Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by MacM, Nov 16, 2004.
Yet again, stop lying:
Do you care to support your assertion?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Once again with the false allegations and no actual contribution.
You might try reading the original post with the graphic.
I'll not bother repeating since it is not your purpose to learn by asking.
Now if you have any technical contribution to make regarding the GPS issue feel free to do so. Otherwise you are a waste of time.
Discussion of radar signals bounced off Venus is for another thread, and is off topic for this GPS thread. If you want to discuss that, take it elsewhere. This thread is about GPS.
I am not intending to be argumentative here in that you didn't address this to anyone in particular.
But I do want to point out that it was Persol once again that has interjected this issue [post=724275]Here[/post], and has done so making false declarations regarding what was said in the first place.
I did respond because the title of this thread is not simply "GPS" but "GPS and Relativity". The radar data is certainly a matter of relativity but I agree it is not part of this thread.
I would hope that you start to take action against the appropriate people that continue to violate thread topics.
It's not interjecting when I expect you to support what you are claiming has been 'your point'.
Is this thread about physics or the rhetoric of this and that source. Unless one brings something to your table that can be verified you are all discussing "rumors" that prevades the subject matter.
How can SR operate as a system that adequately maintains the proper synchronization of the GPS satellites such that the function of the GPS is maintained within the system design specs, minimum accuracy?
What is the algorithim that SR is the operating and underlying physics?
Does the MacM version of how the system operates satisfy the requirenments for maintaining the GPS function properly being maintained within accuracy specs/limits?
The Thread is the track of the subject matter you should be following. 'Winner' of contests like this one are determined by the laws of nature with results described through proper reasoning, logic and analysis. All of you are aware of the nature of your posts and whether they are formed in scientifically layered structures or, are designed to provoke, insult, demean, ridicule and argue with the latest popular rumor, or politically based statistics: "more physicists berlieve . . .".
I realize that the above is an expression of a naive state of affairs that are foreign to this planet with the blue sky; security issues of the preservation of professional standing and psychological states of mind determine belief systems which are, for the most part, merely the "current" state in most individual cases. The more intense one's position is argued the deeper into a locked and unrecoverable position one becomes such that truth and reasoning are seen as enemies. The more intense an argumentative expression, the less likely one is able to say, "you are correct and I am wrong".
"The enemies of truth. Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Off topic. Wrong thread. False assertions.
You're right. I am quite happy for this issue to be decided on a detailed discussion of the mathematical calculations needed for GPS to work, if that's the way you and others want to take it. I suggest that MacM posts in detail the differences between LR and SR, and shows how the different mathematical predictions show that LR is what is used in the GPS system, to the exclusion of SR.
So far, I'd say that in the battle of opinions, we are at least equally balanced in sources saying that the GPS system uses or does not use SR. In fact, I think if we keep digging we will find far more sources in support of SR, but science is not decided by popular vote.
Show me the LR maths, or show me that SR maths gives results incompatible with an operating GPS system, if you can.
Your request is superflous and repeatative. The point has already been clearly made that SR uses the same mathematics as LR. Einstein infact uses LR mathematics and it is openly refered to as Lorentz factors.
So any calculation you want is already provided.
The only differance is in the selection of a locally preferred frame of referance as an absolute frame which is prohibited in SR.
SR fails because it would claim that the earth UTC clocks will display a slower time than the orbiting clocks from the orbits view as being at rest.
That does not occur, hence SR is NOT an appropriate claim for the GPS inspite of Relativists attempt to hijack the success of the LR view of absolute preferred frames.
Would you care to point out where and why relativity says you can't pick a frame of reference for a system?
MacM has already given us this bullshit for too many times. If what he referred to as LR was the same as Lorentz's transformation laws, his claimed that LR uses the same math as SR is tottally unfounded. That so-called Lorentz's transformation laws (Proceedings of Academy of Sciences, Amsterdam, 6, 809 - 1904) are:
x' = x/sqrt(1-b<sup>2</sup>), and
t = (t')*sqrt(1-b<sup>2</sup>)-(xv/c<sup>2</sup>)/sqrt(1-b<sup>2</sup>)which are not the same as those in SR. But, MacM kept repeating that LR and SR use the exact same math. Unless -- I strongly believe -- LR that MacM mentioned here is another of his crackpot idea, which has nothing to do with Lorentz's original idea.
