|
|
| Author |
Message |
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 290
|
 Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 1:52 pm Post subject:
GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
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).
Interestingly, all "pre-launch" adjusted clocks remain synchronized,
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
Marcel Luttgens |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Dirk Van de moortel
science forum Guru
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 3019
|
| Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 2:08 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
<mluttgens@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:1148478769.849924.257730@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | 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
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.
Dirk Vdm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 290
|
| Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 2:27 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
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
"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 !
| Quote: |
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.
Marcel Luttgens
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dead_paul
science forum addict
Joined: 21 May 2006
Posts: 68
|
| Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 2:54 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 May 2006 07:27:38 -0700, mluttgens wrote:
| Quote: |
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel
science forum Guru
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 3019
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randy Poe
science forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 2485
|
| Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 3:08 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
| Quote: | 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.
- Randy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 290
|
| Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 3:11 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
Again and again, wholly irrelevant references!
Discuss instead the subject matter!
Escapist!
Marcel Luttgens |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 290
|
| Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 3:17 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
Randy Poe wrote:
| Quote: | 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, contrarily to what
H&K - those Einsteinian relativity champions- wrongly claimed.
Btw, it is easy to explain (without GR/SR) the alterations, reread
my post.
Marcel Luttgens
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 290
|
| Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 3:25 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.
|
Could you give a complete reference?
Thanks,
Marcel Luttgens |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Sorcerer
science forum Guru
Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 363
|
| Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 3:28 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:TNZcg.444161$vL6.11905128@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
| Between pages 78 and 83 van Flandern demonstrates that he
| doesn't understand the first thing about special relativity.
First thing about special relativity:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF
On one page Dork Van de merde 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's right?
I KNOW you're too much of a coward to even give it a try.
I KNOW you are a stupid cunt.
I KNOW you are an imbecile.
I KNOW you are a cretin.
I KNOW you are a moron.
I KNOW you are a psychopath.
I KNOW you are a troll.
I KNOW you don't even know who you are.
YOU know you are the local village idiot, YOU said so youself.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/classic.htm
Androcles Vdm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Sorcerer
science forum Guru
Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 363
|
| Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 3:28 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
<mluttgens@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1148483511.117156.245810@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Again and again, wholly irrelevant references!
| Discuss instead the subject matter!
| Escapist!
|
| Marcel Luttgens
Don't explain it to him. He's a coward. Let him make his own fumbles.
Androcles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randy Poe
science forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 2485
|
| Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 4:12 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
| Quote: | 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.
| Quote: | 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?
- Randy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 290
|
| Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 5:12 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
Randy Poe wrote:
| Quote: | 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 ?
| Quote: |
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.
Marcel Luttgens
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randy Poe
science forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 2485
|
| Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 5:28 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
| Quote: | 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"?
| 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.
- Randy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bz
science forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 5:39 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote in news:1148478769.849924.257730
@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
| Quote: | 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.
| Quote: |
(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.
| Quote: | 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.
--
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 |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:27 pm | All times are GMT
|
|
Personal Finance | Mobile Phones | Loans | Homeowner Loans | Bankruptcy
|
|
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
