Einstein's Relativity and Everyday Life -- Clifford M. Will

I'm an astrophysicist wannabe - so doing so would be equivalent to
asking you to explain GR

But the way, how about reading the post where I was polite to you and
ANSWERED your points re your equation?

 

[/QUOTE]

WHich means diddly squat when it comes to GR.


COPYING my previous post


OK To show I can be an adult, I'll now put on my serious head when
dealing with you. Reciprocate and we can talk physics, ok? As the
disclaimer at the end says, I've been out in the sun all day walking
round some interesting geology - so I'm suffering a little sunstroke
;-)

It's certainly an interesting coincidence, mainly because the breakdown
of the term

g*r/2c^2

(F = mg = GMm/r^2 \therefore g = GM/r^2)

= (G*M*r)/2(r^2*c^2)

= GM/2rc^2

Is VERY similar to the Schwarzschild radius.
note R(Schwarzschild) = 2GM/c^2

Hence 1/2 = GM/(R_s*c^2)

Which is a relativistic factor, I hardly see how you can call it
"classical" per se. The closer this function is to one half, as I
recall, the closer the system is to gr rather then classical. For the
earth system, even the sun-mercury system - this term is as close to
one as you can get. (When I did the sun-mercury calculations - its 1 to
about 8 decimal places - hence why GR in the solar system is pretty
masked and needs sensitive equipment to spot) Its an interesting
coincidence, but thats all. Its indicative that the correction factors
are SMALL in this case, but I think its just a handy coincidence that
your "classical" formula contains a GR term in it, just hidden

Personally I think you've noticed this gives a roughly equivalent
answer, but missed its a factor of two out. Now admittedly physicists
are the worst people for saying "factor of 2 - so what!" but its there.

Plus I have to guess that F above is a force. Are you saying (as I am
guessing) this is the grav force the photon feels?

What is interesting is that you are badmouthing GR, calling it bad
science akin with feng shui etc yet here you are admitting that
gravitational time dilation takes place. If you accept gravitational
red shift, you have to accept a clock in a gravitational potential well
runs slow.

From that admission, you're all but admitting GR. All I can get from
this is that you admit gravitational potential well clocks run slow,
but not GR.

A general relativistic Z formula is :

z = 1\sqrt(1- (2GM/rc^2)) -1

(Non spinning, symmetric yada yada)

Which looks like this formula you have discovered is merely a first
order binomial approximation of this gr Z formula.

(1+x)^n = 1 + nx + ...
z = (1+x)^(-1/2) - 1

(x = - 2GM/rc^2)

Binomially simplify (first order only) = 1 - 1/2 x -1
\therefore z = -1/2 x = GM/rc^2

Yielding your factor to a factor of 2 out.

I'm also confused you are calling this a 200 year old formula of
Galileo. Since we're talking the 1600's for GG are you confused, or
saying this was something he discovered that was 200 years old when he
did? The first proper mention of the idea of redshift with light that I
am aware of was the 1780's with John Mitchell. I'd like to see some
sources that GG came up with it.

More precisely as I recall, GM/Rc^2 approaches 1/2 as you get further
from the classical model to the relativistic model.

What you don't seem to understand is the level of difference is small,
but tangible. The difference in magnitude between the classical
prediction of deflection and the GR case is only 2.

Another thing to note is.... Its not just a gravitational red shift
issue there is a SR correction due to the fact the satellite clock is
moving.

(Admission here - I've been out in the lovely hot sun all day - forgive
me if its BS ;-) Second Note. Tom, you owe me a tenner if you try to
use this admission to ignore what I am saying. )

 

Ni shithead, this is refuted by multiple experiments, motherfucker
Mukesh Prasad. Look here, at paragraph 3.3., asshole:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one-way tests

<rest snipped due to the extreme imbecility of Mukesh Prasad>

Fucking idiot, Mukesh Prasad, need the appropriate daily "treatment"

 

Ok, what did I say in that thread that proved I do not understand
the basics? (Before explaining that, you may want to follow the
discussion to the end to make sure you didn't misunderstand
something yourself! Just click the "next" links.)

