Dinosaur, I think you made a typo. Should read "He has fact backing up his beliefs." It would be difficult and not very intelligent to roll over just because Relativist choose to rub each others backs and not admit the truth. The truth. GPS calibrations are for relavistic affects of GR and LR. SR is not mentioned and SR prohibits the choice of referance frame that is used. It is dishonest therefore to try and claim benefit from LR's success and claim the relative velocity adjustment that is made is a use of SR. IT IS NOT. The facts are that SR uses the formulas of LR which preceeded it. So mathematically the relative velocity adjustment uses the same formula but it is not an SR adjustment since it is to a local absolute preferred frame of referance. The value of adjustment would be different (and constantly changing) if SR were used because the relative velocity would be between clocks where the relative velocity is continuously changing. It is outright fraud to claim SR is used in GPS because the very frame of referance used is prohibited by SR. Fortunately by using LR that adjustment can be made as a fixed change pre-launch. Where in SR any such adjustment would need to be dynamic since the referance frame would be in motion. No the facts are clear. It is also clear that no Relativist is going to admit that LR out did SR. They are bending over backwards trying to glean credit from LR. It is a joke. A very bad joke. In LR the adjustment works because relativity is unidirectional. That is only one point is ever considered at rest and the other is always the one in motion. That is why the earth's axis was choosen instead of the earth bound clock. Choosing the earth bound clock would be an SR function where the relative velocity between clocks themselves would be used and where either clock can claim to be at rest and the other be in motion. When you try to use that frame of referance GPS fails since that feature of SR (reciprocity) requires that both clocks be capable of being seen as running slow from the other clocks perspective. It is most obvious that it is a physical impossibility to precalibrate both clocks such that they each run slower than the other clock. It really is very simple. It is only the unwillingness of Relativists to step aside and get back to work that they choose to talk in circles and try to hide the fact that SR is doomed. Other than it may continue to have use and value to the SciFi movie industry.
You still have yet to show any math as to why these effects are 'wrong'. Your argument currently is "GPS uses realtivity, but it works, and must be wrong since they skipped steps". Of course you have nothing to back any of it up.
This is not a response to the issue raised. That is that GPS uses the earth's axis as its referance frame. A frame that is consider as a local absolute frame of rest. A frame that is prohibited by SR. The relative velocity adjustment that is made is inaccorance with LR theory, not SR theory. SR woud be between the clocks and requries that either may assume the privilege of being at rest and it be the other clock that was in motion. That causes reciprocity wherein both clocks must now be capable of running slower than the other clock. It is rather simple and clear why such a system could not be precalibrated so as to accomplish a feat which is physically impossible for a clock. that is to run both at it local proper time and also run slower so as to satisfy the view of the orbiting clock. Not stick to the point. GPS uses a local absolute preferred referance frame. A frame prohibited by SRT. Therefore you cannot claim any relavistic adjustment if an SR adjustment. The formula is the same but the value used is fixed and predetermined before launch. SR requires dynamic changes since the referance frame is in constant relative motion and the frames can be switched reversing the time dilation affect being claimed. SR cannot operate the GPSystem.
Is there any reason you feel the need to respond to the same post 2 or 3 times? And at the same time continue this lie?
