Choke...choke...choke.

Cinci, maybe you could square your comments about using SR and GR for GPS with the following statement, if you please!
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 previous article concluded with a discussion of what this means for Einstein's special relativity (SR), and for the competing Lorentzian relativity (LR) theory. The comparison favors LR as the simpler theory describing the relativity of motion.

I really need to understand.

bob s

RE: Cincirob, More commennts 4 August 26 2006, 12:21 AM

Cinci: I've read a lot of articles condemning relativity and I've discussed it in depth on other forums with contrarians. All of them demonstratably incorrect in one way or another. If you think somebody out there has a sound argument that shows relativity is wrong, tell me what it is. I'll tell you what's wrong with it. If this is a forum where science is discussed, then let's discuss some. Opinions are a dime a dozen...I'm willing to back mine up, are you?

But you’re not willing to answer the simple questions Cinci.

bob s

To AAF: Still c+v, eh? RE: Cincirob August 28 2006, 1:59 AM

Cinci: Do relativity contrarians ever answer a direct question?

Do you Cinci? I know of three simple, direct questions you won’t answer.

bob s

Bob S: “When Relativists speak of a "weak gravitational field", do they mean; a. a base ball? b. a bowling ball? Or, c. the Earth”?



Cincirob: “None of these things are gravitational fields....yet another bad question”.


AAF: Stop making 'fool' of yourself; Cincirob! Each and everyone of them has a gravitational field: the base ball has a gravitational field; the bowling ball has a gravitational field; and the earth has a gravitational field.


Cincirob: “My, my, AAF is at it again. Lumping together a bunch of comments to try to confuse people. Read the paragraph above. Yes, this line is called the axis and it doesn't have a direction. Which RJ question? Pure nonsense”.



AAF: It's this question: why does RJ continue to ignore your direct comments on his comments? Why? Did you say something awful to upset him? Oh my, my, Cincirob; what a very uninformed answer; so much for the GPS whiz; but you are not much of a navigator anyway! Very briefly, in the art of navigation, the straight line from the Star Polaris to the observer always points to the north-south directions: http://www.survivaltopics.com/survival/how-to-find-the-north-star/
http://www.satobs.org/beginner.html



Cincirob: “Because I made it unequivocally clear that Einstein's synchronization formula was correct and could be interpreted in only one way. After that all his arguments on the subject evaporate. If he kept going he would either have to admit Einstein was right or that he didn't understand OEMB. He won't do either so he just clammed up. Your techniques is to clutter up the web by copying all my comments and running them together along with your own inane comments that contain not the lest bit of scientific information. I can't decide which is less honest. Really? What does it tell you when you're at the north pole, that north is up? And you can't even see it from the south pole and much of the southern hemisphere so as a navigator you are completely lost. Some gentleman explained this in the same article but of course you missed it since you were only looking for something to say I was wrong. Same goes for your other article? Here's a nice site with a picture of a globe showing all the directions. None of them point through the middle of the earth. http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/geology/leveson/core/linksa/direct.html Time to grow up, AAF”.



AAF: That is only your side of the story; and it may well be very different as RJ sees it; correct? But Thanks for your answer anyway. Now, stop whining about your unified comments; and concentrate on the Star Polaris! You have lost on this one; Polaris defines the true north; and the definition of the true north cannot be tossed aside at the North Pole just because Polaris is shining overhead. For the rules are the rules; and just can't change them in the middle of the game.



Cincirob: “That is what you asked me for. If you can't stand the answer, then don't ask a question. Only an idiot would have expected to hear RJ's side of the story. Too idiotic to warrant an answer. OK, no whining I'll just ignore them. Not really. Do you ever chck any of your ramblings against the facts: "Polaris (α UMi / α Ursae Minoris / Alpha Ursae Minoris, commonly North(ern) Star or Pole Star, and sometimes Lodestar) is the brightest star in the constellation Ursa Minor. It is very close to the north celestial pole (42'b away as of 2006), making it the current northern pole star." and "At present, Polaris is 0.7^o away from the pole of rotation (1.4 times the Moon disc) and hence revolves around the pole in a small circle 11/2^o in diameter. Only twice during every sidereal day does Polaris accurately define the true north azimuth; the rest of the time it is only an approximation and must be corrected using tables or a rough rule of thumb." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaris But keep on guessing. Even completely random statements might turn out to be true some of the time”.



AAF: So, you agree that yours is only half the truth; that is good; now, back to Polaris! You're losing big Cincorob; and none of the above minute and irrelevant details can save your side of the argument. It's all clear and simple. The Star Polaris defines the true north; and that is it. So, let me enlighten you with one more piece of information about the North Pole; OK? From March 21^st to September 21^st, the sun makes a complete circle in the sky and never sets. In other words, there is no daily sunset or daily sunrise at the North Pole; the sun either rises for six months or sets for six months; and there is nothing else for it. The question, now, to you is this: How can one determine the direction of the east and the direction of the west, if there is no sunrise or sunset? Show us your navigational expertise at the North Pole; o ye 'Christopher Columbus' of Cincinnati! By the way, this astronomy program is free, very fast, accurate, and very good; just download, unzip, and run, and watch the stars anywhere in real time:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/homeplanet/



Cincirob: “ Even dumber than usual. Not worth a comment. No, it's my way of saying that your comments were "Even dumber than usual" and not worth a comment.”.


