|
|
| Author |
Message |
Igor
science forum Guru
Joined: 15 May 2005
Posts: 315
|
 Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 6:08 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
dead_paul wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 24 May 2006 07:27:38 -0700, mluttgens wrote:
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1148478769.849924.257730@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
"In the GPS, all atomic clocks in all reference frames (in orbit and
on the ground) are set once and stay synchronized. However, initial
expectations based on special relativity were that clocks in different
reference frames should have different readings and rates. Yet the
Global Positioning System is designed in such a way that, after the
individual clock rates are adjusted once pre-launch for the predicted
relativity effects, all satellite clocks in all orbits remain in
synchronization with one another and with all ground clocks without
need for further consideration of relativity corrections, with the
exception of one small correction needed for the slight
non-circularity of the orbits."
(Apeiron, Vol. 10, No. 1, January 2003 69 What the Global Positioning
System Tells Us about the Twin's Paradox, Tom Van Flandern).
One imbecile quoting another one:
http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/proof_files/proof.asp
http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/mrb_cydonia/new-evidence.asp
http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/proof_files/face443x443_6.2.00.mov
You are the imbecile, using irrelevant arguments. Anybody can believe that
the Martians
had an advanced civilisation, and nevertheless have strong arguments
against Einsteinian
relativity. Nobody can deny that "in the GPS, all atomic clocks in all
reference frames (in orbit
and on the ground) are set once and stay synchronized." Explain instead
why this doesn't contradict the conclusions of H&K and Einsteinian
relativity in particular !
Exercise for Marcel:
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V10NO1PDF/V10N1TVF.pdf
Between pages 78 and 83 van Flandern demonstrates that he doesn't
understand the first thing about special relativity. Since we have
explained all this to you many times and in great detail, surely you can
pinpoint where the rest of the world sees that he goes down? I bet
you're too much of a coward to even give it a try.
Clearly, *you* have no idea about the stupid inferences one can get from
Einsteinian relativity. You are behaving like a stupid parrot. Hopefully,
you are not representative of this NG.
Having spent a good few months googling round the net examining anything
related to Einstens SR paper I have come to the conclusion that SR as
Einstein thought it was is defunct, it has been amended to account for
the lack of relativity of simultaneity and for the sagnac result, probably
some more things as well for all I know but all that amounts to a
sophistry. Piles of math upon math, like the inverted pyramid aka the BB.
SR is tosh and they know it. It's propped uplike the big bang is propped
up. GR follows SR into the dustbin.
Google Einstein deconstructed (pdf) - lots of interesting analysis there.
|
I guess that's what you get for surfing the net for your info rather
than doing it the old fashioned way. The internet has never been a
reliable source for anything scientific (there are some exceptions, but
they're few and very far between). Welcome to the great equalizer and
dumbing down of the world as a whole. If you can't think critically
about where you get your information, you probably deserve whatever you
get. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sal
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 26 May 2005
Posts: 246
|
| Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 6:30 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 May 2006 14:08:51 +0000, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
| Quote: |
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1148478769.849924.257730@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
[ .. ]
| Quote: | One imbecile quoting another one:
|
[ ... ]
I'm sure you're right. No fundamental arguments.
However, as to the H&K experiment, now ... that's the one with the
clocks riding on airliners, right? Have you read the deconstructions
which are available on the web? The analysis I saw, based on the raw
data, which supposedly wasn't released for a long long time after the
experiment was published, was quite interesting, really; enough to
convince me, at least, that the H&K experiment didn't show anything at
all except that the "Not Enough Rats" syndrome happens in physics,
too.
