Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) and Doppler Theory of Gravity (DTG)

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
On 10.03.2011 22:49, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 08:45:16 -0600, Sam
wrote:
Are you claiming that the satellite clock is ticking out
more cycles per orbit than does the ground clock
because the photons are accelerated on their way down?

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/

Yes, because all clocks involve mechanical motion and such is affected by
gravity.
Put a Casio electronic watch on a artificial G spinner running at 10 Gs and
after few days you will see the result against
another Casio at rest.
So, you do not need to travel outer space to prove that time does not exists
and only motion does.

Mathew Orman

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
...
On Mar 10, 5:44 pm, Hw@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 19:35:21 -0600, Sam Wormley
wrote:
On 3/10/11 6:29 PM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 16:59:13 -0600, Sam
wrote:

GPS satellites are not in low earth orbit, Ralph.

Like I said Ralph, how come neither you, nor Seto, can calculate
the time dilation of an earth satellite clock in a circular earth
orbit at an altitude of 212 km above MSL? Why is that?

Please define this fictional quantity you call 'time dilation'.

I'm sorry you don't know what "time dilation" means in relativity
theory, Ralph. That's pretty blanking sad!

You obviously cannot define the imaginary quantity you call 'time
dilation'.

Why do you talk about it if you don't know what it is?

The point is, that you haven't the foggiest idea of how to calculate
the time dilation of an earth satellite clock in a circular earth
orbit at an altitude of 212 km above MSL.

That's because there isn't any.



Your world must be remarkably simple when you exclude everything you
don't agree with...

If it does not involve motion of matter in space then it is simply science
fiction.

Mathew Orman

"news.onet.pl" wrote in message
...
|
|
| "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
| ...
| On 10.03.2011 22:49, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
| On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 08:45:16 -0600, Sam
| wrote:
| Are you claiming that the satellite clock is ticking out
| more cycles per orbit than does the ground clock
| because the photons are accelerated on their way down?
|
| --
| Paul
|
| http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
|
| Yes, because all clocks involve mechanical motion and such is affected by
| gravity.
| Put a Casio electronic watch on a artificial G spinner running at 10 Gs
and
| after few days you will see the result against
| another Casio at rest.

Seeing the result doesn't tell me what you imagine the result will be.
When Michelson built an interferometer to measure the velocity of
light through aether he got a shock when he didn't get any result at
all, so don't ask others to do your experiment for you and say what
will happen unless you have done it yourself first.


| So, you do not need to travel outer space to prove that time does not
exists
| and only motion does.

Time exists, son. To say otherwise is meaningless semantics.

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"news.onet.pl" wrote in message
...
|
|
| "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
| ...
| On 10.03.2011 22:49, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
| On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 08:45:16 -0600, Sam
| wrote:
| Are you claiming that the satellite clock is ticking out
| more cycles per orbit than does the ground clock
| because the photons are accelerated on their way down?
|
| --
| Paul
|
| http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
|
| Yes, because all clocks involve mechanical motion and such is affected
by
| gravity.
| Put a Casio electronic watch on a artificial G spinner running at 10 Gs
and
| after few days you will see the result against
| another Casio at rest.

Seeing the result doesn't tell me what you imagine the result will be.
When Michelson built an interferometer to measure the velocity of
light through aether he got a shock when he didn't get any result at
all, so don't ask others to do your experiment for you and say what
will happen unless you have done it yourself first.


| So, you do not need to travel outer space to prove that time does not
exists
| and only motion does.

Time exists, son. To say otherwise is meaningless semantics.


I respect you religion.