AAF: Is that is your way of admitting 'being too dumb to answer this very basic question'? Surely, it is! Sorry, Cinci, for making you disoriented, not very clever, lost, and quite grumpy at the North Pole!


Anonymous: Cincirob: “Uh, a.. it might seem to me that if you're at the n pole the only direction you can look is south or down but if yu're lookin down ure not lookin south ure lookin down and if ure lookin south ure not lokin down ure lookin south. there is a big diff. OK”!



Cincirob: “Right because if someone decides he's going to go south he's going to walk, not dig”.




AAF: Oh ”if someone decides he's going to go south he's going to walk, not dig”; what a clever answer! Doy you mind, Cincirob, if I e-mail it to Washington DC to be included in the next State of the Union Speech? Yes? No? In any case, the single most important defining Criterion for the east-west direction is the direction of the earth rotation; and it applies everywhere including the earth poles. The earth, by definition, always rotates from west to east. As a result, the apparent daily movement of all the stars and the planets is from east to west. Take, as an example, the apparent motion of the sun across the sky as seen from the North Pole! Even though, it moves in a circle, the leading edge of the solar disc still points to the west; and its trailing edge still points to the east. The east-west direction, therefore, makes a perfect circle with the horizon at the North Pole. And it is certainly a very informing, and complete and wonderful circle: http://www.wikihow.com/Determine-Directions--to-North,-South,-East,-and-West
http://www.astro.uu.nl/~strous/AA/en/antwoorden/zonpositie.html
http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/1010/SESSIONS/3.CelestialCycles.html
In short, at the earth poles, the north-south direction is superimposed on the up-down direction, and the east-west direction forms a perfect circle, where the east direction is superimposed upon the west direction at every point of that circle. And that is it.


Cincirob: “Nah, there would be an east and a west even if the earth didn't rotate. Wake up you're having a bad dream. None of this gets you out of the hole you dug by saying south faces along the axis from the north pole. Why, for once, don't you just say "AAF screwed up." and stop making an ass of yourself”.


AAF: Is that your way of saying 'please don't make an ass of me in public'? You bet it is! Would be 'east & west' without rotation? It could be done by general agreement; but in that case it would be a mere empty convention with no physical basis whatsoever. Is it correct? What do you think, Cincirob?

Choke...choke...choke.

Cinci, maybe you could square your comments about using SR and GR for GPS with the following statement, if you please!
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 previous article concluded with a discussion of what this means for Einstein's special relativity (SR), and for the competing Lorentzian relativity (LR) theory. The comparison favors LR as the simpler theory describing the relativity of motion.

I really need to understand.

cinci: The first sentence in you statement reads "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.....". That would seem to "square" my comments about SR and GR although the word "once" could be left out. I don't necessarily agree with the rest of the statement because I believe the clocks are updated for periodically because of clock drift and other things.

As I understand it, Einstein's relativity and Lorentz's relativity make the same SR predictions with the same equations. The difference being that Lorentz attributes the effects to ether. So neither is mathematically simpler. Einstein bases SR on a single assumption...I don't think you can get much simpler than that.

I googled Lorentz gravity and apparently he did produce a theory but I dont' know anything about it except that it appears to keep the idea of ether. There is a book by JS Bell that argues that relativity can be devolped without discarding ether and he rambles on for seveal pages describing how he would teach it. I can develop the whole theory of special relativity in about one page. His point was that the ether based model keeps some of the concepts of calssical physics and is, therefore, less of a shock to the psyche than accepting realtivity as a departure from classical thinking. In other words, it sugar coats it.

Cinci: I've read a lot of articles condemning relativity and I've discussed it in depth on other forums with contrarians. All of them demonstratably incorrect in one way or another. If you think somebody out there has a sound argument that shows relativity is wrong, tell me what it is. I'll tell you what's wrong with it. If this is a forum where science is discussed, then let's discuss some. Opinions are a dime a dozen...I'm willing to back mine up, are you?

Bob S: But you’re not willing to answer the simple questions Cinci.

cinci: Try me.
**********************

Bob S: “When Relativists speak of a "weak gravitational field", do they mean; a. a base ball? b. a bowling ball? Or, c. the Earth”?

Cincirob: “None of these things are gravitational fields....yet another bad question”.

