

There are literally thousands of web pages which say this. Everybody who has ever worked on the GPS system says it.

Misrepresenting something deiberately is the same as a lie. Yes some relativity is used but many who helped develope it state overtly that parts of relativity are nonsense and they are quite correct.

But what would they know? MacM always knows better than any "expert".

Funny how Hatch, that helped develope GPS isn't an expert in your eyes. Funnny how anybody that disagrees with your acceptance of SRT nonsense is suddenly a crank. Sorry but you must come out of the clouds one day.

 

[Aer]

There were a series of papers written about GPS utilizing a local ether theory of wave propogation. I don't know if they have been linked to on this forum or not. Given the success of GPS, this seems to give much credence to the idea of "local ethers". It does not however support MacM's claim of common rest frame gamma functions or whatever he calls his theory.

 

[MacM]

There were a series of papers written about GPS utilizing a local ether theory of wave propogation. I don't know if they have been linked to on this forum or not. Given the success of GPS, this seems to give much credence to the idea of "local ethers". It does not however support MacM's claim of common rest frame gamma functions or whatever he calls his theory.

This is not MacM's theory. It is fact. GPS uses what is called the ECI frame which stands for "Earth Centered Inertial" and another frame called ECEF "Earth Centered Earth Fixed" and a third frame called ICRF which is 500 or so stars which constitute a frame which inscribes the barycenter of the solar system.

I think you are referring to "GLET", it is a theory advocated by Hatch (one of the developers of GPS).

 

[Aer]

This is not MacM's theory. It is fact. GPS uses what is called the ECI frame which stands for "Earth Centered Inertial" and another frame called ECEF "Earth Centered Earth Fixed" and a third frame called ICRF which is 500 or so stars which constitute a frame which inscribes the barycenter of the solar system.

What is the difference between ECI and ECEF? I tried to look it up but only found a reference that referred to the two as one in the same. Either way, those frames are precisely the frames of "local ether". Also, in what context is the ICRF frame used in GPS?

I think you are referring to "GLET", it is a theory advocated by Hatch (one of the developers of GPS).

I've not heard of "GLET". What is it?

 

[MacM]

What is the difference between ECI and ECEF? I tried to look it up but only found a reference that referred to the two as one in the same.

They are not the same. They do have a common origin. In the ECI (satellite view) the center of the earth is referance as the satellite orbits that point.

In the ECEF the referance is the earth center but to the motion of points on the rotating surface.

Here is the ECI and ECF frames.

*******************Extract ***************************
Coordinate Systems

ASEN 3200 Notes

George H. Born

Several Coordinate Systems are used extensively in Orbit Mechanics. They will be reviewed here.

Earth Centered Inertial (ECI) and Earth Centered Fixed (ECF)

The ECI frame has its origin at the center of mass of the Earth but has a fixed inertial direction along the intersection of the Earth equatorial plane and the ecliptic plane. Although this frame is referred to as inertial it is actually only pseudo inertial because the center of mass of the Earth accelerates due to perturbations from the Moon and other planets.

The ECF frame has the same origin but is fixed in the Earth with its - axis through the Greenwich meridian (zero longitude).
***************************************************

Either way, those frames are precisely the frames of "local ether".

Also, in what context is the ICRF frame used in GPS?

Here is the ICRF:

http://www.iers.org/iers/products/icrf/

I've not heard of "GLET". What is it?

Sorry my error. GLET is another ether theory but Hatch was not the author. Hatch authored the EGT.

http://www.egtphysics.net/

http://www.egtphysics.net/

READERS:Hatch is well recognized as one of the experts in the development of the GPS. Please read and take to heart what he not only says about relativity but about those many experts James R keeps referring to that know GPS so well.

He uses the phrase "Blatantly false" many times regarding Niel Ashby's lectures.


FYI: Here is GLET- http://get.ilja-schmelzer.net/

 

[Aer]

MacM,

I know what the ICRF frame is, I was wonder how it is used in GPS..