Mathew Orman

"news.onet.pl" wrote in message
...
|
|
| "Androcles" wrote in message
| ...
|
| "news.onet.pl" wrote in message
| ...
| |
| |
| | "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
| | ...
| | On 10.03.2011 22:49, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
| | On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 08:45:16 -0600, Sam

| | wrote:
| | Are you claiming that the satellite clock is ticking out
| | more cycles per orbit than does the ground clock
| | because the photons are accelerated on their way down?
| |
| | --
| | Paul
| |
| | http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
| |
| | Yes, because all clocks involve mechanical motion and such is affected
| by
| | gravity.
| | Put a Casio electronic watch on a artificial G spinner running at 10
Gs
| and
| | after few days you will see the result against
| | another Casio at rest.
|
| Seeing the result doesn't tell me what you imagine the result will be.
| When Michelson built an interferometer to measure the velocity of
| light through aether he got a shock when he didn't get any result at
| all, so don't ask others to do your experiment for you and say what
| will happen unless you have done it yourself first.
|
|
| | So, you do not need to travel outer space to prove that time does not
| exists
| | and only motion does.
|
| Time exists, son. To say otherwise is meaningless semantics.
|
|
| I respect you religion.
|
I do not respect your mysticism or your handwaving.

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 21:35:23 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

On 10.03.2011 22:49, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 08:45:16 -0600, Sam wrote:

Henry, how come neither you, nor Seto, can calculate the time dilation
of an earth satellite clock in a circular earth orbit at an altitude
of 212 km above MSL? Why is that?

I just did the equivalent..... For GPS orbits....but there is no 'time
dilation'....for which you have no definition anyway.

http://www.scisite.info/fallinglight.txt


The very first GPS satellite was launched with
the "Relativity correction" switched off. The satellite
clock time was transmitted from the satellite to the Earth,
and compared to a clock on the ground.
After 20 days the satellite clock had advanced 764.6 us
more than the ground clock.
GR predicts the clock should have advanced 771.5 us
more than the ground clock, which is equivalent to
an error of 6.9us/(20 days) = 4E-12, which is about
the precision of the clock.

It matters not what he clocks did. They are carefully synched after being
placed into orbit.

What does the BaTh predict the difference between
the satellite clock and the ground clock should be
after 20 days?

it depends on drift.

Are you claiming that the satellite clock is ticking out
more cycles per orbit than does the ground clock
because the photons are accelerated on their way down?

Not at all.

I'm merely pointing out that hte inclusion of the BaTh correction for the
acceleration of the signals as they fall to Earth is very benefical for the
accuracy of GPS.

On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 00:30:40 -0600, "news.onet.pl"
wrote:



"Henry Wilson DSc" Hw@.. wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:44:21 -0800 (PST), PD
wrote:

On Mar 10, 3:52 pm, Hw@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 08:46:13 -0800 (PST), PD
wrote:
On Mar 9, 3:49 am, Hw@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 10:40:29 -0600, Sam Wormley
wrote:
On 3/6/11 10:06 AM, kenseto wrote:
A new theory of relativity called IRT and a new theory of gravity
called DTG is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.xps

I hate to burst your bubble, Seto, but there has not been any
observation that contradicts a prediction of special or general
relativity. They remain fruitful tools of physics.

Einstein's theory is just a plagiarized version of LET.
Seto makes a lot more sense than Einstein even if he IS just as
wrong.

Sense, Henri, in science is determined by agreement with experiment.

Correct. That's how big chief Androcles and I proved that light is
ballistic.

ALL experiment, Ralph, not cherry-picked ones.


There is no requirement that a model fits with your preconceived
notions of how nature *should* work.

Nature apparently works just as I say.

Apparent to you, obviously. But then again, you are pretty selective
about what you want to have appear in front of you.

Answers to your questions are outlined he

http://www.scisite.info/The_new_ball..._of_light.html


Tha is simple and clear but most of all, logical.

Naturally it would, to a brainwashed fool.

The plain fact is, variable satr curves prove that light is ballistic and
therefore that Einstein theory is crap from start to finish.

You can start burning your astronomy books right now.

Mathew Orman

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"news.onet.pl" wrote in message
...
|
|
| "Androcles" wrote in message
| ...
|
| "news.onet.pl" wrote in message
| ...
| |
| |
| | "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
| | ...
| | On 10.03.2011 22:49, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
| | On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 08:45:16 -0600, Sam