AAF: Stop making 'fool' of yourself; Cincirob! Each and everyone of them has a gravitational field: the base ball has a gravitational field; the bowling ball has a gravitational field; and the earth has a gravitational field.

cinci: Interesting, and even accurate, but not the answer to his question. YOu need to read more carefully.
***********************************

Cincirob: “Nah, there would be an east and a west even if the earth didn't rotate. Wake up you're having a bad dream. None of this gets you out of the hole you dug by saying south faces along the axis from the north pole. Why, for once, don't you just say "AAF screwed up." and stop making an ass of yourself”.

AAF: Is that your way of saying 'please don't make an ass of me in public'? You bet it is! Would be 'east & west' without rotation? It could be done by general agreement; but in that case it would be a mere empty convention with no physical basis whatsoever. Is it correct? What do you think, Cincirob?

cinci: It's already by general agreement. And if the Earth didn't rotate at all, the sun would still moves slowly across that sky as the Earth orbited it so there would still be natural physical basis for direction. Care to try again?

Re: Cincirob, Cincirob, you're an honest guy.......September 3 2008, 9:37 AM

bob s: Cinci, maybe you could square your comments about using SR and GR for GPS with the following statement, if you please!
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 previous article concluded with a discussion of what this means for Einstein's special relativity (SR), and for the competing Lorentzian relativity (LR) theory. The comparison favors LR as the simpler theory describing the relativity of motion.

cinci: The first sentence in you statement reads "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.....". That would seem to "square" my comments about SR and GR although the word "once" could be left out. I don't necessarily agree with the rest of the statement because I believe the clocks are updated for periodically because of clock drift and other things.

Why would you leave out the word “once” it is a very important word Cinci. The meaning of “once” is quite clear; it means there is a “one time” adjustment before lift off, the missing comma is but a small typo. You make typos Cinci, do you deny others the same failing? YOU “believe” the GPS clocks are updated for “clock drift and other things”. To “believe” something is to put “faith” in that something; do you rely on your “faith” or the facts? Because Cinci, if the facts belie the faith you have in what you believe then your “square” begins to loose its corners. And, the article, in your words, only “seems” to square with your comments. “Seems” as a word, is ambiguous, therefor arguable, and “faith” is shaky ground to begin with. No Cinci, the word "once" stays in, it means what it should mean, which is (one time).

Cinci: As I understand it, Einstein's relativity and Lorentz's relativity make the same SR predictions with the same equations. The difference being that Lorentz attributes the effects to ether. So neither is mathematically simpler. Einstein bases SR on a single assumption...I don't think you can get much simpler than that.

I wholeheartedly disagree, I believe, (my faith is on the line here) that there is a simpler way but I choose not to stretch this string out to far so I will wait for your response to this message whilst I search the www. Let’s see...what shall I search for...I know, I know! “prove a belief” how to.

bob s

bob s: Cinci, maybe you could square your comments about using SR and GR for GPS with the following statement, if you please!
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 previous article concluded with a discussion of what this means for Einstein's special relativity (SR), and for the competing Lorentzian relativity (LR) theory. The comparison favors LR as the simpler theory describing the relativity of motion.

cinci: The first sentence in you statement reads "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.....". That would seem to "square" my comments about SR and GR although the word "once" could be left out. I don't necessarily agree with the rest of the statement because I believe the clocks are updated for periodically because of clock drift and other things.

Bob S: Why would you leave out the word “once” it is a very important word Cinci. The meaning of “once” is quite clear; it means there is a “one time” adjustment before lift off, the missing comma is but a small typo. You make typos Cinci, do you deny others the same failing?

cinci: If that's what it means then it's redundant. There is only one time prior to the launch. It's not a big deal, I just didn't see why the word was there and you wee asking me to agree or disagree. I would have said "he clock rates arejusted prior to launch."
***************************

Bob S: You believe” the GPS clocks are updated for “clock drift and other things”. To “believe” something is to put “faith” in that something; do you rely on your “faith” or the facts?

cinci: Only if you're religious fanatic do you put that kind of emphasis on the word believe. I believe it because I've read it in reputable documents.
******************************

Bob S: Because Cinci, if the facts belie the faith you have in what you believe then your “square” begins to loose its corners. And, the article, in your words, only “seems” to square with your comments. “Seems” as a word, is ambiguous, therefor arguable, and “faith” is shaky ground to begin with. No Cinci, the word "once" stays in, it means what it should mean, which is (one time).

cinci: You asked me to answer a question for you. Did you want me to tell you something I don't believe?

If "once" means "one time", then it would be better to say "one time" to make it clear.


You're beginning to sulnd like AAF now just trying to finf\d anything wrong in what I say. Get over it. Even if I say something wrong, SR and GR are still correct.
****************************

Cinci: As I understand it, Einstein's relativity and Lorentz's relativity make the same SR predictions with the same equations. The difference being that Lorentz attributes the effects to ether. So neither is mathematically simpler. Einstein bases SR on a single assumption...I don't think you can get much simpler than that.