 

[/QUOTE]

Why should I. I'll be the first to admit I hate electronics. I don't
get on with it. I worked in IT for over a decade before becoming a
wannabe astrophysicst ( ) and so I am reasonably happy with
programming - though JCL on IBM Mainframes can test my patiemce

So yep you're right, you could probably out design me in circles.

BUT thats because thats not my field of influence.

My interests lie with cosmology and particle physics.

See, unlike you - I'm quite happy to admit my ignorance in certain
fields - the set of things-i-do-not-know wil ALWAYS be larger then the
set-of-things-i-do.

But thats great, cause it keeps me learning.

So hows about YOU drop the attitude?

And by the same token, GR is not yours. Get the metaphor?

And please stop begging me to give you a vanity website. The ambient
temperature in hell will have to yield a Bose Einstein Condensate
before I could be bothered. My HTML skills aren't the best. But thats
because again, thats not my forte.

The phrase "HORSES FOR COURSES" rings a bell?

 

EM phenomena propogate at c. So you are wrong.

But you don't actually know because you know no mathematics. What is
your background in mathematics?

I don't care whether you say you have studied it or not because it is
obvious from your writing that you know nothing about it.

Word salad. Absolutely no meaningful content.

You have no idea how general relativity works.

You are just as wrong now as you were when I last read it.

Stop trying to blind me with bullshit. Your musings about general
relativity are wrong and should be deleted for being so worthless.

 

* Sorry, GR *is* based upon SR

WRONG.

SR is a limiting case of GR.

* GR is based upon Minkowskian geometry

WRONG.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

* How did you think the C appeared in GR, out of empty space?

STUPID QUESTION.

You obviously 'learned' GR from the same place Henri Wilson did.

 

WHich means diddly squat when it comes to GR.


COPYING my previous post


OK To show I can be an adult, I'll now put on my serious head when
dealing with you. Reciprocate and we can talk physics, ok? As the
disclaimer at the end says, I've been out in the sun all day walking
round some interesting geology - so I'm suffering a little sunstroke
;-)

It's certainly an interesting coincidence, mainly because the breakdown
of the term

g*r/2c^2

(F = mg = GMm/r^2 \therefore g = GM/r^2)

= (G*M*r)/2(r^2*c^2)

= GM/2rc^2

Is VERY similar to the Schwarzschild radius.
note R(Schwarzschild) = 2GM/c^2

Hence 1/2 = GM/(R_s*c^2)

Which is a relativistic factor, I hardly see how you can call it
"classical" per se. The closer this function is to one half, as I
recall, the closer the system is to gr rather then classical. For the
earth system, even the sun-mercury system - this term is as close to
one as you can get. (When I did the sun-mercury calculations - its 1 to
about 8 decimal places - hence why GR in the solar system is pretty
masked and needs sensitive equipment to spot) Its an interesting
coincidence, but thats all. Its indicative that the correction factors
are SMALL in this case, but I think its just a handy coincidence that
your "classical" formula contains a GR term in it, just hidden

Personally I think you've noticed this gives a roughly equivalent
answer, but missed its a factor of two out. Now admittedly physicists
are the worst people for saying "factor of 2 - so what!" but its there.

Plus I have to guess that F above is a force. Are you saying (as I am
guessing) this is the grav force the photon feels?

What is interesting is that you are badmouthing GR, calling it bad
science akin with feng shui etc yet here you are admitting that
gravitational time dilation takes place. If you accept gravitational
red shift, you have to accept a clock in a gravitational potential well
runs slow.

From that admission, you're all but admitting GR. All I can get from
this is that you admit gravitational potential well clocks run slow,
but not GR.

A general relativistic Z formula is :

z = 1\sqrt(1- (2GM/rc^2)) -1

(Non spinning, symmetric yada yada)

Which looks like this formula you have discovered is merely a first
order binomial approximation of this gr Z formula.

