I think I said that already. Strange how you think you can just blow off the fact that none of that precalibration is for relative velocity between clocks, or the fact the once in operation the orbit clock doesn't see the earth clock going slow. Hmmm. Denial, denial, denial. But that doesn't change the facts. SRT relative velocity between clocks is not evidenced. GPS is not proof of SRT as members here have claimed. Yet none of this is relevant. WOW. :bugeye: Yes LR works just fine. Who is complaining. I'm trying to teach you something but you never listen. Who said anything about a problem. I am stating facts. FACT: SR is not used in the GPS system. The GPS system works fine without it. FACT: GPS would fail if you tried to employ an SRT frame of referance. FACT: GPS works and there is no evidence of the earth clock slowing as predicted by SRT. The calibration of the orbit clocks does not include any relative velocity between clocks pre-adjustment. FACT: SRT's prediction about time dilation due to relative velocity is not supported by the GPS operation. What a joke. Hundreds of experiments which could be replicated using LR not SR. None of which alter the fact that GPS uses a preferred referance frame (LR) which SR disallows. Please list the expriment that proves the velocity addition formula. Particle accelerators only prove you cannot push a sail boat 40 Mph in a 30 MPH wind, regardless of how large you make the sail. Hope this example makes the issue clear enough for your limited mental capacity.
Please explain how you think SR would affect the GPS system, and why it would fail. SR does not disallow the use of a preferred reference frame. It says whatever reference frame you prefer doesn't really matter, as they are all valid. I'm not going to bother actually going to search again for you, since you have ignored any real referenced science for the last two years. If, by some odd chance, you actually care to look: Bucherer's electrons in a magnetic field Observations of binary stars The lack of any object moving faster than the speed of light etc etc etc Partical accelerators are generally not used with sailboats.... but if they were, you would wouldn't be able to move the sail boat faster than c no matter how big the sail or accelerator was. Actually no. could you type a little slower, and this time perhaps back up your ideas?
Do you really fail to understand that both clocks can not run slow relative to each other? Sheeesh :bugeye: A senseless play on words dodge. SR does not allow a preferred frame of referance. that statement is made in the normal manner of expressing the issue and is a verbtum representation of virtually every Relativist on this site stated claim regarding SRT. Those that are not here to just argue and pretend to know something they don't understand quite well so I will not argue with you. False and a lie. Selfserving dribble. I'll have a look. But I already know from your track record, none of this will support your arguement. I just want to come back and prove it but I'll do in in another thread and not drag this one off topic. Is this a joke? I really didn't think you would understand. Again. Denial, denial, denial. Which gains you nothing.
I will tell you, yet again, to try and understand the twin paradox. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=twin paradox&btnG=Google Search Otherwise, please explain why you expect special relativity to make the system malfunction. As has been explained before, your understanding of the twin paradox is lacking, but that doesn't make the theory wrong.
MacM: I have had a quick look into Lorentzian ether theory (or Lorentzian relativity, which is the same thing). I doubt you understand what it actually says. But, hey, it's different from Einsteinian relativity, so it can't be bad, can it? You'll support any theory which disagrees with SR and GR, even if you don't understand it. Can we now to take it that you are throwing your complete support behind Lorentzian relativity? Or do you have reservations about that, too? You wave in the breeze, so I'm just trying to determine which way the wind is blowing today. When it is shown that LR fails, my guess is that you will jump to some other theory. In the meantime, I'll address your incorrect statements. You fail to understand. The adjustments of the clocks are in complete accordance with the predictions of both special and general relativity. It is very easy to find statements to that effect on the web, if you care to look. Do you know that UTC is just another term for "Greenwich Mean Time"? I think you think it means something more than that. It is simply a matter of convenience to choose that frame. In SR or GR, you can work in any frame you like. But satellites revolve around the Earth, don't they? That is incorrect. The system is not based on LR as opposed to SR. In this particular case, it seems either can be used - at least according to another one of your heros Tom Van Flandern. That is false. Such an adjustment is included in the calibration process. That is also false. An SR description works perfectly well. Wrong again. You're just making this up, aren't you? Wrong. You can do the calculations in any frame you like. The Earth frame is simply a convenient choice, but not a necessary one. Wrong. You have no idea how to test the accuracy of a clock. I suppose you've never considered the matter. Take multiple copies of your clock and sit them side by side. Set their times to the same value and wait for a while (try a year or so). Do they still measure the same time? Try this for two or three grandfather clocks. Then try it for two or three atomic clocks. What do you expect the results will be after a year? Which type of clock is better, then? What is this "real time" thing you're talking about? Sorry, but you are a joke here MacM. Revisionist history. LR is just your latest fad. LIE. The GPS system is calibrated according to SR predictions. LIE. Use any frame you like and GR/SR gives the correct answers. LIE. Such an adjustment is taken into account. LIE. The fact that SR/GR calibration works shows that the GPS system is compatible with SR/GR.
