the GPS myth almost mythbusted

(Maurice Allais won the so-called Nobel Prize
for economics, perhaps one of the few
who were not working for "Wall Street & The City"
(of London, the gated financial community):

The Experiments of Dayton C. Miller (1925-1926) and
the Theory of Relativity by Maurice Allais
SPRING 1998

On My Experiments in Physics, 1952-1960 by M. Allais
SPRING 1998

L’anisotropie de l’espace (The Anisotropy of Space) by M.A.
Reviewed by Rémi Saumont
SUMMER 1998

RELATED MATERIAL:
Optical Theory in the 19th Century and
the Truth about Michelson-Morley-Miller
by Laurence Hecht
SPRING 1998

Website maintained by friends of Maurice Allais
http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/index.htm

In article , says...

On 9/7/11 9/7/11 - 2:16 AM, Byron Forbes wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_di...ween_observers
"Common sense would dictate that if time passage has slowed for a
moving object the moving object would observe the external world to be
correspondingly "sped up". Counterintuitively, special relativity predicts
the opposite."

Further reading of the article would show that there is no contradiction, and
that common sense simply does not apply.


Say no more.

In article , says...

On 9/7/11 9/7/11 - 2:16 AM, Byron Forbes wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_di...ween_observers
"Common sense would dictate that if time passage has slowed for a
moving object the moving object would observe the external world to be
correspondingly "sped up". Counterintuitively, special relativity predicts
the opposite."

Further reading of the article would show that there is no contradiction, and
that common sense simply does not apply. Indeed, common sense is developed in
our everyday lives, and there simply is no expectation that it should apply in
regimes far removed from everyday experience.

"Common sense" tells you that you cannot walk on the ceiling, yet
flies do so all the time. That is just a factor of ~400 in scale,
FAR smaller than the ratio appropriate for relativistic objects.


Anyone buying into TD needs their head read!

You simply do not have a clue. Your GUESSES and OPINIONS are worthless, because
you do not understand the subject and have never studied it.

Grow up. Stop trying to be what you aren't. If you are really interested in
physics (which seems doubtful from your posts around here), you need to STUDY --
nobody ever learned anything with their mouth open, or by posting nonsense to
the net.

For those who are interested in physics, I'll point out that
"time dilation" has been observed many times in many ways,
and agrees very accurately with the predictions of SR. Real
experiments trump the naive guesses of Byron Forbes (and others).


Tom Roberts


Ok stupid, let me walk you through it.

In any clock experiment we can move 2 clocks apart and later bring them back together at rest.

We have 3 phases of acceleration -

a1 - moving one away
a2 - move it back toward the stationary one
a3 - slow it down to rest

In between a1-a2 and a2-a3 we have 2 periods of constant v.

We can have this constant v for any duration we like. A large duration renders the effects of the 3 acceleration
phases as negligible. So this should always yield both clocks as being slower - which is ridiculous.

Then Einstein attempts a fudge with grav' TD. It's true - he's a lier!

Only an idiot cannot see that.

Behold how ****ing stupid this planet is!

Behold the pitiful ways the gods amuse themselves - silly ****s!

Aetherist wrote in
:

On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 22:05:35 -0500, Sam Wormley
wrote:

On 9/5/11 10:04 PM, Aetherist wrote:
On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 22:01:37 -0500, Sam
wrote:

On 9/5/11 8:23 PM, train wrote:
It all comes down to do you believe in SRT and GRT? I do not.

What's to believe? This is the way nature behaves--confirmed
*in every* test and observation ever performed.

There has *never been* an observation that contradicts a
prediction of relativity theory. Relativity remains a fruitful
to of physics (and engineering)!

Still a lie, an overt one at that...


Cite evidence!

Alias Effect

Ah, the 'effect' that manages to evade observation a rather large
percentage of the time?

the *need* FOR Dark Matter

Explain observation without it. Have fun.

DI Herculis

Does not meaningfully contradict GR. Feel free to elaborate by explaining
exactly what GR's prediction for the Heruclis system is supposed to be.


To name just a few 'observations' that did contradict the
PRE-diction of GRT...

Jerry wrote in
:

On Sep 6, 10:12*am, Aetherist wrote:
On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 07:52:15 -0700 (PDT), Jerry
Cephalobus_alie...@comcas
t.net wrote:
On Sep 5, 11:06 pm, Aetherist wrote:

I said the NEED! for DM... *The observed galactic rotations
DID NOT MATCH! GR's prediction! *Doesn't anyone know what the
prefix "Pre" (UN Intended!) means?

Bzzzt!

Galactic rotation curves do not match Newtonian predictions
either. This is NOT a problem with GR.

Except that GR becomes Newton's theory in the weak slow speed
limit. *Pay attention, the issue is NOT! the validity or not
of GR its the silly claim that no observation has EVER!
contradicted the PREdiction OF GR! *That is, on its face,
a falsehood and to persist in insisting so is overt lying!