But what, you may ask, is the "Not Enough Rats" syndrome? Here's a
quote from an old post in a different arena, which may drag us
thoroughly off-topic:
| This problem is common in biology and the social sciences but
| unusual in a physics experiment. Here's a sketch of how it happens
| in a biology lab:
|
| A researcher whom we'll call Bob wants to determine the effect of
| diet on the neurotransmitter Poodlecatamousitine. He understands
| statistics well enough to analyze his results with no difficulty,
| but is none the less a little shaky on the use of statistics during
| the experimental design phase (this is all too common, don't say it
| doesn't happen!). But he _guesses_ that 20 rats in each of his two
| experimental groups and 20 more in the control group should produce
| a clear enough result.
|
| But rats are expensive, grant money's tight, and he decides he can
| make do with just 10 rats in each group.
|
| But three of the rats get Rat Flu and check out before the end of
| the experiment, there's an air conditioner failure and two more
| shuffle off this mortal coil, ALF raiders get several more, and one
| of the "male" rats gets pregnant and is disqualified. Two others
| refuse to eat the special diet and are also disqualified.
|
| They get to the end of the experiment, and it's time to gather
| data. But the only way to get good readings on Poodlecatamousitine
| levels is to sacrifice the rats in total darkness, by beheading them
| while they sleep, and then take brain slices (don't laugh; I knew
| someone who had to do exactly this in a rat experiment).
| Unfortunately the grad students find this difficult to carry out.
| One gets bitten and yells, waking up several rats; they're
| disqualified. Two rats get mixed up in the dark, and so they're
| out, too. And one of the "brain slices" turns out to contain almost
| nothing but human finger tissue, and so it's no good.
|
| In the end Bob has data for 4 test rats in group A, 5 in group B,
| and just three control rats. The "large effect" he hoped to obtain
| turns out to be a difference of just 2% in the levels, and it's
| ... **Not Statistically Significant**. Oops. But this represents
| months of work, so maybe Bob publishes anyway.
If anyone's interested enough to object to this post I'll dig around
and see if I can find the link to the H&K article; I don't have it
handy just now.
--
Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email
I can be also contacted through http://www.physicsinsights.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randy Poe
science forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 2485
|
| Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 6:59 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
sal wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 24 May 2006 14:08:51 +0000, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
| They get to the end of the experiment, and it's time to gather
| data. But the only way to get good readings on Poodlecatamousitine
| levels is to sacrifice the rats in total darkness, by beheading them
| while they sleep, and then take brain slices (don't laugh; I knew
| someone who had to do exactly this in a rat experiment).
|
I'm not laughing. I know someone who had to do this with
kittens.
| Quote: | | Unfortunately the grad students find this difficult to carry out.
| One gets bitten and yells, waking up several rats; they're
| disqualified. Two rats get mixed up in the dark, and so they're
| out, too. And one of the "brain slices" turns out to contain almost
| nothing but human finger tissue, and so it's no good.
|
OK, I lied. I'm laughing.
| Quote: | |
| In the end Bob has data for 4 test rats in group A, 5 in group B,
| and just three control rats. The "large effect" he hoped to obtain
| turns out to be a difference of just 2% in the levels, and it's
| ... **Not Statistically Significant**. Oops. But this represents
| months of work, so maybe Bob publishes anyway.
|
In my experience this is fairly typical of the kind of statistical
work one finds in medical journals. When I was in school we
had a joke about medical researchers: "33.333333% of the
rats got better, 33.333333% got worse, and the other rat
escaped."
If you're implying that somehow proves physicists have the
same lax statistical standards... you might want to provide
some evidence other than your (admittedly funny) story.
There was a reason we told that medical-research joke
as a *JOKE*.
| Quote: | If anyone's interested enough to object to this post I'll dig around
and see if I can find the link to the H&K article; I don't have it
handy just now.
|
Do that.
- Randy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel
science forum Guru
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 3019
|
| Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 8:32 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
"sal" <pragmatist@nospam.org> wrote in message news:pan.2006.05.24.18.29.55.52563@nospam.org...
| Quote: | On Wed, 24 May 2006 14:08:51 +0000, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1148478769.849924.257730@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
[ .. ]
One imbecile quoting another one:
[ ... ]
I'm sure you're right. No fundamental arguments.