Certainly. I posted that information. You have highlited the fact that "Relativity must be used". I believe I have already made that joint. But there are more than one form of Relativity. being discussed LR SR and GR. You highlighted "Relative Velocity" adjustment between the orbiting clock and earth of 7.2 micro-seconds per day. I agree with that also but your implication if fraud. That has nothing to do with SR. That adjustment in fact in in LR not SR. Now SR actually took LR's formulas which preceeded SR and uses the same formula. Since the formula is used does not make it an SR adjustment. The adjustment made is for motion relative to the earth's axis and the orbiting clock (an LR fame of referance which is PROHIBITED by SR), not between the orbting clock and the earth bound clock. , which would be an SR frame of referance. UTC is achieved by selecting a local absolute preferred frame of referance using LR. That cannot be done using SR where such calibrations is between moving clocks and that motion is constantly dhanging and must be reversable to qualify by definiton as being SR inertial referance frames.. Pardon me for getting a bit pissed but bullshit James R. I don't like calling you a liar but this is an outrage and a deliberate falsehood. I have NEVER said any such thing. UTC was discussed a few posts ago and I explained it as standard time, linked to GWT. And your point? All is true and it is true that SR is never mentioned. Only relative velocity is mentioned and that compensated velocity is not between clocks. It is referance to a LR NOT SR frame of referance. Now stop trying to Texas Two step your way around this and answer these questions? 1 - Does SR allow absolute preferred frames of rest? 2 - Does GPS directly use the SR referance frame being a frame between the orbiting and earth bound clocks? 3 - Is the use of a local absolute rest preferred frame of referance an LR referance frame? 4 - Does LR allow switching frames where either observer can be considred at rest? 5 - Does SR require in cases of relative velocity that the two observer referance points must be switchable. That is either clock be considered at rest and the other clock in motion. 6 - Is the formula for time dilation due to realitive motion in LR and SR identical? 7 - Did the formulas become generated by LR which preceeded SR? Your answer had better be No, No, Yes, No, Yes, Yes, Yes. In which case please justify trying to claim credit for SR by successes of an LR calibrated and operated GPSystem.
You just claimed that "GPS uses a local absolute preferred referance frame". Either you don't understand what that means, or you are attempting to lie.
Let me ask you a question James R. What is it that you think you gain by distorting the facts? I am not flip-flopping. My postiion has been the exact same for two years and I have repeated that position more than once. That is between LR an SR, LR is the better theory one which I could accept but am not yet totally convienced of all of it. I have not advocated it other than to show that it is used in the GPS, not SR. Deliberately false nonsense - No reply since that is not what I have maintained. Has it ever occured to you that I am right? Then read this thread I have posted two already. Your scatter gun rebuttals using superflous arguements and off topic innuendo is tiresome. You have screwed up here James R. The orbit clocks are pre-calibrated to cause them to operate in unison with the ground clocks, not to run at a different rates than the ground clock. Had your morning coffee yet? Do not try to dodge. Of course GR is involved but that isn't being discused. It is only the "Relative Velocity" adjustment that is being discussed. BTW it is nOT SR that is involved it is LR. That is by definiton since the operting frame used is actually prohibited by SR. Give us a break, you cannot think we are this blind and I know you are not. You cannot claim SR is involved and have a system the uses a prohibited form of frame of referance. For the umpteenth time it is not my concept. It is inherent in SR. It is nothing but a word that eliminates a paragragh detailing how each clock in SR may assume the rest frame and the other clock be in motion. Now if you agree that SR holds that to be true, then reciprocity applies damnit. BTW: Since you have made the statment that that term is never used. I have started to jjpay a bit more attention and I have seen dozens of articles and papers that use that term in describing SR. Now if you wantme to start listing all these links just say so. Or if you are grown up enough to accept the english language and the meaning of the term, lets move on. This is absolute nonsense and is absolutely false. I'll be back with a list of links that show you apparently do not understand GPS. Ditto in spades. You have just said Relativity is physically real. You have just said the affects of SR are therfore unavoidable. And yet you are saying it doesn't happen if we are not looking. Funny real funny. I like your physics. The fact is due to the LR relative velocity adjustment and the GR adjustment ALL clocks tic in unison being only minor updated for upload and download time changes etc. Read the damn links I provided before you start redefining how the system works. Only on his ability to understand the requisite math and on some issues but not his pet theory. BTW: What you thought does not make me a flip-flopper. Innuendo gains you nothing. Infact it degrades you. I believe in physics, not metaphysics. SR is metaphysics mis-labled. I already know you want to wiggle and squirm but lets proceed. I qualify my use of the term absolute later but for now that is irrelavant. You still didn't answer my question, so let me re-word. Does SRT require relative frames of refereance where each observer can assume the position of being at rest and the other being in motion? “ Does not SR require that I can claim either observer at rest and the other to be in motion? ” James R:"If you like.[/quote] This is not a word game. Yes or No. So you say. One these calculation have been made and the orbit clock synchronized with the earth ground clock. What relative tick rate do YOU claim exists between clocks?
