|
|
| Author |
Message |
The Sorcerer
science forum Guru
Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 363
|
 Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 10:40 am Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:G4fdg.445681$DH.11848817@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
|
| <mluttgens@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1148548783.991622.301200@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| >
| > 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
Nice one 
"Sneaky bastard":
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/trojan.htm
Androcles Vdm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Dirk Van de moortel
science forum Guru
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 3019
|
| Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 10:45 am Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
"The Sorcerer" <vanquish@broom.Mickey_f> wrote in message news:oQfdg.204524$xt.152012@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| Quote: |
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:G4fdg.445681$DH.11848817@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
|
[snip]
hehe... what a dope :-)
Dirk Vdm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Sorcerer
science forum Guru
Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 363
|
| Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 11:38 am Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:ZUfdg.445792$cL.11909174@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
|
| "The Sorcerer" <vanquish@broom.Mickey_f> wrote in message
news:oQfdg.204524$xt.152012@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| >
| > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
| > in message news:G4fdg.445681$DH.11848817@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
|
| [snip]
|
| > | 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
| >
| > Nice one
| > "Sneaky bastard":
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/trojan.htm
|
| hehe... what a dope
|
| Dirk Vdm
Hehehe... what a psychopath.
How's the paranoia? It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.
Seen any Mercedes lately? Keep looking over your shoulder.
Figured out who you are yet?
Dirk Van de Androcles.
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bz
science forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 12:14 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote in
news:1148548174.983316.286140@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
| Quote: |
Tom Roberts wrote:
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.
|
It is misleading to state that they remain in syncronization with one
another.
That would imply that even absent the ground stations, they could and would
maintain such syncronization. That implication is incorrect.
The correct way to state things is that each of the orbital clocks is
maintained in syncronization with the network of ground clocks by signals
sent from the ground on a regular basis.
If an orbital clock was to compare its readings with another orbital clock,
it would notice large discrepancies in time as the satellites approached
and receeded from each other, just due to doppler effects.
The implication that the orbital clocks are syncronzed with each other is
thus much worse than slightly misleading, it gives the reader an entirely
wrong idea.
I have no idea WHY the missleading statement was made. It may have been
simple ignorance or it may have been an attempt at giving a wrong
impression, but it should be corrected to reflect the correct situation.
--
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 |
|
|
GSS
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 173
|
| Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 12:18 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
Tom Roberts wrote:
| Quote: | mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
......
"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).
|
This is a wrong statement.
Kindly ascertain the facts and correct it.
In PARCS the GR correction is expected to be of the order of 0.27
micro sec/day and this is planned to be actually verified. Hopefully
this will constitute the last test of GR before its ultimate collapse.
GSS
| 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
......
Tom Roberts |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Sorcerer
science forum Guru
Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 363
|
| Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 12:48 pm Post subject:
Humpty Roberts says SR is irrelevant.
|
|
|
"GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1148559480.487500.325090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
| Tom Roberts wrote:
| > mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
| .....
| >> "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).
|
| This is a wrong statement.
| Kindly ascertain the facts and correct it.
| In PARCS the GR correction is expected to be of the order of 0.27
| micro sec/day and this is planned to be actually verified. Hopefully
| this will constitute the last test of GR before its ultimate collapse.
|
| GSS
|
| >> However, initial expectations based on special relativity were that
| >> clocks in different reference frames should have different readings
| >> and rates.
|
| > SR is irrelevant.
Nice one 
Androcles.
One _must_ use GR for this physical situation. <shrug>
| .....
| > Tom Roberts
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 290
|
| Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 1:02 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
| Quote: | mluttgens@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:1148548783.991622.301200@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
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,
|
You are stupid, I didn't use SR in my present derivation!
Marcel Luttgens
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom Roberts
science forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1399
|
| Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 1:05 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
| Quote: | The important fact is that the term "daily" is misleading. The 38 usec
gain has to be taken into account only once.
|
Not true. The satellite clocks differ from ground clocks in their
intrinsic tick rate by 38 usec _each_and__every_day_. Those clocks, of
course, were modified only once (before launch), but the change applies
continuously to them, becuase it is a change in _rate_.