However, as to the H&K experiment, now ... that's the one with the
clocks riding on airliners, right? Have you read the deconstructions
which are available on the web? The analysis I saw, based on the raw
data, which supposedly wasn't released for a long long time after the
experiment was published, was quite interesting, really; enough to
convince me, at least, that the H&K experiment didn't show anything at
all except that the "Not Enough Rats" syndrome happens in physics,
too.
But what, you may ask, is the "Not Enough Rats" syndrome? Here's a
quote from an old post in a different arena, which may drag us
thoroughly off-topic:
| This problem is common in biology and the social sciences but
| unusual in a physics experiment. Here's a sketch of how it happens
| in a biology lab:
|
| A researcher whom we'll call Bob wants to determine the effect of
| diet on the neurotransmitter Poodlecatamousitine. He understands
| statistics well enough to analyze his results with no difficulty,
| but is none the less a little shaky on the use of statistics during
| the experimental design phase (this is all too common, don't say it
| doesn't happen!). But he _guesses_ that 20 rats in each of his two
| experimental groups and 20 more in the control group should produce
| a clear enough result.
|
| But rats are expensive, grant money's tight, and he decides he can
| make do with just 10 rats in each group.
|
| But three of the rats get Rat Flu and check out before the end of
| the experiment, there's an air conditioner failure and two more
| shuffle off this mortal coil, ALF raiders get several more, and one
| of the "male" rats gets pregnant and is disqualified. Two others
| refuse to eat the special diet and are also disqualified.
|
| They get to the end of the experiment, and it's time to gather
| data. But the only way to get good readings on Poodlecatamousitine
| levels is to sacrifice the rats in total darkness, by beheading them
| while they sleep, and then take brain slices (don't laugh; I knew
| someone who had to do exactly this in a rat experiment).
| Unfortunately the grad students find this difficult to carry out.
| One gets bitten and yells, waking up several rats; they're
| disqualified. Two rats get mixed up in the dark, and so they're
| out, too. And one of the "brain slices" turns out to contain almost
| nothing but human finger tissue, and so it's no good.
|
| In the end Bob has data for 4 test rats in group A, 5 in group B,
| and just three control rats. The "large effect" he hoped to obtain
| turns out to be a difference of just 2% in the levels, and it's
| ... **Not Statistically Significant**. Oops. But this represents
| months of work, so maybe Bob publishes anyway.
|
Yes, good story - human nature in action.
The problem with the Luttgens of this world, is that they
use this kind of story as irrefutable proof of the opposite
thesis.
| Quote: |
If anyone's interested enough to object to this post I'll dig around
and see if I can find the link to the H&K article; I don't have it
handy just now.
|
I think I have seen some of the comments.
Thanks.
Dirk Vdm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 290
|
| Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 9:12 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
sal wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 24 May 2006 14:08:51 +0000, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1148478769.849924.257730@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
[ .. ]
One imbecile quoting another one:
[ ... ]
I'm sure you're right. No fundamental arguments.
However, as to the H&K experiment, now ... that's the one with the
clocks riding on airliners, right? Have you read the deconstructions
which are available on the web? The analysis I saw, based on the raw
data, which supposedly wasn't released for a long long time after the
experiment was published, was quite interesting, really; enough to
convince me, at least, that the H&K experiment didn't show anything at
all except that the "Not Enough Rats" syndrome happens in physics,
too.
But what, you may ask, is the "Not Enough Rats" syndrome? Here's a
quote from an old post in a different arena, which may drag us
thoroughly off-topic:
| This problem is common in biology and the social sciences but
| unusual in a physics experiment. Here's a sketch of how it happens
| in a biology lab:
|
| A researcher whom we'll call Bob wants to determine the effect of
| diet on the neurotransmitter Poodlecatamousitine. He understands
| statistics well enough to analyze his results with no difficulty,
| but is none the less a little shaky on the use of statistics during
| the experimental design phase (this is all too common, don't say it
| doesn't happen!). But he _guesses_ that 20 rats in each of his two
| experimental groups and 20 more in the control group should produce
| a clear enough result.
|
| But rats are expensive, grant money's tight, and he decides he can
| make do with just 10 rats in each group.