Bob S: I wholeheartedly disagree, I believe, (my faith is on the line here) that there is a simpler way but I choose not to stretch this string out to far so I will wait for your response to this message whilst I search the www. Let’s see...what shall I search for...I know, I know! “prove a belief” how to.

cinci: So what if you find a simpler way to get the same answers. SR and GR would still be correct and they would still be the basis for the GPS system.
******************

I couldn't understand why yousay I won't answer siple questions. So Illoked at the other string and realized Imissed one of your gems. Here it is with my comments:

Bob S: To whom it may concern:

Cincirob: Good questions test whether I really understand what I believe.

Of course, the simple questions I asked in my experiment (problem) are not good enough for you, are they Cinci? Want a more complicate question, why did you lie about not doing GR maths? And I quote;

RE: Cincirob, The error is in the derivation shown August 1 2006, 10:27 PM

Cinci: The diagram shows that the two masses m1 and m2 are different distances from the larger mass, M. The force for m1,

F1=Gm1M/R1^2

Similarly

F2=Gm2M/R2^2.

Since R1 doesn not equal R2, the force on each mass is going to be different. So, it shouldn't surprize you that the author arrives at ath conclusion.

By the way, Newton's law states F=ma so F1=m1a1 and F2=m2a2. Substituing above yields

m1a1 = Gm1M/R1^2

and

m2a2 = Gm2M/R2^2

which simplify to

a1 = GM/R1^2

and

a2 = GM/R2^2

This demonstrates that the acceleration of a particle in a gravity field is a function only of the attacting mass (M) and the distance of the particle from that mass. This explains why Galileo could drop heavy and light objects from the tower and expect that they would wreach the ground at the same time.

More to come Cinci!

cinci: I apparently missed this earlier. Wake up. These calculations are about Newton's thoery of gravity, not Einstein's general relativity.
**********************************

Re: Cincirob, Cincirob, you're an honest guy....... September 3 2008, 11:28 AM

cinci: So what if you find a simpler way to get the same answers. SR and GR would still be correct and they would still be the basis for the GPS system.

But Cinci, the article say that after a comparison of SR and LR, LR was found to be the easier.

The previous article concluded with a discussion of what this means for Einstein's special relativity (SR), and for the competing Lorentzian relativity (LR) theory. The comparison favors LR as the simpler theory describing the relativity of motion.

Would you not agree then, that LR, being the simpler, would have been used for GPS rather than SR? Jesus H. Christ, Cinci, are you going to disregard the article just because I posted it? What...do you think I made it up?

bob s

Re: Cincirob, Cincirob, you're an honest guy....... September 3 2008, 11:28 AM

cinci: So what if you find a simpler way to get the same answers. SR and GR would still be correct and they would still be the basis for the GPS system.

Bob S: But Cinci, the article say that after a comparison of SR and LR, LR was found to be the easier.

But Bob, you don't believe it when your article says SR and GR are the basis for the GPS. Why do you believe this? Besides, what's easier for one person might not be easier for another. I'd have trouble looking at LR because it's based on ether and I don't believe in ether.
********************************

Bob S: The previous article concluded with a discussion of what this means for Einstein's special relativity (SR), and for the competing Lorentzian relativity (LR) theory. The comparison favors LR as the simpler theory describing the relativity of motion.

cinci: Since they wind up with the same equaitons, I'm not sure what makes LR simpler. Perhaps youcould explain why it's simpler.
*********************************

Bob S: Would you not agree then, that LR, being the simpler, would have been used for GPS rather than SR? Jesus H. Christ, Cinci, are you going to disregard the article just because I posted it? What...do you think I made it up?

cinci: I don't have to agree with any of your articles. You certainly don't agree with them. And I didn't disregard it, I didn't regard that part of it at all. We were discussing whether or not relativity was the basis for the GPS system and that's all I paid attention to. It is of no interest to me whether somebody thinks LR is simpler, I understand SR as well as I need to and LR is based on an ether which doesn't exist.

If you are all that interested in this issue and want me to comment on it, then post what the difference is that makes LR simpler and I'll give you my opinion.
******************************************

Re: Cincirob, Cincirob, you're an honest guy....... September 3 2008, 6:42 PM

Bob S: Would you not agree then, that LR, being the simpler, would have been used for GPS rather than SR? Jesus H. Christ, Cinci, are you going to disregard the article just because I posted it? What...do you think I made it up?

cinci: I don't have to agree with any of your articles.

Nor I with yours Cinci. You did seem to hold the article I sent you as a validation (not proof of such)of your position. I suggest that you did not read the article for its context as much as grabbing onto the section that suited your purpose. In other words, your research stopped when you read what you wanted to read. As far as GPS, and only GPS, I think Tom VanFlanden would be considered a specialist on the timing requirements of GPS, that is the part (the only part I know of) that he participated in.

cinci: You certainly don't agree with them.

