the GPS myth almost mythbusted

In article ,
says...


The relevance to SR is that GR TD exists to try to cover up the hopelessness of SR TD.

Einstein had a lot of fun with all this. He must have had a good ole laugh to himself as he bull****ted the world
and still does to this day.

bhahahahahahahahahahaha.....................

That seems to be consequence
of your confusion about SR and GR relation.


--
Poutnik

People, who do not know the manners,
are ignored without notice.

In article , says...

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

"Byron Forbes" wrote in message
...

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.


Point out the flaws in this -





Let's say I have 2 identical synchronized clocks initially together at
rest.

We will now accelerate one away (a1), back (a2) and then slow it to rest
again alongside the other (a3).

In between a1-a2 and a2-a3 we have 2 periods of constant v that can be as
long as we wish so as to make the effects
of a1, a2 and a3 (all constant in magnitude and duration) insignificant.

So whatever clock we stay with, the result predicted by SR should be that
the other slowed down - ridiculous.


No. That is not the result predicted by Relativity. Relativity predicts that
the clock which moved away and came back will show an earlier time (less
time will have elapsed) than the clock which stays in one place.

They are not in symmetrical positions, as only one of them remained in the
same inertial frame.

That is the error.

Pleased to help.


So we stay with the other observer - how does SR explain that?

See how the other clock will now be sped up? Is there an anti TD theory I missed somewhere?

Amazing how you seem to have overlooked this little detail for, what, 50 years?

"Byron Forbes" wrote:
, Poutnik says...
says...



KW wrote:
A few years ago, you have agreed with the late Van Flandern on simple
acceleration does not manifest time dilation as shown in any
centrifuge. So, what is the problem? Why go back to bull****? Why
such wishy-washy crap? Running out of options to justify your
religious belief in SR is more likely the case. shrug

Are insulting class words really your strongest argument ?
What does SR have to do with acceleration ?
And, concerning GR, time speed dependence on gravity
acceleration can be manifested by any precise atomic clocks.

"Byron Forbes" wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
"Other explanations account for the effects of acceleration.
Einstein, Born and Møller invoked gravitational time dilation
to explain the aging based upon the effects of acceleration."
The relevance to SR is that GR TD exists to try to cover up
the hopelessness of SR TD.
Einstein had a lot of fun with all this. He must have had a good
ole laugh to himself as he bull****ted the world
and still does to this day.
bhahahahahahahahahahaha.....................

hanson wrote:
ahahaha... Right. Einstein so did.
Einstein, in his own words, just a year before he
folded his relativity tent, closed his umbrella, kicked
the bucket and finally puffed and bit the grass,....
Einstein wrote, in 1954, to his Jewish friend Besso:



|||AE:||| "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to
|||AE:||| reality, they are not certain; and as far as they
|||AE:||| are certain, they do not refer to reality."
|||AE:||| "why would anyone be interested in getting exact
|||AE:||| solutions from such an ephemeral set of equations?"
|||AE:||| "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
|||AE:||| based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous
|||AE:||| structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire
|||AE:||| castle in the air, [my] gravitation theory included."
|||AE:||| "If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber".
|||AE:||| ... [and I would make blouses instead (see link)]
http://tinyurl.com/Blouse-Plumber-Einstein



So, that then is the end of Einstein's infamous fantasy
career-journey which concludes, long last, with what
most enlightened folks have suspected for a long time,
if not outright from the start, that:
====== SR is short for STUPID RANT and ======
===== GR is just a GULLIBLE RECITATION ====



Einstein flagellated himself & came clean (1), after
he was used by the Zios for their own, to them then
noble political agenda. (2)
http://tinyurl.com/E-mc2-existed-before-Einstein (1)
http://tinyurl.com/How-Einstein-stole-E-mc-2 (1)
http://tinyurl.com/Kwublee-views-Einsteins-Theft (1)
http://tinyurl.com/Zio-Politics-with-Relativity (2)
http://tinyurl.com/Alberts-Zio-Politics-w-SR-GR (2)



GR/SR is a useless crock o'****, save it being
"a Base", an "al Qaida", for Einstein Dingleberries
to worship Albert's sphincter.. although AE said
not to do that.


--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ---

In , on 09/12/2011
at 06:49 PM, Tom Roberts said:

The same holds in SR, but there is no simple description.

Sure there is; a straight line between two (timelike separated) points
in space-time has a longer interval than any other curve between the
two points.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT http://patriot.net/~shmuel

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to

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

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

"Byron Forbes" wrote in message
...

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.


Point out the flaws in this -





Let's say I have 2 identical synchronized clocks initially together at
rest.

We will now accelerate one away (a1), back (a2) and then slow it to
rest
again alongside the other (a3).

In between a1-a2 and a2-a3 we have 2 periods of constant v that can be
as
long as we wish so as to make the effects
of a1, a2 and a3 (all constant in magnitude and duration)
insignificant.

So whatever clock we stay with, the result predicted by SR should be
that
the other slowed down - ridiculous.


No. That is not the result predicted by Relativity. Relativity predicts
that
the clock which moved away and came back will show an earlier time (less
time will have elapsed) than the clock which stays in one place.

They are not in symmetrical positions, as only one of them remained in
the
same inertial frame.

That is the error.

Pleased to help.


So we stay with the other observer - how does SR explain that?


Explain what?

That the stay-at-home twin is older?

He uses SR.


See how the other clock will now be sped up? Is there an anti TD theory I
missed somewhere?


I don't know if you have missed any "anti-TD" theories. None of them are
correct, as TD is observed (literally) every day in dozens of particle
accelerators around te world.