Our inability to definitely isolate and identify the root cause
of the discrepancy between observed galactic rotation rates and
the observed distribution of luminous matter simply means that we
don't know for sure what is going on. It does not necessarily
point to a failure of existing gravitational theory. Rather, it
indicates a need for further study. Replacing GR with modified
gravitational theories have observational consequences that have
yet to be verified.

MOND (and family) completely fail the higher multipole peaks of the
CMBR, and literally require dark matter to explain cluster mergers. It
isn't often when I crack up while reading a paper about MOND, but that
did it.

MOND is an interesting heurestic that gets way more stuff right than it
ought to. Put it on the shelf next to the Balmer formula for the
Hydrogen energy levels.


MOND is strictly an empirical fit. The furthest developed
alternative theories of gravity seeking to explain galactic
rotation curves, such as TeVeS (Bekenstein), NGT (Moffat) and
Conformal Gravity (Mannheim), are all ultimately based on GR.

Jerry


That roughly sums it up, but there's a wrinkle which makes the
invocation of the theories even stupider than the already-low baseline.

All these alternative theories like TeVeS rely on some value of extra
scalar/vector/tensor fields on top of the regular GR Lagrangian, adding
oh so many raw degree of freedom which makes, in my opinion, any
prediction from those theories about dark matter into a joke.

People who reject dark matter but flee to those theories are some
combination of stupid, clueless, or tone deaf.

"Byron Forbes" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On 9/7/11 9/7/11 - 2:16 AM, Byron Forbes wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_di...ween_observers
"Common sense would dictate that if time passage has slowed for a
moving object the moving object would observe the external world to be
correspondingly "sped up". Counterintuitively, special relativity
predicts
the opposite."

Further reading of the article would show that there is no contradiction,
and
that common sense simply does not apply. Indeed, common sense is
developed in
our everyday lives, and there simply is no expectation that it should
apply in
regimes far removed from everyday experience.

"Common sense" tells you that you cannot walk on the ceiling, yet
flies do so all the time. That is just a factor of ~400 in scale,
FAR smaller than the ratio appropriate for relativistic objects.


Anyone buying into TD needs their head read!

You simply do not have a clue. Your GUESSES and OPINIONS are worthless,
because
you do not understand the subject and have never studied it.

Grow up. Stop trying to be what you aren't. If you are really interested
in
physics (which seems doubtful from your posts around here), you need to
STUDY --
nobody ever learned anything with their mouth open, or by posting
nonsense to
the net.

For those who are interested in physics, I'll point out that
"time dilation" has been observed many times in many ways,
and agrees very accurately with the predictions of SR. Real
experiments trump the naive guesses of Byron Forbes (and others).


Tom Roberts


Ok stupid, let me walk you through it.

In any clock experiment we can move 2 clocks apart and later bring them
back together at rest.

We have 3 phases of acceleration -

a1 - moving one away
a2 - move it back toward the stationary one
a3 - slow it down to rest

In between a1-a2 and a2-a3 we have 2 periods of constant v.

We can have this constant v for any duration we like. A large duration
renders the effects of the 3 acceleration
phases as negligible.

Yes.

So this should always yield both clocks as being slower - which is
ridiculous.

No. Only one clock is in an inertial frame of reference. The situations are
not symmetrical.


Then Einstein attempts a fudge with grav' TD. It's true - he's a lier!


Gravity has nothing to do with the Twin Paradox. The clocks show different
times because one twin stayed in a single inertial frame, whereas the other
twin didn't.


Only an idiot cannot see that.

Behold how ****ing stupid this planet is!

Behold the pitiful ways the gods amuse themselves - silly ****s!

You should study physics if you are interested in it.

"Peter Webb" wrote in
:

[...]

You should study physics if you are interested in it.



Negative intelligence: The more a person learns, the less he knows.

Do you think him learning more is really the answer?

In article , says...

"Byron Forbes" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On 9/7/11 9/7/11 - 2:16 AM, Byron Forbes wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_di...ween_observers
"Common sense would dictate that if time passage has slowed for a
moving object the moving object would observe the external world to be
correspondingly "sped up". Counterintuitively, special relativity
predicts
the opposite."

Further reading of the article would show that there is no contradiction,
and
that common sense simply does not apply. Indeed, common sense is
developed in
our everyday lives, and there simply is no expectation that it should
apply in
regimes far removed from everyday experience.

"Common sense" tells you that you cannot walk on the ceiling, yet
flies do so all the time. That is just a factor of ~400 in scale,
FAR smaller than the ratio appropriate for relativistic objects.


Anyone buying into TD needs their head read!

You simply do not have a clue. Your GUESSES and OPINIONS are worthless,
because
you do not understand the subject and have never studied it.

Grow up. Stop trying to be what you aren't. If you are really interested
in
physics (which seems doubtful from your posts around here), you need to
STUDY --
nobody ever learned anything with their mouth open, or by posting
nonsense to
the net.

