Well put. I certainly take exception to this statement. I think the issues I raise are very good cause. Can you justify ignoring the comparative tick rates of clocks when computing distance by d = v * t ? I reject SR because it violates basic physics and substitutes assumptions which have not been demonstrated as real in the 100 years of relativity testing. I reject relativity because it's assumption of nothing absolute results in reciprocity physical nonsense and never observed, while making the assumption that there is an absolute results in what we have actually observed and has been emperically recorded. I reject relativity because I refuse to abandon good sound physics principles for a concept based on the artifical limit of there being only two observers (FOR's) in the universe for calculation purposes. I reject relativity because GPS support my view which involves absolutes. I reject relativity because the arguement that frames of referance and relativity of simultaneity somehow makes it impossible to assess comparative physics is shear nonsense and requires accepting a "Many Worlds View" to claim it is physical and not perception. I dare say these are hardly "without cause".
You reject SR with no coherent alternative. Just assuming "time dilation" is the only real effect of SR is not good enough. Your theory "as is" certainly is 10x worse than the shortcomings of SR.
I beg your pardon. I have not submitted a theory. I have only pointed out the flaw with the assumptions being made in SR and how logically the assumption of an absolute system is justified since it resolves the failures of SR. Also GPS supports that view. NOTHING support the SR view.
Sorry you have no insight SL but you offer nothing but rhetoric supporting SR which is clearly flawed, impossible, unsupported and going down the tube.
Well Mac, it's just too bad that your rhetoric and lack of critical thinking skills, along with a complete lack of insight into anything make you a poopie head.
I've never looked deeply into what GPS actually implies. It is such a complicated system which makes analysis hard.
I am addressing the issue with solid math and physics. You are running like a coward and posting unsupported and false innuendo. Hmmmm.
GPS implies the complete failure of every known branch of physics including molecular biology. Just ask MacM. He'll tell ya.
2Inq has a firm handle on the subject. The primary issue of interest is that SR relative velocity between orbit and i.e. the equator produces an incorrect time dilation. GPS uses preferred rest frames, not SR and prelaunch calibration of the orbiting clock results (after stabilization) the continuous synchronization between the surface and orbit. If SR were true and reciprocity existed then it would be physically impossible to cause such synchronization by the adjustment being made.
That's because you scare me Mac. If I don't run, you'll convince me with your solid math and physics and I'll turn to the dark side. My false innuendo and rhetoric and unsupported fiats and porches are all I have to support my misguided faith in SRT. My math and physics is a sham. I'm ascared.
Oops, I forgot. MacM designed the GPS system singlehandedly from the ground up. Trust him. He knows the system.