 

[MacM]

MacM,

I know what the ICRF frame is, I was wonder how it is used in GPS..

I've seen it explained but you could get a better answer from 2Inquisitive. If he doesn't respond here you might PM him.

 

[Aer]

I don't think 2inquisitive would accurately know how ICRF is used in GPS if it even is at all given what I've seen him post about said frame.

 

[James R]

MacM:

Misrepresenting something deiberately is the same as a lie. Yes some relativity is used but many who helped develope it state overtly that parts of relativity are nonsense and they are quite correct.

Misrepresenting the views of the developers of the system deliberately is the same as a lie. Take you own advice, chum.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

Misrepresenting the views of the developers of the system deliberately is the same as a lie. Take you own advice, chum.

Perhaps you should back this with actual referance to some mis-representation.

Name and position. Hatch was one of the developers and I have posted his statements. Show where I have misrepresented him. Or shut the hell up.

 

[Aer]

Assuming the above Hatch is the following Hatch:

Hatch, R. (1982). "The synergism of GPS code and carrier measurements."
Proceedings of the Third International Geodetic Symposium on Satellite Doppler
Positioning, 8-12 February, Las Cruces, N. Mex., Vol. II, pp. 1213-1232.
Magnavox Technical Paper MX-TM 3353-82.

Hatch, R. R. (1986). "Dynamic differential GPS at the centimeter level."
Proceedings of the Fourth International Geodetic Symposium on Satellite
Positioning, Austin, Tex., 28 April-2 May, University of Texas as Austin, Vol.
II, pp. 1287-1298.

Hatch, R. R., and E. V. Avery (1988). "A strategic planning tool for GPS
surveys." Presented at: ASCE Specialty Conference, GPS-88 Engineering
Applications of GPS Satellite Surveying Technology, 11-14 May, Nashville, Tenn.,
22 pp.

Hatch, R., and K. Larson (1985). "MAGNET-4100 GPS survey program processing
techniques and test results." Proceedings of the First International Symposium,
on Precise Positioning with the Global Positioning System, Rockville, Md.,
April, Vol. I, pp. 285-298.

There is little doubt about his involvement in GPS. Furthermore, a simple search of "Hatch GPS Relativity" on google turns up numerous references of Hatch claiming special relativity is not used in GPS as advocated. GPS assumes a "universal" time local to Earth. This has also been confirmed by at least one non-GPS designer whom has advocated the "Local Ether" theory of wave propogation. A simple search for "local ether" will give you all the information you seek.

 

[Billy T]

Perhaps you should back this with actual referance to some mis-representation...

There is no point in doing this. If any former post of yours are repoduced showing that you are wrong etc, you just switch to your "push down quickly" method to remove them.

In the "uniKEF analysis" thread, less than an hour ago, you "removed" by "push down" my post showing you were lying by making 3 posts in 2 minutes, before I even had time to correct my typos! You made sure they were long enough to push down my post by quoting every word of someone else's post and quckly adding brief comment of your own (typically "screw you") I expect this will also soon be pushed down, but note for anyone who does see it that my post in that thread was at 17 minutes past the hour. Please read it, not MacM's dishonest distortion of it. (He omitted all of his posts, which I quoted giving exact references.) This ommision makes my last words in several paragraphs ("MacM said:" , "MacM posted:", "MacM claims:" etc.) be followed by my own words, as if I had said the false / foolish things that MacM actually said.

 

[Aer]

There is no point in doing this. If any former post of yours are repoduced showing that you are wrong etc, you just switch to your "push down quickly" method to remove them.

See my post above. The success of the GPS system seems to single handedly disproof your proof that time is not universal. Besides, your proof is what I refer to as silly dumb. You start with the assumption that relativity is correct to prove a result of relativity.

 

[Billy T]

..You start with the assumption that relativity is correct to prove a result of relativity.

No - I start with a fast train passing a station and never use any relativity equation. -see first post of this thread.