|
| But three of the rats get Rat Flu and check out before the end of
| the experiment, there's an air conditioner failure and two more
| shuffle off this mortal coil, ALF raiders get several more, and one
| of the "male" rats gets pregnant and is disqualified. Two others
| refuse to eat the special diet and are also disqualified.
|
| They get to the end of the experiment, and it's time to gather
| data. But the only way to get good readings on Poodlecatamousitine
| levels is to sacrifice the rats in total darkness, by beheading them
| while they sleep, and then take brain slices (don't laugh; I knew
| someone who had to do exactly this in a rat experiment).
| Unfortunately the grad students find this difficult to carry out.
| One gets bitten and yells, waking up several rats; they're
| disqualified. Two rats get mixed up in the dark, and so they're
| out, too. And one of the "brain slices" turns out to contain almost
| nothing but human finger tissue, and so it's no good.
|
| In the end Bob has data for 4 test rats in group A, 5 in group B,
| and just three control rats. The "large effect" he hoped to obtain
| turns out to be a difference of just 2% in the levels, and it's
| ... **Not Statistically Significant**. Oops. But this represents
| months of work, so maybe Bob publishes anyway.
If anyone's interested enough to object to this post I'll dig around
and see if I can find the link to the H&K article; I don't have it
handy just now.
|
The H&K article has been published in Science, vol. 177, 14 July 1972.
Marcel Luttgens
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 290
|
| Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 9:15 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
bz wrote:
| Quote: | mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote in news:1148478769.849924.257730
@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
"In the GPS, all atomic clocks in all reference frames (in orbit
and on the ground) are set once and stay synchronized.
However, initial expectations based on special relativity were that
clocks in different reference frames should have different readings
and rates. Yet the Global Positioning System is designed in such
a way that, after the individual clock rates are adjusted once
pre-launch for the predicted relativity effects, all satellite clocks
in all orbits remain in synchronization with one another and with
all ground clocks without need for further consideration of relativity
corrections, with the exception of one small correction needed for
the slight non-circularity of the orbits."
The clocks would NOT remain 'in syncronization with one another' if they
were not regularly syncronized with a [set of] master ground station
clock[s] on a regular basis.
There are MANY effects that must be corrected for that exceed the residual
relativity corrections.
http://waas.stanford.edu/tour.html
http://www.passcal.nmt.edu/software/pdb_manual/apf.html
However, if one were attempting to syncronize the orbiting clocks with each
other rather than with a network of ground clocks, I suspect the task would
be very difficult.
(Apeiron, Vol. 10, No. 1, January 2003 69
What the Global Positioning System Tells Us about the Twin's Paradox,
Tom Van Flandern).
Interestingly, all "pre-launch" adjusted clocks remain synchronized,
Incorrect. They are resyncronized regularly.
a fact which excludes additive relativistic effects. In fact,
those effects are straightforwardly explained by
1) the blue shift of the the signals due to difference of gravitational
potentials between the satellites and the Earth surface (the photons
gain potential energy), and
2) the redshift of the signals due to their travel along
the hypothenuse of an approximately right-angled triangle whose
other sides are vt (v is the orbital velocity) and ct, where t
is the time that the signals would need to cover the satellites
altitude.
Obviously, such effects are not additive
Incorrect. This is only apparently true if one ignores the fact that the
clocks are regularly resyncronzed.
|
Every day? And when they are resynchronized, by how much?
Marcel Luttgens
| Quote: |
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+spr@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randy Poe
science forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 2485
|
| Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 9:27 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
| Quote: | "sal" <pragmatist@nospam.org> wrote in message news:pan.2006.05.24.18.29.55.52563@nospam.org...
If anyone's interested enough to object to this post I'll dig around
and see if I can find the link to the H&K article; I don't have it
handy just now.
I think I have seen some of the comments.