(1+x)^n = 1 + nx + ...
z = (1+x)^(-1/2) - 1

(x = - 2GM/rc^2)

Binomially simplify (first order only) = 1 - 1/2 x -1
\therefore z = -1/2 x = GM/rc^2

Yielding your factor to a factor of 2 out.

I'm also confused you are calling this a 200 year old formula of
Galileo. Since we're talking the 1600's for GG are you confused, or
saying this was something he discovered that was 200 years old when he
did? The first proper mention of the idea of redshift with light that I
am aware of was the 1780's with John Mitchell. I'd like to see some
sources that GG came up with it.

More precisely as I recall, GM/Rc^2 approaches 1/2 as you get further
from the classical model to the relativistic model.

What you don't seem to understand is the level of difference is small,
but tangible. The difference in magnitude between the classical
prediction of deflection and the GR case is only 2.

Another thing to note is.... Its not just a gravitational red shift
issue there is a SR correction due to the fact the satellite clock is
moving.[/QUOTE]

1. The thread is about
"Einstein's Relativity and Everyday Life -- Clifford M. Will"
an article where a guy on the taxpayer dole,
tries to con folks into believing that General Relativity
was and is essential to the GPS system.

2. This is complete self-serving bullshit.

3. Neither Galileo's model, nor Newton's model,
nor Einstein's model is ESSENTIAL to determining the
offsets in the GPS oscillators, and the times of the clocks.3.

All one has to do, and what NASA did,
is to put an oscillator into the desired orbit,
and if it is not in sync with the master oscillator on the ground,
send the satellite data to adjust the frequency dividers.

And as the oscillators are used to slave clocks
(Tick accumulators) on the satellites,
all one has to do, and what NASA does,
is to periodically send the satellites data indicating the time of
the master clock on the ground.

3. Regarding Phineas T Puddleduck comment
about Relativity corrections
"due to the fact the satellite clock<s are> moving".

ALL of the satellites are moving with respect to ALL
GPS receivers. Are you asserting that all of these
corrections are done at Earth stations, on the satellites,
on do all of the GPS receivers perform,
Relativity computations?

The fact of the matter is, that this is treated
in the receiver as the old Doppler Effect,
and it is insanity to add General Relativity
and Special Relativity babble and overhead.

4. And here is a question that I,
and the designers of the GPS system,
and the designers of GPS receivers know the answer to,
but the General Relativity Charlatans seem to be completely
ignorant of:

Considering that all of the transmitted frequencies are
frequency shifted by the Doppler Effect, and as the Doppler Effect
between all satellites and all receivers vary,
"Why is it DESIRABLE, but NOT essential,
to use a frequency offset anyway?"

In other words, the differences in frequencies are going all over the
place for all of the receivers, so why make the frequency offset
in the first place?

5. General Relativity plays a nominal role, if any,
in the GPS system contrary to what the GTR Charlatans say.
The most important technology used in the GPS system
came from a patent by a German/American movie actress,
Hedy Lamar, and the application of this technology was not possible
until fifty years after Hedy Lamar patented her technology.
Large scale integrate circuits made the texchnology possible,
and large scale integrated technology was a natural evolution
from the Edison Effect, the triode, and the Cat's Whisker diode.

I might mention, that I was in Vienna last summer,
and tried to find Hedy Lamar's home, but no one
there seems to have heard of her. I tried to interest
several travel companies in finding her home,
and hyping it as a tourist attraction, as her patent
is so important in modern communications.

While in Vienna, I took a picture at Boltzmann's grave.
I would post the picture on my web site, but I needed a haircut,
and had a "bad hair day",
and looked a lot like Boltzmann myself. ;-))

--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com

 

I'm reiterating this as you skipped ALL OF MY QUESTIONS

Manners maketh man.

So no, you can't answer any of my points.