You guys do know how the 38.4 microseconds per day figure was determined, don't you? It was not calculated by any method, SR, GR, or LR. It was actually timed, it was measured. A single satellite was launched in 1978 with a celsium clock. The clock could run at two rates, one uncorrected and one rate that was synthesized to correspond to what relativity predicted. The clock was running at the uncorrected rate when launched and would be switched over to the relativity-predicted rate if that rate seemed to be correct. The clock was never switched to the relativity-predicted rate because it was incorrect. The clock ran at the uncorrected rate, synchronized to an Earth-clock, for the 20 day timing mission. During the mission, the satellite clock continously ran 38.4 microseconds per day faster than the Earth clock it was synchronized with. Thereafter, all satellite clocks were precalibrated to run 38.4 microseconds per day slower than an Earth clock so all the clocks would remain synchronized. edited typo on date
Yes, and odd enough the adjustments relativity predicts are -7ms and 46ms. Guess what that adds up too..... It wasn't completed pre-calibrated because there are other effects which might have come into play. The fact is the predicted rate and the observed rate are the same.
The thing is, Persol, those figures were supplied by the relativity industry AFTER the 38.4 microsecond per day rate was established. Doesn't it seem a bit odd to you, for instance, in the NAVEX experiment in 1985 it was stated that a clock on the space shuttle ran 22.5 microseconds per day slower than an Earth clock because of relative velocity (SR) and the satellite clocks are currently said to run 7.2 microseconds per day slower due to relative velocity (SR)? There is only about 3 km/s difference in their velocities if an Earth- centered frame of reference is used for both, and the velocity of the satellites is much greater if a celestial frame of reference is used.
Why yes... that does sound odd, but I'd like for you to point to where that result is from. I'm under the impression that the 22.5 microseconds/day are the efefcts of SR and GR, in which case it's completely consistent.
Well, 10 seconds of google searching answered that question: http://media.nasaexplores.com/lessons/02-060/9-12_2.pdf This is for the sum... not just for SR.
Persol, the easiest place to point it out is in this other thread in which RTT posted the NAVEX data. In it, GR (gravitational effects) are only supposed to have a small role, about 10 per cent of SR effects. a link: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=42361&page=4
And? The gamma for the space shuttle is about 35 times that of the GPS clock. The fact that the GR difference on the space shuttle is smaller than the GPS sat only helps.
And so is the formula in both LR and SR. So the results should be the same. What is not the same is the function of the system based on the selection of the referance frame. The frame used is prohibited in SR and is an LR frame of referance. Guess what that tells you?
You do tend to jump to conclusions to easily. Science is a precise art. One cannot make absolute statements as you seem to like to do based on "well it is in the right direction therefore it has been proven".
Bullshit! So, you name one thing (special relativity) with two names SR and LR. What's a stupid idea. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! What frame prohibited by SR. Never heard about such a thing. Is this new? Please explain. You meant, using SR one cannot pick the center of the earth as the origin of reference frame? What's a stupid idea again.
Perhaps a short history course is in order. You are partially correct Relativity has at least two names. But I didn't name them and it was LR that developed the formula for time dilation not SR. The stupid idea was to switch from the LR a physical view to Einstiens pure mathematical model, which doesn't work in physical reality. Of course you can pick the earth axis as a referance. What you can't do is declare it as a preferred frame. You (SR) requires that one be able to be an observer on the GPS clock assuming a rest position with the earth and its clcok being in motion and see earth time running slower. I make the same challenge to you that I have made to Persol. Please show us you GPS system usisng SR and where I can switch view points and the clocks remain in synchronization. You do that and I will conceed.