Thanks.
|
There seems to be an anti-relativistic Hafele-Keating article
at Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment
I tried to make sense of the "Dr. A.G.Kelly" article. It seems to
be a claim of fraud and altered data. But I can't figure out where
the evidence is supposed to be or follow the arguments.
- Randy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom Roberts
science forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1399
|
| Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 1:56 am Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
| Quote: | GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
No. It merely shows your confusions are false. <shrug>
| Quote: | "In the GPS, all atomic clocks in all reference frames (in orbit
and on the ground) are set once and stay synchronized.
|
Ignoring small corrections for minor effects (e.g. errors in orbits,
planets, moon, ...), yes. But note that the clocks on the ground are not
identical to the clocks on satellites: the engineered difference between
them is precisely the difference predicted by GR (about 38 usec/day,
which is enormous compared to the GPS accuracy). Indeed, even not all
clocks on the ground are identical (due to differences in altitude).
| Quote: | However, initial expectations based on special relativity were that
clocks in different reference frames should have different readings
and rates.
|
SR is irrelevant. One _must_ use GR for this physical situation. <shrug>
| Quote: | [...]
(Apeiron, Vol. 10, No. 1, January 2003 69
What the Global Positioning System Tells Us about the Twin's Paradox,
Tom Van Flandern).
|
That explains it -- you are quoting someone just as clueless as
yourself, from a "journal" that publishes most any nonsense. <shrug>
Tom Roberts |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom Roberts
science forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1399
|
| Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 2:03 am Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
| Quote: | bz wrote:
the
clocks are regularly resyncronzed.
Every day? And when they are resynchronized, by how much?
|
Typically a few ns, IIRC. Vastly smaller than the 38 microsec of the GR
correction. BTW that is comparable to the intrinsic stability of the clocks.
If you're really interested, google is your friend, and I believe they
publish the corrections daily on the web.
Tom Roberts |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
koobee.wublee@gmail.com
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 141
|
| Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 7:42 am Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:i98dg.76540$_S7.30276@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
| Quote: | [...]
(Apeiron, Vol. 10, No. 1, January 2003 69
What the Global Positioning System Tells Us about the Twin's Paradox,
Tom Van Flandern).
That explains it -- you are quoting someone just as clueless as
yourself, from a "journal" that publishes most any nonsense. <shrug
|
I did a Google search to find what Dr. Van Flandern's position on
Twin's Paradox, and here is what I found.
| Quote: | "<GPS&Twins-MRB.htm> A treatise specifically about the famous twins paradox, treated from the unique perspective of a spacecraft with a GPS clock on board. It dispels the notion that "acceleration" plays a role in understanding the paradox and introduces the concept of "time slippage" to explain the physical meaning of one of the two terms in the Lorentz time transformation, the other of which describes the change in clock rates."
|
Dr. Van Flandern is saying GR cannot resolve the Twin's Paradox as
Einstein handwaved it almost one hundred years ago. If you think GR
can resolve the Twin's Paradox, please show me the solution
mathematically from both twin's point of view. You have been saying he
solution exists on the net, but that is not what I find to be the case.
Also, Dr. Van Flandern is in the same camp as you are accepting the
same mathematics of Lorentz Transformation as first derived by Larmor.
You have more crackpot ideology with Dr. Van Flandern than you realize. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanep@cox.net
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 13 Sep 2005
Posts: 102
|
| Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 8:02 am Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
| Quote: | Randy Poe wrote:
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
You are the imbecile, using irrelevant arguments. Anybody can believe
that the Martians
had an advanced civilisation, and nevertheless have strong arguments
against Einsteinian
relativity. Nobody can deny that "in the GPS, all atomic clocks in all
reference frames (in orbit
and on the ground) are set once and stay synchronized."
Explain instead why this doesn't contradict the conclusions of H&K and
Einsteinian
relativity in particular !
Because there are only two reference frames: Ground and orbit. The
orbit clocks are slowed down so that they no longer keep
good time in their own frame. The amount they are slowed down
comes from a GR calculation.
The fact that they stay synchronized is a validation of GR:
clocks which don't keep good time in their own frame tick at
the earth rate when viewed from the earth frame.
