A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The GPS Hoax: Last Refuge of Einsteinians



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 22nd 17, 10:56 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default The GPS Hoax: Last Refuge of Einsteinians

Alex Filippenko: "The clocks in the satellites up in space, these satellites communicate with your device in your car, they run at a slightly faster speed than the clocks here on earth. And if that difference in the rate of passage of time had not been taken into account by the physicist and engineers who designed and built the GPS system, GPS wouldn't work. So here's something of incredible military and commercial value that simply would not work if we didn't understand gravity in a fundamental way according to Einstein, this idea of curved space time." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVzZU0dt5fc

My comment on YouTube:

Not true. All clocks run at the same rate - there is no time dilation. One calculates the distance between the satellite and the receiver by multiplying the time by Einstein's constant speed of light, obtains a wrong value (because the speed of light is variable, not constant), "adjusts the time" in order to fix the wrongness, and finally Einsteinians inform the gullible world that Einstein's relativity is gloriously confirmed:

http://www.wired.com/2011/06/st_equation_gps/
"Your GPS unit registers the exact time at which it receives that information from each satellite and then calculates how long it took for the individual signals to arrive. By multiplying the elapsed time by the speed of light, it can figure out how far it is from each satellite, compare those distances, and calculate its own position. [...] According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, a clock that's traveling fast will appear to run slowly from the perspective of someone standing still. Satellites move at about 9,000 mph - enough to make their onboard clocks slow down by 8 microseconds per day from the perspective of a GPS gadget and totally screw up the location data. To counter this effect, the GPS system adjusts the time it gets from the satellites by using the equation here. (Don't even get us started on the impact of general relativity.)"

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old March 22nd 17, 08:43 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default The GPS Hoax: Last Refuge of Einsteinians

Einsteinians know no limits - always able to convey maximum fraud in minimum words:

New Scientist: "Special relativity established that the laws of physics are the same for any two observers moving at a constant speed relative to each other, a symmetry called Lorentz invariance. One consequence is that they would observe each other's clocks running at different rates. Each observer would regard themselves as stationary and see the other observer's clock as ticking slowly - an effect called time dilation. Einstein's general relativity compounds the effect. It says that the clocks would run differently if they experience different gravitational forces. For two decades, comparing atomic clocks aboard GPS satellites with those on Earth have helped test the effect - and always confirmed it." https://www.newscientist.com/article...ivity-of-time/

The author "forgets" to mention Einstein's false constant-speed-of-light postulate and so misleads the reader into believing that time dilation is a consequence of the principle of relativity alone.

This statement is also fraudulent:

"It says that the clocks would run differently if they experience different gravitational forces."

Actually general relativity says something much more idiotic than that: It predicts that gravitational time dilation occurs even in a HOMOGENEOUS gravitational field:

http://cds.cern.ch/record/538836/files/0202058.pdf
"the homogeneous gravitational field is the gravitational field which, in every point, has the same gradient of the potential. Such a field is produced by an infinite material plane with the constant surface density of mass."

This means that two clocks at different heights are in EXACTLY THE SAME immediate environment (experience EXACTLY THE SAME gravitational forces) and yet one of them ticks faster than the other. That is, according to general relativity, the effect (gravitational time dilation) has no physical cause.

Gravitational time dilation does not exist. Einsteinians measure the gravitational redshift but then inform the brainwashed world that they have measured gravitational time dilation, a miraculous effect fabricated by Einstein in 1911:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...ted-precision/
"A new paper co-authored by U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu measures the gravitational redshift, illustrated by the gravity-induced slowing of a clock and sometimes referred to as gravitational time dilation (though users of that term often conflate two separate phenomena), a measurement that jibes with Einstein and that is 10,000 times more precise than its predecessor."

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...-billion-years
"Einstein's relativity theory states a clock must tick faster at the top of a mountain than at its foot, due to the effects of gravity. "Our performance means that we can measure the gravitational shift when you raise the clock just two centimetres (0.78 inches) on the Earth's surface," said study co-author Jun Ye."

Clever Einsteinians know that gravitational time dilation does not exist. The gravitational redshift (blueshift) is not due to time dilation - rather, it is the result of "what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation":

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even though all the clocks go at the same rate. [...] As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the same rate. [...] The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation."