 

[Aer]

You used the same assumptions as relativity...

 

[MacM]

There is no point in doing this. If any former post of yours are repoduced showing that you are wrong etc, you just switch to your "push down quickly" method to remove them.

In the "uniKEF analysis" thread, less than an hour ago, you "removed" by "push down" my post showing you were lying by making 3 posts in 2 minutes, before I even had time to correct my typos! You made sure they were long enough to push down my post by quoting every word of someone else's post and quckly adding brief comment of your own (typically "screw you") I expect this will also soon be pushed down, but note for anyone who does see it that my post in that thread was at 17 minutes past the hour. Please read it, not MacM's dishonest distortion of it. (He omitted all of his posts, which I quoted giving exact references.) This ommision makes my last words in several paragraphs ("MacM said:" , "MacM posted:", "MacM claims:" etc.) be followed by my own words, as if I had said the false / foolish things that MacM actually said.

Once again you are a lying sack of shit. I have not deleted any posts about this subject. James R, you should be able to confirm this fact.

 

[MacM]

Assuming the above Hatch is the following Hatch:

There is little doubt about his involvement in GPS. Furthermore, a simple search of "Hatch GPS Relativity" on google turns up numerous references of Hatch claiming special relativity is not used in GPS as advocated. GPS assumes a "universal" time local to Earth. This has also been confirmed by at least one non-GPS designer whom has advocated the "Local Ether" theory of wave propogation. A simple search for "local ether" will give you all the information you seek.

Yes, that Ronald Hatch.
*************************
http://www.egtphysics.net/

http://www.ion.org/awards/dsaward2001.cfm

******************************
http://www.egtphysics.net/scandclock.pdf

Read the conclusions in their entireity.!
*****************************

What say yee James R. A highly recognized developer of GPS agrees with me not you. Is he too a crank? Is anyone that disagrees with you or relativity a crank? :bugeye:

 

[Physics Monkey]

You seem to have no qualms about appealing to authority as long as it supports you're point of view, MacM. Maybe Ronald Hatch as an engineer is pretty well respected for his technical know-how, but a quick glance at one of his papers talking about relativity (on his own site) reveals that his unconventional view of relativity is hardly shared by his peers in his field. In this sense, he is not acknowledged by his peers as an expert as far as relativtiy is concerned.

Since you've now brought out your expert, let me bring out mine. Their names include (in no particular order) Einstein, Thorne, Wilczek, Weinberg, Wheeler, Feynman, Gell-Mann, Dirac, Fermi, Heisenberg, Hawking, Ashtekar, Witten, Guth, ... but I'm getting tired.

So maybe Richard Hatch is a crank, or is the whole enterprise of physics one big sham?

 

[Aer]

Maybe Richard Hatch as an engineer is pretty well respected for his technical know-how, but a quick glance at one of his papers talking about relativity (on his own site) reveals that his unconventional view of relativity is hardly shared by his peers in his field. In this sense, he is not acknowledged by his peers as an expert as far as relativtiy is concerned.

How do you know what view is held on relativity by peers in his field? Can you name one engineering disipline that uses relativity? Can you name one industry that has been launched by relativity? I certainly can: Science Fiction.

These simple facts remain: GPS uses a preferred frame which is the gravitational field created by the Earth. GPS does use the concept of universal time which relativity forbids. GPS is 100% successful.

My guess would be that if the physicists you listed were to create their own GPS system, it would fail as they would attempt to implement special relativity's concept of spacetime. Is a design more correct if it works or if it adheres to physics theories of the day?

 

[Physics Monkey]

How do you know what view is held on relativity by peers in his field?

Under the link scandalous clock on http://www.egtphysics.net/ please read the inset just below the heading "Background and problem statement" where the journal found it necessary to indicate the controversy over Hatch's article. I quote: "... will help in resolving apparently deeply held differences of opinion amongst experts in this area." That's how I know, the journal editor told me.