special relativity's second postulate is invalid

On Jan 11, 8:51 am, Tom Roberts wrote:

Science is about what _IS_ and how we model it, not what might be possible.

Science encompasses more than what you think, Tom. Science explores
what might be possible, and that is how scientific development evolves
for the better. Of course, for every validation of one such possible,
proposed hypothesis, there are more of the silly, stupid, and just
ridiculously wrong ones which both SR and GR are among. It is OK to
explore what might be possible followed up by thorough experimental
verifications. shrug

At any given time, scientists use and apply the theories they have, and test
them with experiments that are possible AT THAT TIME. So around 1800, Newtonian
physics was used, applied, tested, and found consistent with all experiments;
engineers of the day used it to usher in the industrial revolution.

And still do. shrug

So around
1880, Maxwellian physics was used, applied, tested, and found consistent with
all experiments; engineers of the day used it to implement new and amazing
produced such as radio.

And still do. shrug

(But in 1887 - 1920 experiments started showing hints of
failures in both Newtonian and Maxwellian physics...)

Actually, it started in 1881 with Michelson’s solo experiment in the
same light as the more famous 1887 MMX. The results were null, then.
The scientific communities hand-waved it away accusing lack of
technological expertise. However, Voigt started working on how the
null results of the 1881 experiment would affect physics. The result
is the Voigt transform with the postulate that the speed of light is
invariant to any observers. shrug

Today, Newtonian physics is KNOWN to be invalid, and is merely an approximation
to relativity, because that is what TODAY'S experiments show.

You have so much faith in relativity. Betting your life on
relativity, it is no wonder that you refuse to let it go even if the
mathematics and experimental results have shown you that relativity is
not valid in general but is so only in very low speeds. shrug

TODAY, relativity
is used, applied, tested, and found consistent with all experiments;

Only for Einstein Dingleberries, Tom. shrug

engineers
have used it to implement systems far beyond peoples' wildest imaginations 200
years ago, such as the GPS and the thousands of particle accelerators around the
world.

Bull****, Tom. GPS needs no relativity. We have addressed that
before. Koobee Wublee has shown why that is so through rigorous
mathematics and has demystified what parameter is actually necessary
to be synchronized and to whom --- not to ground stations. TOM IS NO
ENGINEER. Please don’t lie about what engineers do. shrug

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...47920d8e567050


TODAY, the standard model has similarly replaced Maxwellian physics;
engineers have not yet come up with useful applications.

That is because what Maxwell had come up with about 150 years ago
still run in today’s high-tech electronics industries. This, of
course, does not validate SR or GR. shrug

The "relativity deniers" around here are not scientists, and
are largely unaware of the relevant experiments. Not a single
one of them has ever provided any information that could lead
to the refutation of relativity; rather, they have all given
ample evidence of their personal ignorance.

What type of babbling excuse of your own ignorance is that? You are
the one who has failed to understand scientific method. shrug

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...5372c9a3823bac

All Koobee Wublee wants to accept your SR and GR is an experiment that
shows SR or GR valid but not their antitheses. Koobee Wublee knows
you cannot and have shown you mathematically why that is so. You are
continuing to behave like a butt head, a moron, and an idiot with lack
of professionalism in your own education (maybe lack of it). shrug

Whatever might happen in the future, including new experiments and new theories,
that is NOT part of science today.

Oh, no, Tom. Exploring the fringe of science is how science is going
to progress. Well, SR and GR actually fit into that role. However,
what tries to explore the fringe of science must be analyzed and fully
attacked with rigorous mathematics. If it stands these onslaughts,
experimental verifications in full accordance with scientific method
must be performed to verify the proposed fringe of science. Only that
that, it can become a valid model. Both SR and GR failed miserably in
mathematical consistencies through the attacks from Koobee Wublee,
Dingle, and many others. Recall that you are almost speechless when
Koobee Wublee come down on your mysticism. Koobee Wublee knows you
know very little about the mathematics involved, so He is not
expecting you to challenge His authorities over you. shrug

This OUGHT to be obvious. It is certainly
possible that future experiments will refute relativity, but that is unlikely to
happen anytime soon. It is QUITE CLEAR that none of the "relativity deniers"
will be involved.