What "befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation"? They accelerate of course, just as ordinary falling objects do, and this variation of the speed of light (predicted by Newton's emission theory of light) causes the gravitational redshift (or blueshift):

https://courses.physics.illinois.edu...e13/L13r..html
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values.. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light."

http://www.einstein-online.info/spot...t_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. [...] The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

Pound, Rebka and Snider KNEW that their experiments had confirmed the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, not the gravitational time dilation predicted by general relativity:

http://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1...sRevLett.4.337
R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka, Jr, APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS

http://virgo.lal.in2p3.fr/NPAC/relat...iers/pound.pdf
R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation: "It is not our purpose here to enter into the many-sided discussion of the relationship between the effect under study and general relativity or energy conservation. It is to be noted that no strictly relativistic concepts are involved and the description of the effect as an "apparent weight" of photons is suggestive. The velocity difference predicted is identical to that which a material object would acquire in free fall for a time equal to the time of flight. [...] The view that the local time scale depends on gravitational potential appears to require a coherent source for confirmation. The present experiment is unable to distinguish between frequency changes and velocity changes, for example. It appears as if experimental comparison of clocks at different potentials would make a useful complementary contribution to the over-all status of theory."

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old March 23rd 17, 09:34 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default The GPS Hoax: Last Refuge of Einsteinians

The GPS hoax can be defined as "modern"; there is a classical hoax "confirming" time dilation:

According to Brian Greene, if the muon is "sitting in front of you", it will self-destruct very quickly. Muons moving at high speed live longer, as predicted by Divine Albert's Divine Theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnmnLmwBmfE

Muons that Einsteinians refer to as "sitting in front of you" or "at rest" are actually undergoing a catastrophe - their speed instantly changes from almost 300000 km/s to zero:

http://cosmic.lbl.gov/more/SeanFottrell.pdf
"The lifetime of muons at rest [...] Some of these muons are stopped within the plastic of the detector and the electronics are designed to measure the time between their arrival and their subsequent decay. The amount of time that a muon existed before it reached the detector had no effect on how long it continued to live once it entered the detector. Therefore, the decay times measured by the detector gave an accurate value of the muon's lifetime. After two kinds of noise were subtracted from the data, the results from three data sets yielded an average lifetime of 2.07x 10^(-6)s, in good agreement with the accepted value of 2.20x 10^(-6)s."

http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/ugrad...on-rutgers.pdf
"In order to measure the decay constant for a muon at rest (or the corresponding mean-life) one must stop and detect a muon, wait for and detect its decay products, and measure the time interval between capture and decay. Since muons decaying at rest are selected, it is the proper lifetime that is measured. Lifetimes of muons in flight are time-dilated (velocity dependent), and can be much longer..."

http://www2.fisica.unlp.edu.ar/~veiga/experiments.html
"If the muon decays at rest (a good approximation for muons that stop in the detector)..."

That is the worst possible approximation, actually. The muon crashes into the detector at a speed close to the speed of light, and remains trapped in an environment entirely different from the environment in which moving muons live. For that reason the lifetime of muons "at rest" is shorter than the lifetime of moving muons (which are not undergoing a catastrophe). There is no time dilation.

An analogous story (in a world even more idiotic than Einstein's schizophrenic world):

In order to measure the lifetime of a driver at rest, one must observe a car coming to a sudden stop into a wall, and measure the time interval between the collision and the last breath of the driver. The lifetime of moving drivers is much longer, as predicted by Divine Alfred's Divine Theory.

Pentcho Valev
  #4  
Old March 24th 17, 10:15 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default The GPS Hoax: Last Refuge of Einsteinians

Blatantly lying Einsteinians: Einstein was able to predict, WITHOUT ANY ADJUSTMENTS WHATSOEVER, that the orbit of Mercury should precess by an extra 43 seconds of arc per century:

http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physic...ww/node98.html
"This discrepancy cannot be accounted for using Newton's formalism. Many ad-hoc fixes were devised (such as assuming there was a certain amount of dust between the Sun and Mercury) but none were consistent with other observations (for example, no evidence of dust was found when the region between Mercury and the Sun was carefully scrutinized). In contrast, Einstein was able to predict, WITHOUT ANY ADJUSTMENTS WHATSOEVER, that the orbit of Mercury should precess by an extra 43 seconds of arc per century should the General Theory of Relativity be correct."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EOpHHjv5g8
Steven Weinberg (22:08): "People suspect that if you have a known fact, the theorist will be able to jiggle his theory to get it into agreement. If you know anything about the way Einstein developed General Relativity, that's not true. He did not design his theory to explain that extra little motion of Mercury."