You were doing fine until you found it necessary to cast innuendo. But go ahead. Total rubbish. You really should invest into some memory pills. I have said manytimes "I find Lorentz Relativity" more plausiable but not necessarily absolutely correct." Even time dilation in LR, being more acceptable since it avoids the reciprocity killer in SR, does not prove any actual affect on time perse. As has been shown many times and particularily with the atomic clock and GF clock comparision. Clocks are devices that simply mark time intervals at a particlular frequency. That does not mean the underlying time has changed. You may br changing your measurement but not changing time. Now on this issue I am flexable. That is it may or may not translate into an actual aging process. But my position is that it is inappropriate to declare that it does. We have absolutely no proof of that. More unresponsive innuendo. I have seen such statements. However, they are not the official word and they are generaly vauge refering only to "relavistic adjustments". Any that may infact claim adjustment for relative velocity between clocks, is simply false. That is not done. Of course I know what it is. It is stipulated how and why it is done. But that doesn't alter the fact it is absolute time for all clocks. The fact that it is anchored to GW doesn't change what type of time system is being used. It is universal time - i.e. standard time throughout the system. Certainly. Now using SR let me suggest you select the frame we have been debating for two years. The frame breeen the orbiting clock and the earth surface clock. Now lets apply SRT and its reciprocity where the orbit clock must see the earth clock run slow. It can't be done because the orbit clock has already been precalibrated to run slow to compensate for all relavistic views assuming the earth clock to be at rest. You cannot physically calibrate the system such that each clock is synshronized from both views, a SR requirement if the system is to operate as an SR system. SR fails to result in a functioning GPS system that remains synchronized. Oh, Oh, OH. This is good. I got you quoting TVF as your defense. I love it. I don't agree with Tom on a lot of things. Now lets get serious. The root question is quite simple. Does SRT require selecting a frame that is not absolute but relative? Does not SR reauire that I can claim either obseerver at rest and the other to be in motion? Can you operate the GPS system claiming that the orbit clock is at rest and that the earth is in motion? In wichcase the relavistic affects just reversed and earth clocks would need to be slower than the orbit clock while at the same time (due to pre calibration for the other view where the earth is at reast and the orbit clock is in motion) you have already physically calibrated in the opposite direction.? ANSWER? Of course NOT. It fails. Does selection of the preferred frame of the earth as an absolute rest frame mean the prohibition of the SR "No Absolute or Preferred Frame" has been rejected? ABSOLUTELY. Does that mean this is an LR and not SR system. ABSOLUTELY. False. Be specific you are obligated to do more than make mere fiat declarations. Show it using the official links I provided or any other "Official" link. Keep in mind precalibration must be specifically for relative velocity between clocks and not to the rest frame. You cannot do it. Period. For to do so you must (If you are in keeping with SR, calibrate such that both clocks run slow from the respective view points. Otherwise you are not making an SR calibration and SR will fail when you switch views. False. But you are obligated to show now that from the orbit clocks view the earth clock runs slower. Remember we made no relavistic preadjustment to the earth clock. It must now run slower if SR is physical reality. It doesn't. Hmmmm. What could that possibly mean? Wrong again. You're just making this up, aren't you?[/quote] I see you can't respond to that questions, can you? The GPS is a selected frame. Now make it work using SR. Sure you can calculate the earth clock will run slow but unfortunately for SR and your opinion the GPS clocks don't seem to cooperate with the predicted results. Who said anything about accuracy of a clock, or my ideas on how to test it. The issue is not the accuracy of the clock but what does the clock tick rate mean. Are you seeing time changing or are you seeing the clock process mark the time interval at a different frequency. Now tell me you know that for a fact and can prove it. Using this logic if my timex while flying in a jet liners loses time (weak battery) I am aging slower. Not acceptable conclusions here. Accuracy is totally unrelated to the issue. I proposed an excellent GF clock. It has the same stablitiy and accuracy of your atomic clock. The oint is the change in clock tick rate, not the accuracy of the clock. The joke seems to be on you I am afraid. Now you want to argue that time dilation is a function of a particular clock design and its accuracy and not a function of time changing the tick rate of any clock due to relavistic affects. The fact that your atomic clock is affected by gravity in one manner and my GF clock is affected by gravity in the opposite direction is indeed a signifigant problem for the claim that time has been affected. That the only thing being affected is the frequency of the process of the clock and its