CONCEPT OF RELATIVE MOTION- How Can We Say That Planets revolve around Sun?

Well, that is pretty screwed up. Einstein once said "Every coachman and every waiter is debating whether relativity theory is correct. Belief in this matter depends on political affiliation." Same thing today.

I suppose cranks attempt to subvert all areas of science, not just relativity, but relativity is an easy target for them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

The satellite emits in the coordinates ECEF frame. Those are the rules of GPS.

Now, the receiver can move up .4 cm during signal transit.

So, that makes the receiver in an SR frame that does not measure c.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have done my homework.

GR effect can be excluded from GPS.

See previous posts in this thread. Once you are finally up to speed, then comment.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Let's just make this simple.

You obviously understand we can exclude GR effects.

Several in this thread are still struggling with this fact.

Now, what we need to understand is if I move the unit up .4 cm during signal transport, then I have an SR frame.

Can we agree or disagree on this?

 

To be clear, we can not not exclude GR effects from the GPS system. But we can ignore GR effects for the small time and space relevant to this problem.

Moving the unit up isn't actually relevant to 'excluding GR'. (It actually makes GR more relevant, because it's now higher in a gravity field.)
What matters is that for the short time of interest, we can treat it as if it is moving in a straight line instead of a curve. If we ignore GR and pretend gravity is a simple force instead of curved spacetime, then we can say that the unit has inertial motion.
So, I agree that at any given time, the unit can be the basis of an SR frame, which is what I think you mean by "I have an SR frame".

So what next?

 

First of all... motion is defined by other moving bodies. Your first fallacy is believing that the ''observer'' holds some absolute notion about the movement of all bodies. Unless of course, your definition of observer is not reserved to beings with conciousness. Only motion in relativity is relative to other motions.

''So the Motion being relative say that both theories are not equally wrong?''

This statement doesn't even make sense.

 

After all this discussion you're still clueless. For you I'd surmise it's by choice. This is the bottom line for you [chinglu]: Relativity theory is a dynamic frame independent theory. It's not a good idea to try to prove relativity wrong because of a change in coordinate systems. For doing the science coordinate systems are only for convenience. When you contrive a paradoxical situation associated with coordinate transformations it's meaningless to the science.

 

You are so smart.

Can you explain specifically when you exclude GR effects in ECEF why light does not measure c from the light emission by the satellite in the coordinates of ECEF to the receiver in ECEF?

Please make sure you are up to date with all the logic of the thread before you answer.

Thanks oh smart one.

 

My point about GR effect is that they can be calculated and therefore accounted for.

Since we can assign them a constant k for any light emission from the satellite to the receiver, then they can be ignored in that -k can be applied to the final result so that only SR effects are included in the final output.

Next, if the unit is moved up in accordance with the rotation of the earth to create a straight line through space, please explain the GR effects of this "moving up" of the unit? Does this explain the saganc effect. If so, how?

Also, please explain whether this creates a straight line of motion in terms of GPS and I claimed.

 

Just to add, if he [chinglu] was serious in his views about the invalidity of SR/GR, and he in his opinion, had any case at all, [any observational effect, any experimental data, even any logical theoretical data] he would not really be debating on this forum with the whole bunch of Idiots [in his opinion] that infest said forum.
He would be going through proper review channels and peer review processes.
In doing what he is doing, and in continually pushing unsupported crap on this forum, certainly validates the opinions most have of him being a troll and playing silly buggers.

 

Perhaps you can explain where your partner failed.

Why is ECEF an invalid SR frame if we exclude GR effects?

Your explanation will prove you actually know what you are talking about.

I will wait for your response.

 

Just to add, if he [chinglu] was serious in his views about the invalidity of SR/GR, and he in his opinion, had any case at all, [any observational effect, any experimental data, even any logical theoretical data] he would not really be debating on this forum with the whole bunch of Idiots [in his opinion] that infest said forum.
He would be going through proper review channels and peer review processes.
In doing what he is doing, and in continually pushing unsupported crap on this forum, certainly validates the opinions most have of him being a troll and playing silly buggers.

 

I see you have failed to answer my post.

In science, I can therefore discount your post.

 

Oh, by the way, I would not have this reviewed.

There is too much room for flat earth opinions on the matter.

 

LOL!
You can do what you like!
Science has already discounted you.

 

Looks like the thread has descended into posturing and namecalling, and has drifted away from the original topic, so I'm shutting it down.

Chinglu,
The ECEF is a rotating reference frame. It is not inertial. It is not what you call an SR frame. Any rotating reference frame will have a sagnac effect, meaning that the speed of light will be different in different directions in that frame.

Yes, you can find an SR frame for a given unit at a given time. In that SR frame, the speed of light will be the same in all directions.