Amazing how you seem to have overlooked this little detail for, what, 50
years?

What little detail?

that is the just the idea, because
atoms have angular (internal) momenta,
perfectly real in QM, even though the Schroedinger's cat school will
insist taht it is only abstract (but, not Schroedinger's head .-)

no need to invoke the sci-fi notion of Gravitational TD to see
that oscillations will be effected by gravity/acceleration.

thus:
it is not true of Ampere's and Weber's electrodynamics,
the categorical "need" for an aether; note that
they worked a bit before the atomic theory was much, and
Weber hypothesized what we now call the electron, as well
as what is now known as the "strong force."

Ampere's most important hypothesis & experiment is known
as the "longitudinal force."

In article , says...

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

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

"Byron Forbes" wrote in message
...

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.


Point out the flaws in this -





Let's say I have 2 identical synchronized clocks initially together at
rest.

We will now accelerate one away (a1), back (a2) and then slow it to
rest
again alongside the other (a3).

In between a1-a2 and a2-a3 we have 2 periods of constant v that can be
as
long as we wish so as to make the effects
of a1, a2 and a3 (all constant in magnitude and duration)
insignificant.

So whatever clock we stay with, the result predicted by SR should be
that
the other slowed down - ridiculous.


No. That is not the result predicted by Relativity. Relativity predicts
that
the clock which moved away and came back will show an earlier time (less
time will have elapsed) than the clock which stays in one place.

They are not in symmetrical positions, as only one of them remained in
the
same inertial frame.

That is the error.

Pleased to help.


So we stay with the other observer - how does SR explain that?


Explain what?

That the stay-at-home twin is older?

He uses SR.


So time can speed up to with SR TD? Never knew that!



See how the other clock will now be sped up? Is there an anti TD theory I
missed somewhere?


I don't know if you have missed any "anti-TD" theories. None of them are
correct, as TD is observed (literally) every day in dozens of particle
accelerators around te world.


Sure they do. How much does time speed up for them?


Amazing how you seem to have overlooked this little detail for, what, 50
years?

What little detail?


There you go again - you missed it again!

you haven't presented any hypothesis;
thank you very much!

I have presented a hypothesis, abovesville,
just in case you feel like participating, dood.

There - you missed it again!

thus:
atoms have angular (internal) momenta,
perfectly real in QM, even though the Schroedinger's cat school will
insist taht it is only abstract (but, not Schroedinger's head .-)

that oscillations will be effected by gravity/acceleration.

thus:
it is not true of Ampere's and Weber's electrodynamics,
the categorical "need" for an aether; note that
they worked a bit before the atomic theory was much, and
Weber hypothesized what we now call the electron, as well
as what is now known as the "strong force."

Ampere's most important hypothesis & experiment is known
as the "longitudinal force."

On Aug 21, 3:58*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Aug 20, 7:37 am, Jerry wrote:

On Aug 20, 8:30 am, Poutnik wrote:
Satellites do not, but the whole system do.

Correct.

Bull****. *shrug

It is quite amazing how crackpots distort everything that they
read.

What are you babbling about? *shrug

The complete story of why relativistic corrections are needed in
GPS is rather long. You need to understand that GPS comprises
a Space Segment, a Control Segment, and a User Segment.

Nonsense. *Initially, self-styled physicists had laid out a system
that suggested relativistic correction if existed, but engineers had
outsmarted these idiots and came up with a system that does not
require relativistic correction if existed. *shrug

Well, from an engineering point of view it's mostly still:
Physicists who can't see the difference between GPS and Wireless
Telecomm,
and Einstein's Electronics design, deserve to work in an elevator.

Doctor's who can't see the difference between Holograms. Flash
Memory, and QWERTY
deserve to do recursive reviews of 1954 DNA Treatises'.






In a more thorough analysis, any relativistic correction is basically
resetting a counter. *It is merely a software solution and Mr. Wilson
had pointed out. *You can fly with cheap oscillations driving your
chronological time if you can devise clever ways to synchronize all
the satellite chronological time. *System similar to IEEE1588 or NTP
should easily suffice, and it is still a software solution. *shrug

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE158...ynchronization

[snipped unrelated garbage to make Jerry the **** head looks like
someone who knew what it is talking about]

Among other functions, these ground stations closely monitor the
positions of the satellites, and the master control station sends
updated ephemerides information to the satellites as they pass
over the large ground-antenna stations.

Position correction is a statistical issue. *Relativistic error is a
few hundred parts per trillion. *Just how would that affect the
positions of each satellite when each is moving at much lower speed
than the speed of light? *shrug

In order to perform their function, THESE GROUND STATIONS NEED
PRECISE TIME. How do they set their clocks? Through the GPS
itself.

Bull****! *Show analysis. *shrug

The ability to distribute precise time is an absolutely essential
aspect of the GPS system, since without precise time, the earth-
based control stations that monitor the satellites' positions and
establish "ground truth" for the system cannot perform their
function.

The requirement in precision timing of the chronological time applies
to only the orbiting satellites and no one else. *shrug *Show your
analysis otherwise. *shrug

Unless the satellites' clocks are synchronized with ground clocks
via the GR correction, there is simply no feasible way for them
to distribute time around the globe.

This is an absolute myth. *Well, He has had enough with these
bull****s from someone who does not even understand Snell’s law. *Your
pillar of support who has been 24/7 in its vigilance in spreading lies
and bull**** (namely Paul Draper, PD, an ex-professor of physics) had
choked on that high-school level physics. *You have absolutely no
credibility. *shrug

[rest of cyber diarrhea snipped]

So, **** off. *shrug