| | wrote:
| | Are you claiming that the satellite clock is ticking out
| | more cycles per orbit than does the ground clock
| | because the photons are accelerated on their way down?
| |
| | --
| | Paul
| |
| | http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
| |
| | Yes, because all clocks involve mechanical motion and such is
affected
| by
| | gravity.
| | Put a Casio electronic watch on a artificial G spinner running at
10
Gs
| and
| | after few days you will see the result against
| | another Casio at rest.
|
| Seeing the result doesn't tell me what you imagine the result will be.
| When Michelson built an interferometer to measure the velocity of
| light through aether he got a shock when he didn't get any result at
| all, so don't ask others to do your experiment for you and say what
| will happen unless you have done it yourself first.
|
|
| | So, you do not need to travel outer space to prove that time does
not
| exists
| | and only motion does.
|
| Time exists, son. To say otherwise is meaningless semantics.
|
|
| I respect you religion.
|
I do not respect your mysticism or your handwaving.





Nothing mystical.
Time is a method of measuring relative motion.
We compare all motion events with selected planetary periodic motion.
It is an extremely useful concept but it is not a physical entity or
property of space.

Mathew Orman

On Mar 12, 12:05*am, Hw@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 21:35:23 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:



On 10.03.2011 22:49, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 08:45:16 -0600, Sam *wrote:

* *Henry, how come neither you, nor Seto, can calculate the time dilation
* *of an earth satellite clock in a circular earth orbit at an altitude
* *of 212 km above MSL? *Why is that?

I just did the equivalent..... For GPS orbits....but there is no 'time
dilation'....for which you have no definition anyway.

http://www.scisite.info/fallinglight.txt

The very first GPS satellite was launched with
the "Relativity correction" switched off. The satellite
clock time was transmitted from the satellite to the Earth,
and compared to a clock on the ground.
After 20 days the satellite clock had advanced 764.6 us
more than the ground clock.
GR predicts the clock should have advanced 771.5 us
more than the ground clock, which is equivalent to
an error of 6.9us/(20 days) = 4E-12, which is about
the precision of the clock.

It matters not what he clocks did. They are carefully synched after being
placed into orbit.

Except they are not, that is done prior to launch. It would help if
you didn't make stuff up about published things like this.


What does the BaTh predict the difference between
the satellite clock and the ground clock should be
after 20 days?

it depends on drift.

Are you claiming that the satellite clock is ticking out
more cycles per orbit than does the ground clock
because the photons are accelerated on their way down?

Not at *all.

I'm merely pointing out that hte inclusion of the BaTh correction for the
acceleration of the signals as they fall to Earth is very benefical for the
accuracy of GPS.

Yet such a correction isn't used, why is that?

Please, find me a single reference that says the ballistic theory
calculation is used in the global positioning system. Feel free to
cite the Russian or Chinese versions, as well.

"Henry Wilson DSc" Hw@.. wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 00:30:40 -0600, "news.onet.pl"
wrote:



"Henry Wilson DSc" Hw@.. wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:44:21 -0800 (PST), PD
wrote:

On Mar 10, 3:52 pm, Hw@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 08:46:13 -0800 (PST), PD

wrote:
On Mar 9, 3:49 am, Hw@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 10:40:29 -0600, Sam Wormley

wrote:
On 3/6/11 10:06 AM, kenseto wrote:
A new theory of relativity called IRT and a new theory of
gravity
called DTG is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.xps

I hate to burst your bubble, Seto, but there has not been any
observation that contradicts a prediction of special or general
relativity. They remain fruitful tools of physics.

Einstein's theory is just a plagiarized version of LET.
Seto makes a lot more sense than Einstein even if he IS just as
wrong.

Sense, Henri, in science is determined by agreement with experiment.

Correct. That's how big chief Androcles and I proved that light is
ballistic.

ALL experiment, Ralph, not cherry-picked ones.


There is no requirement that a model fits with your preconceived
notions of how nature *should* work.

Nature apparently works just as I say.

Apparent to you, obviously. But then again, you are pretty selective
about what you want to have appear in front of you.

Answers to your questions are outlined he

http://www.scisite.info/The_new_ball..._of_light.html


Tha is simple and clear but most of all, logical.

Naturally it would, to a brainwashed fool.

The plain fact is, variable satr curves prove that light is ballistic and
therefore that Einstein theory is crap from start to finish.

You can start burning your astronomy books right now.

Mathew Orman

I was referring to your theory not to Einstein's personal religious life.

Mathew Orman