Tom Roberts |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 290
|
| Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 1:06 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
vanep@cox.net wrote:
| Quote: | mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
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.
|
Which mistakes? Btw, we are not several months ago anymore.
Marcel Luttgens
| Quote: |
Bruce
Marcel Luttgens
- Randy |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom Roberts
science forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1399
|
| Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 1:21 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
GSS wrote:
| Quote: | Tom Roberts wrote:
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).
This is a wrong statement.
|
No, it is not.
| Quote: | Kindly ascertain the facts and correct it.
|
_YOU_ need to do that.
| Quote: | In PARCS the GR correction is expected to be of the order of 0.27
micro sec/day
|
Please actually read what is written, and apply basic reading skills:
PARCS is not the GPS. <shrug>
PARCS is designed to fly in the ISS, at its altitude, not at the GPS
satellite altitude. This accounts for the difference (though I have not
checked your value for PARCS). Indeed, at low earth orbit even the
_sign_ of the difference changes, and a clock orbiting ~100 miles up
(e.g. in the space shuttle) will _lose_ time relative to ground clocks.
This is all just an elementary application of GR to the conditions of
the various orbiting clocks. There is nothing new or surprising here,
and this is all well known (by people who understand such things, anyway).
Tom Roberts |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 290
|
| Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 1:29 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
Tom Roberts wrote:
| Quote: | mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
The important fact is that the term "daily" is misleading. The 38 usec
gain has to be taken into account only once.
Not true. The satellite clocks differ from ground clocks in their
intrinsic tick rate by 38 usec _each_and__every_day_. Those clocks, of
course, were modified only once (before launch), but the change applies
continuously to them, becuase it is a change in _rate_.
|
You are playing with words. A change of rate leads to a change of clock
reading.
It would be better to say that the observed frequency shift is
4.45E-10.
Marcel Luttgens
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel
science forum Guru
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 3019
|
| Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 1:29 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
<mluttgens@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:1148562131.496233.89300@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:1148548783.991622.301200@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
[snip]
| Quote: | 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,
You are stupid, I didn't use SR in my present derivation!
|
What an infinitely stupid fart you are:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DidntUseSR.html
| "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)"
.....
| "You are stupid, I didn't use SR in my present derivation!"
*Do* have a look at your own webpages - they are most revealing :-)
Dirk Vdm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brian a m stuckless
science forum Guru
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 2024
|
| Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 1:48 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
$$ Tom [He between his error-bars ][MUST a _must_] Roberts wrote:
| Quote: | mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims.
No. It merely shows your confusions are false. <shrug
|
$$ LUCKY his "confusions" areN'T *REAL* ..like YOURs are, Dimwit.
| Quote: | "In the GPS, all atomic clocks in all reference frames (in
orbit and on the ground) are set once and stay synchronized.
|
$$ Synchronized simultaneously different PRE-set tic COUNTs:
$$ One SYNCHRONiZATiON time t, SiMULTANEOUSLY DiFFERENT readings.
$$ Syncronized at ONE time ..but with TWO (2) DiFFERENT readings.
$$ ONE syncronized with the OTHER with TWO (2) DiFFERENT " .
$$ BOTH syncronized ..AT ONCE, but with TWO (2) DiFFERENT " .
$$ BOTH syncronized at TiME t ..but with TWO (2) DiFFERENT " .
$$ BOTH syncronized at the SAME time with TWO (2) DiFFERENT " .
$$ BOTH syncronized SiMULTANEOUSLY but with TWO (2) DiFFERENT " .
| Quote: | 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 [ ..the NEWTON part of] 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).
|
$$ "ALTiTUDE" the *ONLY* reason, for any NON-PRE-set DiFFERENCEs.
| Quote: | However, initial expectations based on special relativity were
that clocks in different reference frames should have different
readings and rates.
SR is irrelevant. One _must_ use GR for this physical situation.
shrug
$$ ^. |
$$ [GR _must_ ..a MUST.!!].
$$ What does "_must_" mean, [ He between his error-bars ] Tom?.
| 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> [He MUST a _must_ Roberts]
Tom [ He between his error-bars ] Roberts [ ..@GR.Buffy.com ].