****************** Extract ********************
Lack of an absolute reference frame:
Special Relativity rejects the idea of any absolute ('unique' or 'special') frame of reference; rather physics must look the same to all observers travelling at a constant velocity (inertial frame).
This 'principle of relativity' dates back to Galileo, and is incorporated into Newtonian Physics. In the late 19th Century, some physicists suggested that the universe was filled with a substance known as "aether" which transmited Electromagnetic waves.
Aether constituted an absolute reference frame against which speeds could be measured. Aether had some wonderful properties: it was sufficiently elastic that it could support electromagnetic waves, those waves could interact with matter, yet it offered no resistance to bodies passing through it.
The results of various experiments, including the Michelson-Morley experiment, suggested that the Earth was always 'stationary' relative to the Aether - something that is difficult to explain. The most elegant solution was to discard the notion of Aether and an absolute frame, and to adopt Einstein's postulates.
Now if I were you I would either quit claiming to know Relativity or admit that you have just deliberately asked a stupid question.
Let me suggest you not give up your day job yet. You have not mastered the art of re-writing history.
BTW: I use the term Lorentz and Lorentz Relativity in the generally accepted manner it is used today and that does not mean a Lorentz original publication which subsequently was improved by Poincare, etc. See the "History" section.
What you strongly believe is totally irrelevant to any factual discussion.
First, wikipedia isn't exactly a scholarly journal. If you want I can go in and change what it says myself.... regardless...
See that bold part? GPS doesn't do that.. it's just only designed to give results in one frame... that doesn't make it absolute... that doesn't make it unique... and that only makes it special because that's how we designed it.
I don't see that you have in any manner disputed the facts.
GPS is special in that it assume a local absolute refereance frame the eaths axis. It's performance does not conform to the reversable frame views stipulated in SR where earth clocks will appear slower if viewed from the orbiting clocks.
Care to dispute any further that GPS cannot therefore be viewed as an SR based system?
You are indeed quite silly. Lorentz Transformation described in the link you provided us is as in SR (not the original form given by Lorentz). The original form are as I have given you. If you don't believe just have a look on the reference that I gave you (Proceedings of Academy of Sciences, Amsterdam, 6, 809 - 1904).
The "improved" version is the one in SR, which is not the same as the original one. People don't use term LR to address Lorentz Transformation in SR, it is SR. It uses LT, that's all the matter.
Silly is to make such posts in apparent either willful disregard to what was posted or deliberate distortion of what has been posted. Read my lips "The referance to Lorentz Formulas is in regard to the 1904 improved formulas and the concept of Lorentz Relativity. There has been nothing said regarding his original published works.
That is your strawman issue for sake of agruement. Now move on and stop showing your ass.
And relativity does not disallow this... only you popularized version of realitvity phrases it this way.
And? They are calibrated to appear to tick at the Earth rate from Earth... what a surprise. If you happen to be in orbit with them with clock missing the extra calibration, that is indeed what you'd see.
Both of these issues have been addressed half a dozen times, and you are still pretending that your version is correct.
And somehow (if that were true) it alters the facts. Hardly. The earth's axis is not a frame of relative motion between clocks. Period.
And? I have posted several times here methods of using timers and offset calibrations to synchronize clocks. I was told I was stupid and did not understand Relativity. That such a technique would not synchronize clocks because of Relativity of Simultaneity.
It was argued in fact that given the clock scenario that when A accumulated 36,000 ticks, B would have ticked only 15,692 times and FURTHER that the view of B seeing A having only ticked 6,840 times at the time B read 15,692 ticks would be a bonafide reality as predicted by SR. This is a requirement of the reciprocity of views inherent in SR.
That is absolutely wrong just as I have claimed. My offset calibrated monitor clocks in B's frame read 36,000 when A read 36,000. Which I claimed would lsynchronize clocks. Every Relativists phoo pooed me and claimed I was all wet. However it is precisely the performance one sees in GPS.
So continue to claim I was wrong and you were right but the facts do not support your claim.
Only because it is. The view of A being slower from B's view does not occur in GPS, a real functioning system. Grow up you have been shown totally in error regarding the use of timers and calibration to synchronize clocks. Either SR is wrong or your understanding of SR is wrong. Which one do you choose to blame?
Separate names with a comma.