markers to the underlying time flow. Do I really have to go back and find where I first stated what I have re-stated here.? Your acquisation is false and constitues another innuendo. That is a lie. Meet the challenge above of stop saying it. Saying it does not make it so. You have been given my challenge. Show your work. Fiat doesn't cut it. Your statements are in contrast to the official calibration methods specified and their stated function and purposes. False and another lie. False. That is a lie ans a lack of common sense of actual demonstarated fact of being capable of making an SR selected frame (being a relavtive velocity frame where either may be viewed as at rest) GPSystem which will work. Go ahead show me the earth clock running slow from the orbital clocks view in the GPS. It does seem your beginning claim to show my errors has fallen a bit short. What we have are mere statements by you that are inconsitant with the official documents I have posted and the definition of an SR referance frame. You are obligated to correct that by posting bonafide information showing something contrary to the official version I have provided. You are obligated to show us in the GPS whichis working, that the earth bound clock is running slower that the orbit clock, since no precalibration of that clock has been made.
I have never seen such misinformation and distortions in describing how the GPS system works, by both sides. Have you physicists never heard of 'common view'? It is a system of absolute time and absolute simultaneity between the satellite clocks and the GPS recievers on a WORLD WIDE basis. It does have to be calculated at different labatories around the world. The clocks on the satellites, mostly Rebidium (sp?) are never updated themselves, but the positional and time signals sent by the transmitters are updated. But not very often, about every 14 days in standard mode and up to 180 days in AutoNav mode where they can coordinate their own clocks between themselves. And they aren't precisely with UTC time, the satellite clocks are not updated for leap seconds, but the signal they send out has a code to keep them in accordance with UTC time. The system control is located in Colorado Spgs. CO (used to be Falcon AFB, but I don't remember the name now) and that is the precise location that they use for UTC time.
From here (emphasis is mine): http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/AN1272.pdf Also: Regarding Coordinated Universal Time: In other words, this is an internationally agreed standard, not a principle of physics as MacM believes.
JamesR, Now I have to ask you the same question I asked 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… When you will decide: Enough is enough, we should not keep this BS on the first pages of our Forum as it is Forum's scientific face?
I would be interested to hear where you think my posts have errored from the actual GPS methods. Thanks.
MacM: You're flip-flopping as usual. In this thread, you have been steadfastly advocating LR, but now you say you don't believe it is correct. If the GPS system doesn't work because because of SR, and it doesn't work because of LR, why don't you tell us just why it works, MacM? Has it occurred to you that the concept of "frequency" depends on time? Please link us to the "official word", MacM, so we can see just what you are relying on. Please provide just one link which you consider to be a sufficient authority on this matter, and we'll take a look at that. Your scattergun approach is tiresome. Wrong. The clocks on the satellites are pre-calibrated to run at different rates to the ground clocks, and it is only the ground clocks which reference UTC. You are over-complicating things, since both GR and SR effects are involved in this situation. I don't agree with your concept of "reciprocity". In fact, the GPS satellite clocks always see the Earth clocks run slow, and Earth clocks always see GPS clocks run fast. This is due to the combination of GR and SR effects. Remove the GR effects and you are left with a symmetrical system, but only after the gravitational effects are factored out. Where is the GPS system used, MacM? On the Earth, or at the satellite end? At which end is synchronisation needed? Time to turn the brain on. Flip-flop again. I only refered to him because I thought he was a favorite authority of yours. But you don't believe him either. Wow, MacM. You sure have built an island all of your own. You don't actually agree with anyone. And seeing as you don't know what you believe yourself, that certainly leaves you at sea. There are no absolute frames. If you like. Yes, provided you make the measurements and calculations in the correct frame. I just explained to you one difference between a good and a bad clock. If a clock is good, it marks time correctly. No. Your timex in that situation is a bad clock, for reasons I explained previously. Do you believe that accuracy has nothing to do with the tick rate of a clock, then? What makes a good clock, in your opinion? Do tell. That is your argument, not mine. Are you losing track? No. Both clocks are affected by time dilation in the same manner. But your GF clock is also affected by the local gravitational field strength or acceleration, in ways that an atomic clock is not. Your GF clock is a bad clock compared to an atomic clock. Point that mirror at yourself and take a good hard look.