1, Your formula has nothing to do with Galileo, you cannot cite any
sources for it. GG worked in the 1600's, the first mention of redshift
was in 1780 by Mitchell. So where does this formula come from.

2. The "formula" contains a binomial first order approximation of the
relativistic Z formula

3. You have admitted that gravitational time dilation takes place, but
cannot understand how this is relevant to the GPS system. If you admit
that gravitational forces from your formula cause a gravitational
redshift, then you are admitting gravitational time dilation.

 

Certainly some corrections could have been determined by trial and error,
but relativity theory predicted the degree of correction and explains
it cause! Relativity correction were designed into the engineering,
not added "just once before lift-off",

See: http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html

 

No doubt, NASA system engineers knew,
as Galileo discovered several hundred years ago,
that oscillators were affected by gravity,
and no doubt they took Galileo's discovery into account
when they designed the GPS system.

The "classical" "gravitational red shift" equation
which is derived from Galileo's work, is:

f = f0 * ( 1 + 1/2 * g * distance / C^2)

where "g" is about 9.8 meters per seconds^2
"distance" is about 10,000 kilometers or 10,000,000 meters,
and "C" is about 300,000,000 meters per second,
in the case of the GPS system in Earth orbit.

Computing we get: 1.00000000054444444,
and subtracting one (1.0..) to get the difference,
we get the 5.4*10^-10 which is basically the number NASA used.

Although it wasn't necessary to use any theory or model
to compute the frequency offset,

as NASA could just put the oscillators in orbit,
and then send commands to the system computer to
adjust the frequency dividers to match the
satellite oscillators with the master oscillator,

Although one could call the initial adjustment
the ***Galileo Correction***,
system engineers are not so stupid as to put
their eggs in anyone's basket.

What they do, is try to design systems that can be adjusted
manually or automatically, to compensate for any artifact
that might degrade the system,
no matter if it is an electric field, a magnetic field,
a gravitation field, a Hubble Effect, a Doppler effect,
temperature, pressure, component aging, alien mind control,
low battery power, radioactivity, ESP, etc.

For example, note how often NASA adjusts and updates the software
on satellites and landers to adjust for artifact.

Likewise, the oscillator accumulators (Clocks)
in the satellites, can be, and are,
adjusted to match the master clock,
on a regular basis, just as most PC users
have their computer clocks adjusted automatically
to some master clock, when they log on the Internet.

--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com

 

Of course I admit that oscillators are affected by acceleration.
Galileo discovered that over 300 years ago.

Red shift has to do with how distance
affects how an observer sees an oscillating system,
not with the oscillating system itself.

Doppler Effect has to do with how
relative velocity affects how an observer sees an oscillating system,
not with the oscillating system itself.

I suggest that you read about Galileo's
experiments with pendulums, acceleration, and inclined planes,
and Newton's "Mathematical Principles of natural Philosophy",
Proposition 20, Problem 4
to get some idea of what was known about how
acceleration affected oscillating systems
hundreds of years ago.

Regarding "Phineas T Puddleduck's" comment:
"Manners maketh man.",

I suggest that he reflect on how he attacks messengers,
and redirects replies out of the newsgroup,
so that third parties cannot see the rebuttal.

I am still waiting for "Phineas T Puddleduck's"
to prove that he understands calculus and physics,
by describing how one could design an energy transducer.

--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com

 

Why should I. I'll be the first to admit I hate electronics. I don't
get on with it. I worked in IT for over a decade before becoming a
wannabe astrophysicst ( ) and so I am reasonably happy with
programming - though JCL on IBM Mainframes can test my patiemce

So yep you're right, you could probably out design me in circles.

BUT thats because thats not my field of influence.

My interests lie with cosmology and particle physics.

See, unlike you - I'm quite happy to admit my ignorance in certain
fields - the set of things-i-do-not-know wil ALWAYS be larger then the
set-of-things-i-do.

But thats great, cause it keeps me learning.

So hows about YOU drop the attitude?