H&K predicted (and observed) that unaltered clocks set in motion
would get out of synch with their earthbound counterparts. The
same prediction was made with GPS, and the same observation
was made. The first GPS satellite had a clock which could
run either unaltered, or altered. When unaltered, it got out of
synch just the way H&K's clocks did. By the predicted amount.
Of course, but the alterations didn't add up,
In what sense did they "not add up"? The discrepancy without
the corrections was predicted to be 38 usec/day, and
was observed to be 38 usec/day within about 0.02 usec/day.
That "adds up" pretty well for me.
The clock without the alterations gained 38000 nsec per day,
every day. The clock with the alterations keeps time with
earthbound clocks to within random errors of +-20 nsec
per day. That "adds up" pretty well for me.
And how do you explain that orbit and ground clocks need to be
synchonized *only once* if orbit clocks gain 38 usec *per day*
over the ground clocks ?
Btw, it is easy to explain (without GR/SR) the alterations, reread
my post.
As your post had no numbers and no equations, there is
nothing there for me to use to predict perceived clock rate
versus altitude, something I'd need to do to "explain the
alterations".
Can you show me the calculation that comes up with an
altitude-dependent number, that correctly gives 38 usec/day
for GPS altitude?
Sure, I will show you the calculation tomorrow.
|
And after you do that I'll show Randy the dumb mistakes you made
several months ago.
Bruce
| Quote: |
Marcel Luttgens
- Randy |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 290
|
| Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 9:09 am Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
Tom Roberts wrote:
| Quote: | mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
bz wrote:
the
clocks are regularly resyncronzed.
Every day? And when they are resynchronized, by how much?
Typically a few ns, IIRC. Vastly smaller than the 38 microsec of the GR
correction. BTW that is comparable to the intrinsic stability of the clocks.
|
Thank you. The claim by Tom Van Flandern "that all satellite
clocks in all orbits remain in synchronization with one another and
with
all ground clocks without need for further consideration of relativity
corrections, with the exception of one small correction needed for
the slight non-circularity of the orbits." is thus confirmed.
Marcel Luttgens
| Quote: |
If you're really interested, google is your friend, and I believe they
publish the corrections daily on the web.
Tom Roberts |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Sorcerer
science forum Guru
Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 363
|
| Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 9:14 am Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Ff8dg.76544$_S7.36611@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
| mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
| > bz wrote:
| >> the
| >> clocks are regularly resyncronzed.
| >
| > Every day? And when they are resynchronized, by how much?
|
| Typically a few ns, IIRC. Vastly smaller than the 38 microsec of the GR
| correction. BTW that is comparable to the intrinsic stability of the
clocks.
|
| If you're really interested, google is your friend, and I believe they
| publish the corrections daily on the web.
|
|
| Tom Roberts
Shithead Humpty Roberts doesn't recall correctly.
38 microseconds corresponds to 0.5 inches for a Global POSITIONING System.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/sundials.htm
Because of this:
http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection1.html
each satellite is constantly being pulled out if its calculated orbit by the
Moon and its position has to updated by ground stations.
Androcles.
Androcles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 290
|
| Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 9:19 am Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
Randy Poe wrote:
| Quote: | mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
The clock without the alterations gained 38000 nsec per day,
every day. The clock with the alterations keeps time with
earthbound clocks to within random errors of +-20 nsec
per day. That "adds up" pretty well for me.
And how do you explain that orbit and ground clocks need to be
synchonized *only once* if orbit clocks gain 38 usec *per day*
over the ground clocks ?
The "only once" operation consists in changing the frequency
of the orbiting clocks so that, on earth, they lose 38 usec per day.
Then they are put in orbit and keep time with earth clocks to a
small fraction of a microsecond per day. Only one satellite was
ever orbited without this alteration.
Why do you think that disagrees with the statement that
unaltered clocks gain 38 usec per day? The clocks in orbit
aren't "unaltered".
Why do you keep asking me to "explain" statements that
aren't contradictory?