Sorry, Mac, I typed a post earlier, but lost my internet connection. I am not a physicist and do not know about how the presets are accomplished. But the thing is, the clock in the reciever is not really important, it does not have to be very accurate. The accuracy has to be between the satellite clocks and THE DATA SIGNALS the satellites broadcast. The satellite signals contain the location of the satellites and their time has to be coordinated with each other, since that is essential for the system to work. The recievers use the satellites location, time and time of arrival (the length of time taken from the time the signal was broadcast to reception by reciever) to calculate distance to the satellite and this is usually done for four or more satellites to give location, speed, altitude, etc. for the reciever. The satellite actually broadcasts its own time to the reciever, but if the satellite clocks and their rates are not synchronized with each other, the system won't work.
Not a problem. I have no objection to this post. The point would be however the simple fact that any velocity adjustment made is an LR adjustment by virtue of the fact the the choice of referance frames is an absolute one required by LR and prohibitied by SR. The mathematics of such velocity adjustment are identical but you cannot therefore claim SR has been used because the consequances of the frame selection radically alters the consequences of the realvistic function.
I have no intention of giving response to what clearly bears absolutely no technical contribution to the issue and is nothing but a series of repeated obvious deliberate lies, distortions and innuendo of unwarranted and unsupportable personal attacks. A very very poor post for a supposedly educated and intelligent person - self proclaimed anyway.
Yuriy: If you take him seriously, it is very frustrating to argue with MacM. Calling him a liar does not accomplish much, and allows him to score a few points by claiming that your remarks are off post. Consider it amusing to argue with him, but do not expect to change his views. He has faith backing up his beliefs. It is like arguing with a religious fanatic.
Dinosaur, There is no place for arguing: Each post of MacM is fulfiled with direct lies. And what score? "You lost, I won"? I even read his post by only one reason: to prevent young readers against lies he spread as true citations or facts.
quote: "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." ================================================================ I'm sure most physicists already know this, but that simple little quote there tells you that time dilation due to relative velocity is FALSE. I don't care if it is supposed to be Lorentzian ether or SR, it doesn't happen. As I've said before, the only need for slowing of the clocks is due to faster tick rate in a decreased gravitational field, which is 38.4 microseconds per day. I figure the SR industry had its fingers in these figures like so much else that would expose SR. Its not that most physicists believe SR to be true, they just don't want to admit Einstein tricked mainstream science for so long, don't want to give up the equations that seem to work sometimes. The things that are questionable don't really matter anyway, is your world going to change because the method by which the muon reaches the Earth is misinterpeted? Look at the quote above. Don't you see a huge problem? The statement says that the clocks are preset for 7.2 microseconds time dilation due to relative velocity RELATIVE TO THE EARTH. But the satellites fly in different orbits, some in different directions, and they have to be synchronized in time WITH EACH OTHER. Keeping them synchronized with the Earth for TIME DILATION DUE TO RELATIVE VELOCITY would not keep them synchronized with each other. The simple truth is the clocks must be preset to run 38.4 microseconds per day slower because of they run faster in lower gravity, that keeps them synchronized, that is the true 'gravitational redshift' if that is what you want to call it. I believe light travels faster and atoms vibrate faster due to a higher position in the gravitational field, slower in high gravity fields and faster in decreased gravitational fields. But it can't be that simple, can it? EDITED: cleared error about presetting clock rates (changed faster to slower)
I saw a quote in another forum here that reminded of something I had heard many years ago, but had forgotten. It was a quote by Will Rogers, an American humorist with a country bumpkin style of speaking. "It is not what you know or don't know, it is what you know that ain't so that will hurt you." I think that quote is something all of us need to keep in mind, myself included.
I can blow it off because it doesn't matter... that's not what GPS is for, or the reference frame being used. Please explain what part of relativity is not accounted for, that would break the system if it was. It's yet again your circular reasoning at work. 'GPS would fail if relativity is used, but GPS works, so they must have done the calculations wrong'... in the face of all logic, you still cling to this.