I do not disagree with the article, I disagree with your interpretation of the article.

cinci: If you are all that interested in this issue and want me to comment on it, then post what the difference is that makes LR simpler and I'll give you my opinion.

OK, give me your opinion on this article as it may apply to GPS, It is not my motive or ulterior motive to try and sell you on the aether concept or trick you into admitting that the aether (or ether if you will) exists;

Today, our concepts of the "luminiferous ether" are considerably different than they were in Lorentz's day. It is now widely recognized that the local gravity field serves as the "preferred frame" of LET. With this alteration from Lorentz's original concept but without any change in the math or structure of the theory, LET has now become known simply as "Lorentzian relativity" (LR). Although LR has no intrinsic speed limit, it recognizes the innate difficulty of material bodies composed in part of electrons, while propagating in luminiferous ether, being able to exceed the wave speed of that ether, the speed of light. LR treats this as analogous to a propeller-driven aircraft exceeding the speed of sound without any outside assists, such as from gravity. A force that cannot itself propagate faster than light cannot propel material bodies faster than light.

Of critical importance to choosing the model that best represents nature, none of the eleven independent experiments testing SR verify frame reciprocity or distinguish SR from LR. In fact, historically, de Sitter, Sagnac, Michelson, and Ives concluded from their respective experiments that SR was falsified in favor of the Lorentz theory*. Indeed, the GPS itself is a practical realization of Lorentz's "universal time", wherein all clocks remain synchronized despite being in many different frames with high relative speeds. However, subsequent re-interpretation of SR allowed that theory to survive these objections.

bob s

Re: Cincirob, Cincirob, you're an honest guy....... September 3 2008, 6:42 PM

Bob S: Would you not agree then, that LR, being the simpler, would have been used for GPS rather than SR? Jesus H. Christ, Cinci, are you going to disregard the article just because I posted it? What...do you think I made it up?

cinci: I don't have to agree with any of your articles.

Bob S: Nor I with yours Cinci. You did seem to hold the article I sent you as a validation (not proof of such)of your position. I suggest that you did not read the article for its context as much as grabbing onto the section that suited your purpose. In other words, your research stopped when you read what you wanted to read. As far as GPS, and only GPS, I think Tom VanFlanden would be considered a specialist on the timing requirements of GPS, that is the part (the only part I know of) that he participated in.

cinci: Find another expert. This is from Wikipedia: Van Flandern is best known for his contention that certain features on the surface of Mars are artificial sculptures of "faces" created by extraterrestrial beings, that Mercury may be a former moon of Venus, and that planets sometimes spontaneously explode. In addition, he advocates the replacement of modern theories of physics with his own set of ideas, which he calls "deep reality physics", the main feature of which is his belief in the possibility of faster-than-light travel and limitless free energy. His 1993, 1999 book[1] also challenges prevailing notions regarding dark matter and solar system formation. He maintains a personal web page devoted to these topics. His views have not found acceptance within the mainstream scientific community.
**********************************************

cinci: You certainly don't agree with them.

Bob S: I do not disagree with the article, I disagree with your interpretation of the article.

cinci: OK, then why not tell me what your disagrement is rather than giving me your "experiment": quiz?
*******************************

cinci: If you are all that interested in this issue and want me to comment on it, then post what the difference is that makes LR simpler and I'll give you my opinion.

Bob S: "OK, give me your opinion on this article as it may apply to GPS, It is not my motive or ulterior motive to try and sell you on the aether concept or trick you into admitting that the aether (or ether if you will) exists;

Today, our concepts of the "luminiferous ether" are considerably different than they were in Lorentz's day. It is now widely recognized that the local gravity field serves as the "preferred frame" of LET. With this alteration from Lorentz's original concept but without any change in the math or structure of the theory, LET has now become known simply as "Lorentzian relativity" (LR). Although LR has no intrinsic speed limit, it recognizes the innate difficulty of material bodies composed in part of electrons, while propagating in luminiferous ether, being able to exceed the wave speed of that ether, the speed of light. LR treats this as analogous to a propeller-driven aircraft exceeding the speed of sound without any outside assists, such as from gravity. A force that cannot itself propagate faster than light cannot propel material bodies faster than light.