"Me: Joe runs twice as fast as Bob.
You: Oh yeah? Then how do you explain the fact that Joe
wins races against Bob?"
Are you going to ask me next to "explain" why in one post
I'd say "+- 20 nsec" and in another "a small fraction of
a microsecond"?
|
The important fact is that the term "daily" is misleading. The 38 usec
gain has to be taken into account only once.
| Quote: |
Can you show me the calculation that comes up with an
altitude-dependent number, that correctly gives 38 usec/day
for GPS altitude?
Sure, I will show you the calculation tomorrow.
Like the cat that ate the cheese, I await with baited breath.
|
Here is the cheese, don't get an indigestion !
Let Rs = the satellite orbital radius
Re = the Earth radius
(the altitude h of the satellite is thus Rs-Re)
Nu(s) = the frequency of the signal emitted by the satellite
Nu(e) = the frequency of the signal received at the ground level
Me = the mass of the Earth
G = the gravitational constant
1) The signal will gain a potential energy Ep
(cf. Gravitation and Cosmology by St. Weinberg,1972, pp 84, 85)
Ep = m(ph) * gm * (Rs-Re), where
gm = G * Mearth / (Rs * Re)
m(ph) = hNu(s)/c^2
(m(ph) = "mass" of a photon of initial frequency Nu(s))
Thus Ep = (hNu(s)/c^2) * (G * Mearth / (Rs * Re) * (Rs-Re)
= hNu(s) * (GMearth/c^2) * (1/Re - 1/Rs)
As the photon adds Ep to its initial energy hNu(s), its
energy at the ground level (at the distance Re from the Earth center)
becomes
hNu(e) = hNu(s) + hNu(s) * (GMearth/c^2) * (1/Re - 1/Rs), thus
Nu(e) = Nu(s) * [1 + (G*Mearth/c^2) * (1/Re - 1/Rs)]
2) But the orbital velociy vs of the satellite must also be taken
into account
(N.B.: vs^2 = GMe/Rs).
For a satellite observer, the signal travels a distance Rs - Re
in a time t' = (Rs-Re)/c.
For an Earth observer, the signal follows the hypothenuse ct
of a right-angled triangle whose other sides are vs*t and Rs-Re = ct'.
Hence, c^2*t^2 = vs^2*t^2 + c^2*t'^2, and
t' = t * sqrt(1-vs^2/c^2)
= t * sqrt(1-GMe/Rs*c^2)
Iow, a satellite clock appears to tick slower by a factor
sqrt(1-GMe/Rs*c^2) relatively to a ground clock.
Consequently, the frequency of the received signal is reduced by
the factor sqrt(1-GMe/Rs*c^2) relatively to the frequency of the
emitted signal. Hence,
Nu(e)/Nu(s) =
[1 + (G*Mearth/c^2) * (1/Re - 1/Rs)] * sqrt(1-GMe/Rs*c^2) or,
approximately, as vs << c,
Nu(e)/Nu(s) =
[1 + (G*Mearth/c^2) * (1/Re - 1/Rs)] * (1-GMe/2Rs*c^2)
Neglecting the higher order term, one is left with
Nu(e)/Nu(s) = [1 + (G*Mearth/c^2) * (1/Re - 3/2Rs)],
a formula which is identical to the approximate GR formula,
but which has been obtained wholly independently from GR or SR.
Marcel Luttgens
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel
science forum Guru
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 3019
|
| Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 9:49 am Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
<mluttgens@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:1148548783.991622.301200@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
Randy Poe wrote:
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
The clock without the alterations gained 38000 nsec per day,
every day. The clock with the alterations keeps time with
earthbound clocks to within random errors of +-20 nsec
per day. That "adds up" pretty well for me.
And how do you explain that orbit and ground clocks need to be
synchonized *only once* if orbit clocks gain 38 usec *per day*
over the ground clocks ?
The "only once" operation consists in changing the frequency
of the orbiting clocks so that, on earth, they lose 38 usec per day.