Michel Janssen contradicts Steven Weinberg: Einstein did design his theory to explain that extra little motion of Mercury. Janssen describes endless empirical groping, fudging and fitting until "excellent agreement with observation" was reached:

https://netfiles.umn.edu/users/janss...0page/EBms.pdf
Michel Janssen: "But - as we know from a letter to his friend Conrad Habicht of December 24, 1907 - one of the goals that Einstein set himself early on, was to use his new theory of gravity, whatever it might turn out to be, to explain the discrepancy between the observed motion of the perihelion of the planet Mercury and the motion predicted on the basis of Newtonian gravitational theory. [...] The Einstein-Grossmann theory - also known as the "Entwurf" ("outline") theory after the title of Einstein and Grossmann's paper - is, in fact, already very close to the version of general relativity published in November 1915 and constitutes an enormous advance over Einstein's first attempt at a generalized theory of relativity and theory of gravitation published in 1912. The crucial breakthrough had been that Einstein had recognized that the gravitational field - or, as we would now say, the inertio-gravitational field - should not be described by a variable speed of light as he had attempted in 1912, but by the so-called metric tensor field. The metric tensor is a mathematical object of 16 components, 10 of which independent, that characterizes the geometry of space and time. In this way, gravity is no longer a force in space and time, but part of the fabric of space and time itself: gravity is part of the inertio-gravitational field.. Einstein had turned to Grossmann for help with the difficult and unfamiliar mathematics needed to formulate a theory along these lines. [...] Einstein did not give up the Einstein-Grossmann theory once he had established that it could not fully explain the Mercury anomaly. He continued to work on the theory and never even mentioned the disappointing result of his work with Besso in print. So Einstein did not do what the influential philosopher Sir Karl Popper claimed all good scientists do: once they have found an empirical refutation of their theory, they abandon that theory and go back to the drawing board. [...] On November 4, 1915, he presented a paper to the Berlin Academy officially retracting the Einstein-Grossmann equations and replacing them with new ones. On November 11, a short addendum to this paper followed, once again changing his field equations. A week later, on November 18, Einstein presented the paper containing his celebrated explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury on the basis of this new theory. Another week later he changed the field equations once more. These are the equations still used today. This last change did not affect the result for the perihelion of Mercury. Besso is not acknowledged in Einstein's paper on the perihelion problem. Apparently, Besso's help with this technical problem had not been as valuable to Einstein as his role as sounding board that had earned Besso the famous acknowledgment in the special relativity paper of 1905. Still, an acknowledgment would have been appropriate. After all, what Einstein had done that week in November, was simply to redo the calculation he had done with Besso in June 1913, using his new field equations instead of the Einstein-Grossmann equations. It is not hard to imagine Einstein's excitement when he inserted the numbers for Mercury into the new expression he found and the result was 43", in excellent agreement with observation."

Another blow to the Mercury hoax:

http://people.com/archive/after-he-s...e-vol-18-no-10
"After He Said Einstein Was Wrong, Physicist Henry Hill Learned That Fame's Benefits Are Relative [...] A major proof of Einstein's theory involved a peculiarity in the planet Mercury's orbit, which he attributed to the distortion of space created by the great mass of the sun. Central to the proof was an assumption that the sun is perfectly spherical. But Hill's observations showed that the sun is not perfectly round, a discrepancy that Hill has said may be "Achilles tendon of the general theory."

Needless to say, Henry Hill quickly became an unperson after 1982:

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwe...hapter1.4.html
"Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist : he had never existed."

Pentcho Valev
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
christian support outside the refuge G. Q. Lecain Amateur Astronomy 0 August 22nd 07 09:18 AM
PLAYALINDA BEACH, WILDLIFE REFUGE TO CLOSE FOR SHUTTLE LAUNCH Jacques van Oene Space Shuttle 0 June 27th 06 10:26 PM
Playalinda Beach,l Wildlife Refuge will close for Shuttle launch Jacques van Oene Space Shuttle 0 July 9th 05 09:32 AM
Playalinda Beach,l Wildlife Refuge will close for Shuttle launch Jacques van Oene News 0 July 9th 05 09:32 AM
Spacewalk danger, outside sub-systems; no ISS/shuttle refuge? Arty Hues Space Station 17 July 13th 04 12:12 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.