For those who are interested in physics, I'll point out that
"time dilation" has been observed many times in many ways,
and agrees very accurately with the predictions of SR. Real
experiments trump the naive guesses of Byron Forbes (and others).


Tom Roberts


Ok stupid, let me walk you through it.

In any clock experiment we can move 2 clocks apart and later bring them
back together at rest.

We have 3 phases of acceleration -

a1 - moving one away
a2 - move it back toward the stationary one
a3 - slow it down to rest

In between a1-a2 and a2-a3 we have 2 periods of constant v.

We can have this constant v for any duration we like. A large duration
renders the effects of the 3 acceleration
phases as negligible.

Yes.

So this should always yield both clocks as being slower - which is
ridiculous.

No. Only one clock is in an inertial frame of reference. The situations are
not symmetrical.


You already answered yes above and now this?

Complete bull****.

Again, you already agreed the acc phases are negligible.

All that remains is the relative v. And that's all that 'stein refers to.


Then Einstein attempts a fudge with grav' TD. It's true - he's a lier!


Gravity has nothing to do with the Twin Paradox. The clocks show different
times because one twin stayed in a single inertial frame, whereas the other
twin didn't.


So then that clock is sped up from the other's point of view which contradicts TD.

TD is total bull****.



Only an idiot cannot see that.

Behold how ****ing stupid this planet is!

Behold the pitiful ways the gods amuse themselves - silly ****s!

You should study physics if you are interested in it.


So should you. You should also question it rather than swallow all the time.

"Byron Forbes" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"Byron Forbes" wrote in message
...
In article ,

says...

On 9/7/11 9/7/11 - 2:16 AM, Byron Forbes wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_di...ween_observers
"Common sense would dictate that if time passage has slowed for a
moving object the moving object would observe the external world to
be
correspondingly "sped up". Counterintuitively, special relativity
predicts
the opposite."

Further reading of the article would show that there is no
contradiction,
and
that common sense simply does not apply. Indeed, common sense is
developed in
our everyday lives, and there simply is no expectation that it should
apply in
regimes far removed from everyday experience.

"Common sense" tells you that you cannot walk on the ceiling, yet
flies do so all the time. That is just a factor of ~400 in scale,
FAR smaller than the ratio appropriate for relativistic objects.


Anyone buying into TD needs their head read!

You simply do not have a clue. Your GUESSES and OPINIONS are
worthless,
because
you do not understand the subject and have never studied it.

Grow up. Stop trying to be what you aren't. If you are really
interested
in
physics (which seems doubtful from your posts around here), you need
to
STUDY --
nobody ever learned anything with their mouth open, or by posting
nonsense to
the net.

For those who are interested in physics, I'll point out that
"time dilation" has been observed many times in many ways,
and agrees very accurately with the predictions of SR. Real
experiments trump the naive guesses of Byron Forbes (and others).


Tom Roberts


Ok stupid, let me walk you through it.

In any clock experiment we can move 2 clocks apart and later bring them
back together at rest.

We have 3 phases of acceleration -

a1 - moving one away
a2 - move it back toward the stationary one
a3 - slow it down to rest

In between a1-a2 and a2-a3 we have 2 periods of constant v.

We can have this constant v for any duration we like. A large duration
renders the effects of the 3 acceleration
phases as negligible.

Yes.

So this should always yield both clocks as being slower - which is
ridiculous.

No. Only one clock is in an inertial frame of reference. The situations
are
not symmetrical.


You already answered yes above and now this?


Yes.

Complete bull****.


No.

Again, you already agreed the acc phases are negligible.

Yes.


All that remains is the relative v. And that's all that 'stein refers to.


Yes.


Then Einstein attempts a fudge with grav' TD. It's true - he's a lier!


Gravity has nothing to do with the Twin Paradox. The clocks show
different
times because one twin stayed in a single inertial frame, whereas the
other
twin didn't.


So then that clock is sped up from the other's point of view which
contradicts TD.


Assuming "TD" means time dilation, that *is* time dilation.

TD is total bull****.


No. It is observed every day in particle accelerators.




Only an idiot cannot see that.

Behold how ****ing stupid this planet is!

Behold the pitiful ways the gods amuse themselves - silly ****s!

You should study physics if you are interested in it.


So should you.

I have.

You should also question it rather than swallow all the time.

I do.

The difference appears to be that I have studied physics and you have not.

Which is why you are unfamiliar with basic concepts in physics and
mathematics.

Like I said, you should study physics if you are interested in it.

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...
|
| Assuming "TD" means time dilation, that *is* time dilation.
|
| TD is total bull****.
|
|
| No. It is observed every day in particle accelerators.

Idiot Webb would only live for 2 hours if he were at rest like his
brain, resting in peace. But because he moves he lives much longer
thanks to time dilation. It is observed every day in cemeteries, people
that are at rest are as dead and decayed as muons in particle
accelerators that are at rest. Muons that move live normal lives in
particle accelerators.
You are ****ing insane, Webb, NOBODY has ever observed time
dilation.