Tom is no scientist but a henchman of the church of SR and GR trying
to force everyone to convert to that fouled religion. Sad, but true.
shrug

On Jan 12, 7:17 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 1/12/13 1/12/13 1:50 AM, Bud Fudlacker wrote:

Koobee keeps repeating this lie.

One of the requirements of the GPS is that GPS time remain equal to UTC within
one microsecond, modulo leap seconds (UTC uses them, GPS does not).

Years of educating Tom, he has finally given in that this
synchronization of clocks between the ground and the satellites.
shrug

Again, what has to be synchronized among the GPS satellites is the
calendar time not the clocks feeding the calendar time as Koobee
Wublee has explained in the following post. shrug

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...47920d8e567050

Maintaining any calendar time, such as the satellite internal time or
the UTC, to within 1usec is an engineering challenge that certainly
does not involve any relativity. It involves a clever software
algorithms and protocols similar to the IEEE1588. Of course, the
clock feeding the calendar time has to be much higher than 1MHz which
is easily achievable. shrug

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

Tom, you need to understand technologies better instead of embracing
the occult science everytime he are lost about how things can be
done. There are no mystical laws of physics involved with the GPS or
any infrastructures that require such type of synchronization in
calendar time. shrug

[rest of preaching in mystical laws of physics snipped]

On 1/12/13 3:07 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Years of educating Tom, he has finally given in that this
synchronization of clocks between the ground and the satellites.
shrug

Sorry to but in, but Tom has it exactly right!

One of the requirements of the GPS is that GPS time remain equal to UTC within one microsecond, modulo leap seconds (UTC uses them, GPS does not). Without the correction to the satellite clock dividers, as calculated using GR, this requirement could not be met; indeed, the ground segment and the space segment could not be used together. We KNOW this because the first GPS satellites were operated for a few weeks without the modified divider, and their clocks drifted as predicted by GR; this drift is MUCH larger than measurement resolutions.

Yes, daily corrections to the individual satellites are generated by the ground segment and uploaded to the satellites for rebroadcast to the GPS receivers. There are a large number of small corrections; the largest are usually orbit corrections, but they also include clock drift, effects of sun and moon, current ionosphere parameters, etc. The GR correction corresponds to about 38 microseconds per day; the daily corrections (other than orbit) are typically a few nanoseconds -- a thousand times smaller.

On Jan 12, 1:07 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jan 12, 7:17 am, Tom Roberts wrote:

One of the requirements of the GPS is that GPS time remain equal to UTC within
one microsecond, modulo leap seconds (UTC uses them, GPS does not).

Years of educating Tom, he has finally given in that this
synchronization of clocks between the ground and the satellites.
shrug

Again, what has to be synchronized among the GPS satellites is the
calendar time not the clocks feeding the calendar time as Koobee
Wublee has explained in the following post. shrug

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...47920d8e567050

Maintaining any calendar time, such as the satellite internal time or
the UTC, to within 1usec is an engineering challenge that certainly
does not involve any relativity. It involves a clever software
algorithms and protocols similar to the IEEE1588. Of course, the
clock feeding the calendar time has to be much higher than 1MHz which
is easily achievable. shrug

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

Tom, you need to understand technologies better instead of embracing
the occult science everytime he are lost about how things can be
done. There are no mystical laws of physics involved with the GPS or
any infrastructures that require such type of synchronization in
calendar time. shrug

Since the calendar time is accumulated by the clock, ultimately for
the GPS to function it is the calendar time among the satellites only
that must be synchronized. The other calendar time, the UTC, is
synchronized for applications. shrug

Since the calendar times are to be synchronized, software algorithm
must be implemented to achieve this, and the clock period must be much
greater than the accuracy required by the system. So, synchronizing
the clock just makes no fvcking sense what’s so ever. shrug

Even if you have gone out of your way to synchronize the clocks, you
still have to perform the same software algorithm to synchronize the
calendar time. So, why bother to synchronize the clock. Only morons
would consider doing that. shrug

That is why Tom has had a failed career. He is totally mystified by
SR and GR. shrug