Of critical importance to choosing the model that best represents nature, none of the eleven independent experiments testing SR verify frame reciprocity or distinguish SR from LR. In fact, historically, de Sitter, Sagnac, Michelson, and Ives concluded from their respective experiments that SR was falsified in favor of the Lorentz theory*. Indeed, the GPS itself is a practical realization of Lorentz's "universal time", wherein all clocks remain synchronized despite being in many different frames with high relative speeds. However, subsequent re-interpretation of SR allowed that theory to survive these objections."

cinci: Which part of this is supposed to be simpler than SR? The part about the GPS system supporting universal time is just wrong. First, if you bring the orbiting clocks back to earth they are running at a different rate than earth clocks as your article point out which means they are not synchronized in all frames. The reason the system can work is becasue the orbits are very circular. The Lorentz transformation for time is

t' = (t - vx/c^2)/(1 - (v/c)^2)^.5

In the case of an orbiting clock compared with a clock at the cneter of th earth, x is a constant, the radius of the earth. So that term cancels out when you differentiate the equation to get

dt'/dt = (1 - (v/c)^2)^.5

This tells you the clocks run at different rates in a specific ration (1 - (v/c)^2)^.5. This is not Lorentz's universal time but Einstein's special theory of relativity. And it is not a reinterpretation, this "interpretation" of the Lorentz transformations is in Einstein's very first paper on the subject wirtten in 1905. Here's the paper: http://www.zionism-israel.com/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_Specrel.htm

Bottom line, I think this article is nonsense. Ask yourself why the author only refers to a group of scientists about 100 years gone.

Re: Cincirob, Cincirob, you're an honest guy....... September 4 2008, 11:01 AM

cinci: Find another expert. This is from Wikipedia: Van Flandern is best known for his contention that certain features on the surface of Mars are artificial sculptures of "faces" created by extraterrestrial beings, that Mercury may be a former moon of Venus, and that planets sometimes spontaneously explode. In addition, he advocates the replacement of modern theories of physics with his own set of ideas, which he calls "deep reality physics", the main feature of which is his belief in the possibility of faster-than-light travel and limitless free energy. His 1993, 1999 book[1] also challenges prevailing notions regarding dark matter and solar system formation. He maintains a personal web page devoted to these topics. His views have not found acceptance within the mainstream scientific community.

Cinci, are you trying to imply that Tom Van Flandern is a “kook” he authored the first article I gave you, http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp his was the article you kept trying to rub my nose in and now you tell me “I” should find another expert, You used him as “your” expert when he suited your purpose. Here is his bio tell me if YOUR bio Can match it. Don't imply something Cinci, make a statement as if you have the courage of your conviction.

Tom Van Flandern, biography.

“Tom Van Flandern received his Ph.D. degree in Astronomy, specializing in celestial mechanics (the theory of orbits), from Yale University in 1969. He spent 21 years (1963-1983) at the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C., where he became the Chief of the Celestial Mechanics Branch of the Nautical Almanac Office.

During the past decade, Tom has been a Research Associate at the Univ. of Maryland Physics Department in College Park, MD, and a consultant to the Army Research Laboratory in Adelphi, MD, working on improving the accuracy of the Global Positioning System (GPS). He and his wife moved to Sequim in 2005 to be nearer children and grandchildren and enjoy the beauty of the Pacific NW.

During his career as a professional research astronomer, Tom has been honored by a prize from the Gravity Research Foundation; served on the Council of American Astronomical Society's Division on Dynamical Astronomy; taught astronomy at the University of South Florida and to Navy Department employees; been a consultant to NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab; and done several spots for the "Project Universe" series for public TV.”

bob s

Re: Cincirob, Cincirob, you're an honest guy....... September 4 2008, 11:01 AM

cinci: Find another expert. This is from Wikipedia: Van Flandern is best known for his contention that certain features on the surface of Mars are artificial sculptures of "faces" created by extraterrestrial beings, that Mercury may be a former moon of Venus, and that planets sometimes spontaneously explode. In addition, he advocates the replacement of modern theories of physics with his own set of ideas, which he calls "deep reality physics", the main feature of which is his belief in the possibility of faster-than-light travel and limitless free energy. His 1993, 1999 book[1] also challenges prevailing notions regarding dark matter and solar system formation. He maintains a personal web page devoted to these topics. His views have not found acceptance within the mainstream scientific community.

Bob S: Cinci, are you trying to imply that Tom Van Flandern is a “kook” he authored the first article I gave you, http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp his was the article you kept trying to rub my nose in and now you tell me “I” should find another expert, You used him as “your” expert when he suited your purpose. Here is his bio tell me if YOUR bio Can match it. Don't imply something Cinci, make a statement as if you have the courage of your conviction.

cinci: Actually I used him as your expert when you ignored him. Just because he's a "kook" doesn't mean everything he says is wrong. The part I agree with is backed up by a lot of other authors.

And yes, I'll put my bio up against his. I'm just short of a PhD and about half the jet airplanes in the air today, military and commercial, are using technologies I developed and designs I pioneered and they made my company a lot of money. In engineering it isn't what you think that counts or what theory you can reinterpret, it's what you put in the machine and test to see if it works. Anybody can make up a theory that doesn't get tested.

Besides, why don't you put his bio up against Einstein's or Bohr's or Heisenberg's. They all pioneered physics ideas that have been thoroughly tested and found to work.
******************************

Tom Van Flandern, biography.

“Tom Van Flandern received his Ph.D. degree in Astronomy, specializing in celestial mechanics (the theory of orbits), from Yale University in 1969. He spent 21 years (1963-1983) at the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C., where he became the Chief of the Celestial Mechanics Branch of the Nautical Almanac Office.