Re: Synchronized simultaneously different PRE-set tic readings. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Sorcerer
science forum Guru
Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 363
|
| Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 3:47 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
<mluttgens@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1148563761.512599.285730@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
| Tom Roberts wrote:
| > mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
| > > The important fact is that the term "daily" is misleading. The 38 usec
| > > gain has to be taken into account only once.
| >
| > Not true. The satellite clocks differ from ground clocks in their
| > intrinsic tick rate by 38 usec _each_and__every_day_. Those clocks, of
| > course, were modified only once (before launch), but the change applies
| > continuously to them, becuase it is a change in _rate_.
| >
|
| You are playing with words.
That's why he's known as Humpty Roberts.
"SR is irrelevant" - Humpty Roberts.
" "Real" has nothing to do with it.
To obtain a speed, you must divide the distance traveled by the travel
time, and _all_ quantities _must_ be measured in a single coordinate
system. In Newtonian mechanics and SR, the coordinate system must be
inertial, using standard clocks and rulers. In GR (or other coordinate
systems) this merely yields coordinate speed.
_Nothing_ else is speed. Because that is what we mean by the word. <shrug>
"
-- Humpty Roberts
Humpty Roberts let out a great sigh.
" <sigh>", he said.
"The nuances of English. I was discussing the usage of words and
not the concepts they represent."
-- Tom Humpty Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
news:ZDmYf.51582$2O6.5573@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com
Androcles.
A change of rate leads to a change of clock
| reading.
| It would be better to say that the observed frequency shift is
| 4.45E-10.
|
| Marcel Luttgens
|
|
| >
| > Tom Roberts
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanep@cox.net
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 13 Sep 2005
Posts: 102
|
| Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 12:18 am Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
| Quote: | vanep@cox.net wrote:
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
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.
Which mistakes? Btw, we are not several months ago anymore.
|
Here:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/1ac904c7cf440d3d/b337fb068bcbfc4c?lnk=st&q=vanep%40cox.net&rnum=12&hl=en#b337fb068bcbfc4c
Where you use your formula to predict the GPS Earth and satellite based
clocks would have a delta of 31.6 nanoseconds/day.
Here I give you the actual GR prediction and a formula derived from the
Schwarzschild geometry which gives the correct predicition.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/1ac904c7cf440d3d/b337fb068bcbfc4c?lnk=st&q=vanep%40cox.net&rnum=12&hl=en#b337fb068bcbfc4c
And here you still claim your prediction is correct:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/1ac904c7cf440d3d/b337fb068bcbfc4c?lnk=st&q=vanep%40cox.net&rnum=12&hl=en#b337fb068bcbfc4c
Once again I give you the correct answer:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/1ac904c7cf440d3d/b337fb068bcbfc4c?lnk=st&q=vanep%40cox.net&rnum=12&hl=en#b337fb068bcbfc4c
Finally you realize your mistake and say you're sorry.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/1ac904c7cf440d3d/b337fb068bcbfc4c?lnk=st&q=vanep%40cox.net&rnum=12&hl=en#b337fb068bcbfc4c
You realized your mistake after I gave you the right formula.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/1ac904c7cf440d3d/b337fb068bcbfc4c?lnk=st&q=vanep%40cox.net&rnum=12&hl=en#b337fb068bcbfc4c
In a different discussion in that thread I gave up trying to help you
when you insisted that the geometry related to the physics analysis is
irrelevant. Where you claim GR should have a general formula for doing
any analysis.
If for some reason all the thread ferences open up to your original
post then just go to post 104 in this thread where all the details of
what I just discussed can be found. You obviously still havn't learned
anything. You should actually study some physics and quit reading crank
literature. ie Van Flandern.
Bruce
| Quote: | Marcel Luttgens
Bruce
Marcel Luttgens
- Randy |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:01 pm | All times are GMT
|
|
Buy Anything On eBay | Montana Music | Guitar Lesson | Store Cards for the best credit | 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