Then they are put in orbit and keep time with earth clocks to a
small fraction of a microsecond per day. Only one satellite was
ever orbited without this alteration.
Why do you think that disagrees with the statement that
unaltered clocks gain 38 usec per day? The clocks in orbit
aren't "unaltered".
Why do you keep asking me to "explain" statements that
aren't contradictory?
"Me: Joe runs twice as fast as Bob.
You: Oh yeah? Then how do you explain the fact that Joe
wins races against Bob?"
Are you going to ask me next to "explain" why in one post
I'd say "+- 20 nsec" and in another "a small fraction of
a microsecond"?
The important fact is that the term "daily" is misleading. The 38 usec
gain has to be taken into account only once.
Can you show me the calculation that comes up with an
altitude-dependent number, that correctly gives 38 usec/day
for GPS altitude?
Sure, I will show you the calculation tomorrow.
Like the cat that ate the cheese, I await with baited breath.
Here is the cheese, don't get an indigestion !
Let Rs = the satellite orbital radius
Re = the Earth radius
(the altitude h of the satellite is thus Rs-Re)
Nu(s) = the frequency of the signal emitted by the satellite
Nu(e) = the frequency of the signal received at the ground level
Me = the mass of the Earth
G = the gravitational constant
1) The signal will gain a potential energy Ep
(cf. Gravitation and Cosmology by St. Weinberg,1972, pp 84, 85)
Ep = m(ph) * gm * (Rs-Re), where
gm = G * Mearth / (Rs * Re)
m(ph) = hNu(s)/c^2
(m(ph) = "mass" of a photon of initial frequency Nu(s))
Thus Ep = (hNu(s)/c^2) * (G * Mearth / (Rs * Re) * (Rs-Re)
= hNu(s) * (GMearth/c^2) * (1/Re - 1/Rs)
As the photon adds Ep to its initial energy hNu(s), its
energy at the ground level (at the distance Re from the Earth center)
becomes
hNu(e) = hNu(s) + hNu(s) * (GMearth/c^2) * (1/Re - 1/Rs), thus
Nu(e) = Nu(s) * [1 + (G*Mearth/c^2) * (1/Re - 1/Rs)]
2) But the orbital velociy vs of the satellite must also be taken
into account
(N.B.: vs^2 = GMe/Rs).
For a satellite observer, the signal travels a distance Rs - Re
in a time t' = (Rs-Re)/c.
For an Earth observer, the signal follows the hypothenuse ct
of a right-angled triangle whose other sides are vs*t and Rs-Re = ct'.
Hence, c^2*t^2 = vs^2*t^2 + c^2*t'^2, and
t' = t * sqrt(1-vs^2/c^2)
|
We have seen this junk twice before, Marcel:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/e06dfeef82810893
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/7f8fa2d867f9bfce
There you started part 2 with the words:
| To take into account the SR effect due to the orbital
| velocity v(s) of the satellite,
Perhaps you could have a look at your own website and
at your posting history on this newsgroup some day:
There is no length contraction, by M. Luttgens:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/mmx.htm
"Sapere Aude": Refutations of SR, by G. Walton:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/sapere.htm
The Lorentz transformation (LT) are false, by M. Luttgens:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/LTfalse.htm
Mathematical Error in the Lorentz Transformation, by Paul Marmet:
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/Lorentz/lorentz.html
The Twin paradox falsifies SR:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/twinpdx1.htm
Marcel Luttgens, fiercely opposing and tragically misunderstanding
just about every aspect of special relativity, using special relativity
to demonstrate that we really don't need General relativity, which
includes special relativity to begin with.
Either you are a sneaky bastard, or you don't understand what you
have on your website. I put my money on both.
Dirk Vdm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:53 pm | All times are GMT
|
|
Free Advertising | Credit Reports | Credit Counseling | Singapore Shopping Guide | Personal Loans
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
Electronics forum |
Medicine forum |
Unix/Linux blog |
Unix/Linux documentation |
Unix/Linux forums
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Science and Technology
»
Physics
»
Relativity