During the past decade, Tom has been a Research Associate at the Univ. of Maryland Physics Department in College Park, MD, and a consultant to the Army Research Laboratory in Adelphi, MD, working on improving the accuracy of the Global Positioning System (GPS). He and his wife moved to Sequim in 2005 to be nearer children and grandchildren and enjoy the beauty of the Pacific NW.

During his career as a professional research astronomer, Tom has been honored by a prize from the Gravity Research Foundation; served on the Council of American Astronomical Society's Division on Dynamical Astronomy; taught astronomy at the University of South Florida and to Navy Department employees; been a consultant to NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab; and done several spots for the "Project Universe" series for public TV.”

Re: Cincirob, Cincirob, you're an honest guy....... September 4 2008, 12:59 PM

cinci: Actually I used him as your expert when you ignored him. Just because he's a "kook" doesn't mean everything he says is wrong. The part I agree with is backed up by a lot of other authors.

And just exactly which "part" would that be Cinci?, if you don't mind me asking for a little clarity. I would think an expert like you would provide clarity, it seems to pretty important to you when I write.

And, I never ignored him, (Tom Van Flandern).

bob s

cinci: Actually I used him as your expert when you ignored him. Just because he's a "kook" doesn't mean everything he says is wrong. The part I agree with is backed up by a lot of other authors.

Bob S: And just exactly which "part" would that be Cinci?, if you don't mind me asking for a little clarity. I would think an expert like you would provide clarity, it seems to pretty important to you when I write.

cinci: The part that says SR and GR are the basis for the GPS system. Try to keep up.
***************************************

Bob S: And, I never ignored him, (Tom Van Flandern).

cinci: Well you should.
**********************

Re: Cincirob, Cincirob, you're an honest guy....... September 4 2008, 12:59 PM

Cinci: And yes, I'll put my bio up against his. I'm just short of a PhD and about half the jet airplanes in the air today, military and commercial, are using technologies I developed and designs I pioneered and they made my company a lot of money. In engineering it isn't what you think that counts or what theory you can reinterpret, it's what you put in the machine and test to see if it works. Anybody can make up a theory that doesn't get tested.

First of all, good luck with the PHD, (and I don’t mean “luck” as in superstition nor do I mean “luck” in any derogatory sense) just good luck. Otherwise, your bio is impressive and, I assume, it is what it says it is. However, your bio does not match up with Tom’s. Tom has a degree in astronomy, worked on the GPS program and taught at University level. I will defer to his expertise on the subject of GPS any time.

Cinci: Besides, why don't you put his bio up against Einstein's or Bohr's or Heisenberg's. They all pioneered physics ideas that have been thoroughly tested and found to work.

Any discussion of Bohr or Heisenberg will only distract from this discussion but as far as Einstein and Van Flandern I will say this; Einstein’s SR predicted what would happen with a GPS in place and Van Flandern has shown what does happen with GPS in actual use.

bob s

One more thing Cinci, before I batten down the hatches for, what might become, a hurricane. I am going to venture a guess and it is only a guess. I suspect that your PHD will be in the Humanities, the study of human nature. I am not sure why I say that but that is just an impression I get.

bob s

Re: Cincirob, Cincirob, you're an honest guy....... September 4 2008, 12:59 PM

Cinci: And yes, I'll put my bio up against his. I'm just short of a PhD and about half the jet airplanes in the air today, military and commercial, are using technologies I developed and designs I pioneered and they made my company a lot of money. In engineering it isn't what you think that counts or what theory you can reinterpret, it's what you put in the machine and test to see if it works. Anybody can make up a theory that doesn't get tested.

Bob S: First of all, good luck with the PHD, (and I don’t mean “luck” as in superstition nor do I mean “luck” in any derogatory sense) just good luck. Otherwise, your bio is impressive and, I assume, it is what it says it is. However, your bio does not match up with Tom’s. Tom has a degree in astronomy, worked on the GPS program and taught at University level. I will defer to his expertise on the subject of GPS any time.

cinci: So now you're saying realtivity is the basis for the GpS system? OK. Me too.
*********************************

Cinci: Besides, why don't you put his bio up against Einstein's or Bohr's or Heisenberg's. They all pioneered physics ideas that have been thoroughly tested and found to work.

Bob S: Any discussion of Bohr or Heisenberg will only distract from this discussion but as far as Einstein and Van Flandern I will say this; Einstein’s SR predicted what would happen with a GPS in place and Van Flandern has shown what does happen with GPS in actual use.

cinci: Well since the system was designed about 30 years after Einstein died, you're correct in saying he didn't work on it. But again, you acknowledge that SR is used in the design of the GPS. I'm happy you changed your mind.
*************************

Bob S: One more thing Cinci, before I batten down the hatches for, what might become, a hurricane. I am going to venture a guess and it is only a guess. I suspect that your PHD will be in the Humanities, the study of human nature. I am not sure why I say that but that is just an impression I get.

cinci: So you think the companies that build aircraft engines hire students of the humanities to design them. In fact, my company paid for all my post-graduate work, teaching the bulk of the courses themselves. Humanities didn't enter into it.