And by the same token, GR is not yours. Get the metaphor?[/QUOTE]

"Phineas T Puddleduck" makes a good point!

I am not into General Relativity, astrology, feng shui, cult worship,
and other subjects that waste time, money and minds.

As I am always anxious to learn things
that enable me to have better control over my environment,
hopefully "Phineas T Puddleduck"
will work out a few examples that demonstrate
the utility of General Relativity, astrology, and feng shui,
in dealing with real world things.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com

 

Neither mentions redshift - and you cannot cite the sources of your
formula

Ditto GR. I've already admitted electronics aint my forte.

 

Answer my points.

 

A simple googling will prove to you that GR and SR affects on atomic
clocks, moving ones and ones in gravitational potential wells, have
been proven NIST/NPL etc. You insist on some formula whose age changes
with each post, whose ownership changes (Newton, Galileo) yet has no
historical basis.

You then try to attack by claiming a position of authority,
unforunately such authority is over 30 years old - and in a totally
unrelated field. You then try to undermine me by obsessing with some
energy transducer knowing full well I do not deal with such things. But
somehow this is supposedly able to offset the fact that not only do you
understand a principle of physics that is hardly considered
"alternative", you prove your ignorance by lumping it in with feng shui
and astronomy.

Note I have no issue whatsoever with admitting ignorance in some
fields. Thats why I study physics, to fill in the holes of my
understanding.

Tellingly though, your own equation contains a binomial first order
approximation of the correct formula. As a result, even though you
disclaim GR you are accepting (in this case) the features of the
physics that lead to corrections to the GPS clocks - the gravitational
redshift and time dilation which IIRC is the dominant factor over the
SR time dilation due to the satellites movement.

When called on this, you dismissed it without being able to discuss
why, except to try and draw on your unrelated experience on another
field.

Now I could either continually poke you with a stick, as it is funny -
or I could listen to the inner voice of sanity and killfile you and
Jeff Relf as cranks. Which is rather sad in your case, as if your
references are correct regarding your past work - you were once a
pretty intelligent guy.

But you've degenerated into kook territory, and the surest sign of that
is claiming authority in a subject you have no experience in. Its not
your forte, you haven't done the maths and so when even someone like me
(who has only touched upon GR compared to some people here) can rip
your argument to shreds - its quite telling.

And thats only cause as part of my preliminary work into GR I did the
math regarding the effects of GR in the solar system. As I have said to
you, the factor is around 1 to 8 decimal places. This meant that the
effects were largely masked till the advance of better technology.

Can you explain the discrepancy of around 40 arc seconds of arc per
century in Mercury's orbit otherwise? You can say (rightly) that the
discrepancy is small - as it is around 10% of the total deflection
caused by examining the gravitational pull of the other planets - but
if what you are saying (as I believe) is that you just IGNORE this
discrepancy, then you truly are a terrible scientist.

S0 if you want not to be killfiled....

1) CIte exactly where this Galilieo/Newton redshift formula comes from.
I want a proper source where I can read it for myself. Websites don't
count. Cite it as if you were writing a technical document.

2) Cite exactly how you can reconcile your claim that GR is hokum when
in this case you are accepting gravitational redshift and time
dilation. Especially when the above mentioned formula contains a GR
term.

If you cannot do so in the next 2 posts I'm going to killfile you.

 

It probably feels good to type "wrong" in upper cases. But
in the very "next" message, I explained WHY I said GR is based
upon SR.

How about some factual refutations instead of just
uppercase assertions?

 

You have no clue what's going on, at all?

I am refuting the entire historical source of the "EM phenomena
propagate at c" superstition. So of course I will make different
predictions.

Now do you get it?

 

Ah so its not just Einstein thats wrong, its Maxwell too?

 

NASA is not part of the GPS picture.

GPS satellites are in Keplerian orbits and Einstein's
relativity is an integral part of the GPS design, not
just the orbiting atomic clock frequency offset.