New article shows a fatal math error in SR

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by chinglu, Aug 9, 2013.

  1. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    No, I know you as a stubborn crank, you never accept that your idiocies are proven to be just that.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Shows you what chinglu knows. He thinks calling something nonsense is accepting it as fact. What a troll.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    GPS works for reasons other than SR.

    In any event, this is not a GPS thread.

    This thread proves SR results in a contradiction.

    Do you have anything to add to this?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    If you would like to post some math regarding the OP, then I would like to see that.

    If your math does not match the conclusions of the article, then I will teach you where you are wrong.

    Otherwise, you are wasting time.
     
  8. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    You're a lying troll. This means those kind of assertions coming from you are worthless.
     
  9. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    We all feel like tach when it comes to you. You're a 'scientific bonehead' and want to proof it every six months or so.
     
  10. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    If you have math to prove your comments post them.

    That way I can correct your errors in thinking.

    Otherwise, why do you post?

    This is a math forum and an article has been posted with absolute conclusions.
     
  11. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    The article stands without any ability from any of you to challenge its conclusions.
     
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,597
    Like Marcello Truzzi once said, "In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded." Some math based on a false assumption doesn't meet that burden.
     
  13. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    GPS would not work if the SR corrections were not implemented in the system. That's your downfall.

    Any attack on SR is an attack on GPS. So yes, it is.

    This thread proves you are naive and narcissistic, Andrew Banks.
     
  14. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    No problem.

    The article absolutely proves its case, not with opinion, but with SR math.

    It shows that SR predicts a contradiction.

    If you claim the assumptions are false, you are claiming SR is false since that is what was assumed.

    So, SR is false.
     
  15. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    For the 99th time it's a challenge to the premise, not the conclusions. Hence "bonehead".
     
  16. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    The article proves SR results in a contradiction.

    Therefore, some other theory is responsible for GPS.

    It is that simple.
     
  17. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    So far, no one has shown that any assumption in the article is not SR.

    So, you are just posting junk over and over.
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,597
    No, it doesn't, because it is based on a false assumption.

    Let's use another example. Let's say you take two atoms of hydrogen and two atoms of antihydrogen. What would you have once they combined? You might correctly think they would annihilate each other and produce energy.

    "Wrong!" a dolt could say. "2+2=4. The math PROVES that if you combine them you just get more hydrogen!"

    Is his math wrong? No. Are his assumptions? Yes.
     
  19. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    How bout this, Andrew Banks ? I'll see your bogus claim to authority and raise you one university professor.


    Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion . . . A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day.

    The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! This sounds small, but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond accuracy, and 38 microseconds is 38,000 nanoseconds. If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day!
    :
    The engineers who designed the GPS system included these relativistic effects when they designed and deployed the system. For example, to counteract the General Relativistic effect once on orbit, they slowed down the ticking frequency of the atomic clocks before they were launched so that once they were in their proper orbit stations their clocks would appear to tick at the correct rate as compared to the reference atomic clocks at the GPS ground stations. Further, each GPS receiver has built into it a microcomputer that (among other things) performs the necessary relativistic calculations when determining the user's location.


    http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
     
  20. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Your article is a joke. Learn some physics. It's a fact that every attempt to explain relativity for you has been met with ridicule from the 'bonehead' that's you. Screw off. You're going to believe your nonsense no matter what happens. Go do it somewhere else.

    Maybe start here.

    This is the relativistic requirement.

    http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
     
  21. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    I do not care about your example.

    The OP contains an article that cannot be refuted.

    No one has proven anything wrong with it.

    Some keep parroting over and over that the assumptions are wrong yet no one has proven any assumptions are not SR assumptions.

    The article stands.
     
  22. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    All assumptions and all math in the article have been flushed out in this thread and proven to be correct.

    That is all that is needed.

    It is time for you to face the facts.
     
  23. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    The article proves SR results in a contradiction. No one can refute that.

    So, some other theory explains current experiments. What is so hard to understand about that?
     

Share This Page