But I have studied human nature to an extent because I managed as many as 200 engineers. You and AAF woulodn't have made the cut.
**********************************************

Re: Cincirob, Cincirob, you're an honest guy....... September 5 2008, 12:25 AM

Cinci: And yes, I'll put my bio up against his. I'm just short of a PhD and about half the jet airplanes in the air today, military and commercial, are using technologies I developed and designs I pioneered and they made my company a lot of money. In engineering it isn't what you think that counts or what theory you can reinterpret, it's what you put in the machine and test to see if it works. Anybody can make up a theory that doesn't get tested.

Bob S: First of all, good luck with the PHD, (and I don’t mean “luck” as in superstition nor do I mean “luck” in any derogatory sense) just good luck. Otherwise, your bio is impressive and, I assume, it is what it says it is. However, your bio does not match up with Tom’s. Tom has a degree in astronomy, worked on the GPS program and taught at University level. I will defer to his expertise on the subject of GPS any time.

cinci: So now you're saying realtivity is the basis for the GpS system? OK. Me too.
*********************************

Ah! The typical Cincirob response, avoid the issue being discussed, evade the facts, search out the miniata of the exchange, assume facts not in evidence, twist the facts that are in evidence and attempt to exploit those twisted facts to his advantage; all in all the very hallmark of his very existence and the agenda of the Einsteinian Cult. Cinci has been on this message board for about 2 years and it is only by rare exception that he has done any different than what I just described and what he did in the preceding exchange. The subject here Cinci, is GPS and the issue at hand is qualifications; your’s vs. Van Flandern’s.

What happened to the bio match-up Cinci. You put your bio up against Van Flanderns; did it match? NO! All you did was compare importance. If I want to build an airplane I’ll check with you. When I want to land that plane I’ll check with Van Flandern’s GPS. Van Flandern is the expert on GPS not you, and he is not a “Kook”, he is well educated, highly intelligent man with an open mind who willing to explore avenues other than Einsteinian dogmatism. Van Flandern does not demean people with differing view points that differ from him, as you and your Einsteinian Cult do (remember Dingle). He responds to inquiries with respect, not like you and your Einsteinian Cultists do. Do I agree with everything Van Flandern says? No! But when it comes to GPS, he is the expert I defer to because when he says GPS does not use Einsteinian Relativity I believe him.

And by the by Cinci, where is the link to your bio so I can verify that what you say about your bio is true?

bob s

cinci: So now you're saying realtivity is the basis for the GpS system? OK. Me too.

Ah! The typical Cincirob response, avoid the issue being discussed, evade the facts, search out the miniata of the exchange, assume facts not in evidence, twist the facts that are in evidence and attempt to exploit those twisted facts to his advantage; all in all the very hallmark of his very existence and the agenda of the Einsteinian Cult. Cinci has been on this message board for about 2 years and it is only by rare exception that he has done any different than what I just described and what he did in the preceding exchange. The subject here Cinci, is GPS and the issue at hand is qualifications; your’s vs. Van Flandern’s.

What happened to the bio match-up Cinci. You put your bio up against Van Flanderns; did it match? NO! All you did was compare importance. If I want to build an airplane I’ll check with you. When I want to land that plane I’ll check with Van Flandern’s GPS. Van Flandern is the expert on GPS not you, and he is not a “Kook”, he is well educated, highly intelligent man with an open mind who willing to explore avenues other than Einsteinian dogmatism. Van Flandern does not demean people with differing view points that differ from him, as you and your Einsteinian Cult do (remember Dingle). He responds to inquiries with respect, not like you and your Einsteinian Cultists do. Do I agree with everything Van Flandern says? No! But when it comes to GPS, he is the expert I defer to because when he says GPS does not use Einsteinian Relativity I believe him.

cinci: If you don't think my bio mathces up with van Flandern that's your business. But I still believe that airplanes fly. If van Flandern doesn't think relativity is the basis for the GPS system, then he has jumped ship. Have you found anybody who says the system wasn't designed using relativity? No!

And the subject here isn't my bio, it's whether or not relativity works and whether it is the basis for the GPS system. Like all the rest of the anti-science people I've run into, as soon as your technical arguments get hollow, they start going personal.
***********************

Bob S: And by the by Cinci, where is the link to your bio so I can verify that what you say about your bio is true?

cinci: Yes, the next place the anti-science people go: everybody is a liar. I don't care if you believe me or not. My "bio" is in the records of the corporation I worked for and they're not open to the public.

So get back on the track, sonny, this is a technical argument.
***********************