MacM:How impolite. I posted in support of your position to clarify your argument with Billy T, and you respond not by thanking me but by falsely pointing out supposed errors of mine that are years old.
You opened the door. After all you have been impolite with me for years. You have, as I have pointed out, flip-flopped on issues and clearly did not know jack about GPS until I enlightened you. But then you had to go side with Ashby. But see that bit you in the ass because it was a different position than you held before.
And you're wrong or you've misunderstood, as usual. And quoted me out of context. How rude.
Nice try James R but I have posted the links. ALL can see the entire context and you sir are a flip-flopper and liar.
Right. The GPS system requires that general relativity be used to get the full picture, as I clearly explained in the current thread. But while SR is not used directly, you can think about part of the contribution to the GR result as being a contribution due to relative velocity between the satellite and the ground, similar to SR relative velocity effects.
LOOK AT HIM WAFFEL - WHAT A RIOT. Not on your best day James R. You are all over the map. Has anybody ever seen such bullshit CYA before. Not me.
Posted by James R:" , you can think about part of the contribution to the GR result as being a contribution due to relative velocity between the satellite and the ground, similar to SR relative velocity effects."
What a joke. Here for contrast are your positions:
1 - Orbit is constant acceleration and hence is non-inertial.
2 - Orbit is NOT in acceleration and IS inertial.
Just how are these out of context?
Seems a whole lot like Billy T's "Nothing physically changes.................in their own frame" BS dodge and double talk.
3 - -5.8us/day is correct for surface velocity?
How is that out of context?. As far as I know I am the ONLY person in the world to derive the incorrect figure of -5.8us/day and post it as being incorrect. Further surface speed is not used - PERIOD.
4 - SR is Not used in GPS and you never said it was vs SRT & GRT are both very important in GPS.
How is that out of context?.
There is no orbit here. Read zanket's statement. The rocket is hovering above the horizon. i.e. not revolving around the hole, but stationary directly above the hole.
You don't hover over the horizon of a Black Hole unless you are in orbit. But I'll wait and see if Zanket chooses to clarify his post. I won't do what you do and re-interprete others meanings.
Out of context. In the context of flat spacetime (which is what we were talking about), what I said is completely true.
No cigar for this one. Acceleration is either inertial or non-inertial.
How is that out of context?
Only in a Newtonian context - a distinction I quite clearly explained above.
So you think you can have it both ways. You can argue it is inertial or non-inertial at your choice depending on who you want to attack. Nice position. To bad it is bad physics. Or at least according to you incorrect physics. That is why Einstein solved all the problems. He corrected Newtonian physics - Right?
Do you understand the point I made about curved vs. flat spacetimes? It sure sounds like you don't.
Oh but yes I do understand. I understand you like to flip-flop and take positions that are 180 degrees out depending on whatever your opposition has said. You think you can flip-flop between old and new concepts and argue both ways. That doesn't cut it.
Orbit is either inertial or it is non-inertial.
You never asked me for such a diagram. What exactly do you want?
You just never read my post or at least you at best skim quickly and then post irrelevant BS. Of course I have challeneged both you and Billy T to demonstrate, as I have, using a diagram just how the twin paradox is resolved by SRT.
I will accept your apology for your mis-characterisation of my past posts. Your most obvious error was with regard to the "orbit" issue in the black hole discussion. Will you at least admit you were wrong there?
Not on your worst day bubba, I said I'll let Zanket clarify his post. If he says he didn't mean orbit then I'll conceed I mis-read his post.
However, that does not explain your reply where you insist that both frames are non-inertial. Or how a rocket can be trailing a rope and not in motion.
You have stuck your foot in my mouth for the last time. From now on you will be treated just how you treat others.
Last edited: