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

[Tom Potter]

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

It is interesting to see that Sam Wormley
is using his OWN, PHONY, pretend, EDU web site
as a reference.

I wonder if Sam's web site simply parrots GTR Urban Legends
as he does in the newsgroups,
or if he provides an objective look at ACTUAL FACTS?

For example,
what is the simplest way to determine and set the
frequency offsets of satellites?

As can be seen,
the GTR promoters use 13 hacks of GTR
to accomplish what on, simple, clear, 200 year old Galileo equation does.

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

 

[Tom Potter]

I don't think there is anything political about relativity.
Nor is there any lack of published results. NASA, NSF and
other sources still fund basic scientific research including
relativity. Its biggest application, GPS is $30B+ industry,
applying relativity to create a global infrastructure benefiting
people all over the world.

I've heard of the tail wagging the dog,
but when Sam gives GTR credit for the GPS system,
he has a hair on the dog wagging the dog.
(And a very tiny hair at best.)

As rational, intelligent, practical, people understand,
although 13 hacks of GTR can predict the frequency offset of the GPS
oscillators,
as can one, simple, clear, 200 year old equation discovered by Galileo,
it is not necessary to use either,
and in fact NASA used neither.

They put a bird in orbit with an oscillator,
noted how much various factors like gravity affected the oscillators,
and then they adjusted the frequency dividers to get the outputs in sync.

And they also monitor all of the clocks on a constant basis,
and send them data to maintain sync with the master clock.

Cult thinking is a waste of a mind.

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

 

[Wolfgang S. Rupprecht]

How do you figure the gravitational force is four times weaker at
20,000 km above the surface of the earth?

By forgetting about classical physics and the old inverse square law?
Oops.

6378km radius for the earth
26560km radius for the sv's orbit

(/ 26560.0 6378.0) 4.164314832235811 ; ~4x the distance

Since "Force = G * mass1 * mmass2 / (distance ** 2)" we should get
1/16 the gravity at 4x the distance where the gps sv's orbit.

-wolfgang "Still cheering team relativity though!"

 

[Tom Potter]

1) GPS corrections do not actually use the relativistic computations,
they just re-synchronize. GR says "you have a mismatch,
re-synchronize",

The 38 microsec per day drift of a standard clock in GPS orbit was
_measured_ during the initial setup of the first satellite. If, as you
claim, this correction was to be applied by simply "re-synchronizing" the
clocks, then in order to meet the accuracy specification of 3 meters, the
clocks would need to be "re-synchronized" 3,800 times per day, or almost 3
times every minute. Needless to say, a system based on such frequent
"re-synchronization" could not possibly work. And indeed, the actual
system uses corrections applied typically daily, and these corrections are
MUCH smaller than 38 microsec (because the basic 38 microsec per day is
programmed into the satellites).

2) There is indeed a difference between GR, and any non-GR system
used to compute the time required for light to travel the distance.

That is not the problem. The problem is that standard clocks located in
the satellites drift by ~38 microsec per day relative to standard clocks
on earth.

Basically, instead of using GR, one could have divided the
distance by the speed of light to arrive at the time difference.
That works, too.

Hmmm. The "distance' is what one wants to determine, because the GPS is a
_geo-location_ system. Basically the satellites repeatedly broadcast their
position and time, and the receivers use that information from 4 or more
satellites to determine their location on earth. You seem to be singularly
ignorant of what the GPS is, why it was built, and how it works. Perhaps
you should actually _LEARN_ something about it before attem[pting to
discuss it.

Besides, what you claim simply does not work when the clocks in orbit do
not remain in synchronization with clocks on the ground.

1) Do GPS satellites apply a mathematical correction
as predicted by GR, and thereby stay perfectly synchronized?
or
2) Do GPS satellites ignore all the GR math, and just do
a _physical_ synchronization using signal transmission?

Neither. The _physical_ correction to tick rate is applied to the
satellite clocks, and that keeps them _approximately_ in synch with earth
clocks and each other. Due to uncontrollable variations, small corrections
are uploaded to the satellites daily; these are typically a few
nanoseconds, or about 0.1% of the GR correction.

From what I have read: the GPS synchronization corrections
are generated in real-time, and are NOT pre-built into
the satellites.

Your reading ability as as poor as your understanding of the GPS. Plain
and simple: the GR correction is built into the satellites. <shrug>

As rational, intelligent, practical, people understand,
although 13 hacks of GTR can predict the frequency offset of the GPS
oscillators, as can one, simple, clear, 200 year old equation discovered by
Galileo,
it is not necessary to use either,
and in fact NASA used neither.

They put a bird in orbit with an oscillator,
noted how much various factors like gravity affected the oscillators,
and then they adjusted the frequency dividers to get the outputs in sync.

And they also monitor all of the clocks on a constant basis,
and send them data to maintain sync with the master clock.

It is interesting to see how cult thinking
wastes the minds of cult members,
and prevents them from perceiving simple truths.

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

 

[Bhanwara]

They put a bird in orbit with an oscillator,
noted how much various factors like gravity affected the oscillators,
and then they adjusted the frequency dividers to get the outputs in sync.

In other words, you are saying the pre-built [frequency] correction was
in
fact actually derived from the environment experimentally, and not
mathematically pre-computed? [Just like the daily corrections
are experimentally computed, and not mathematically?]

Is there a source for this information?

 

[Sam Wormley]

Sam Wormley wrote:




No, there is no lack of published research. But
all published research *must* support relativity
in order to get published.

Cite your sources!

 

[Sam Wormley]

I've heard of the tail wagging the dog,
but when Sam gives GTR credit for the GPS system,
he has a hair on the dog wagging the dog.
(And a very tiny hair at best.)

Credit for the high accuracy that GPS achieves is from
paying attention to relativistic effect in the design of
the Global Positioning System.

 

[Sam Wormley]

As rational, intelligent, practical, people understand,
although 13 hacks of GTR can predict the frequency offset of the GPS
oscillators, as can one, simple, clear, 200 year old equation discovered by
Galileo,
it is not necessary to use either,
and in fact NASA used neither.

A $30B+ industry, applying relativity to create a global
infrastructure benefiting people all over the world got
your goat, eh Potter (Willy Lowman).

 

[Sam Wormley]

It is interesting to see that Sam Wormley
is using his OWN, PHONY, pretend, EDU web site
as a reference.

Glad you are interested Potter! You might learn something!

 

[Phineas T Puddleduck]

A $30B+ industry, applying relativity to create a global
infrastructure benefiting people all over the world got
your goat, eh Potter (Willy Lowman).

Perhaps this will help him

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/08apr_atomicclock.htm

"According to Einstein's theory of gravity and space-time -- called
"general relativity" -- clocks in strong gravity tick slower than clocks
in weak gravity. Because gravity is weaker on the ISS than at Earth's
surface, PARCS should accumulate an extra second every 10,000 years
compared to clocks ticking on the planet below. PARCS won't be there
that long, but the clock is so stable that it will reveal this effect in
less than one year. (Strayer notes that clocks on GPS satellites
experience this relativistic phenomenon, too, and that onboard systems
must correct for it.)"

--
The greatest enemy of science is psuedoscience.

"Time is pseudo-directional because randomness is always pseudo-random..."
Jeff revolutionises physics in sci.physics.

"Now there's two stuck naysay lose cannons and a third sick puppy on the
way."
Brad tries to reason with the voices in his head...

 

[Bhanwara]

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,

Are you sure you mean "pre-dicted" rather than "post-dicted"?
If GR personnel were an integral part of the GPS design team
(as you have been saying) it would not have been impossible
to take the observed correction from earlier experiments
and manipulate the math until it post-dicted it. The entire
orientation of any GR personnel on the team would have
been "how can I use it to try to publish a paper that
proves GR", because almost all "research" in GR appears
to be nothing but the umpteenth "proof" of GR.

 

[Bhanwara]

oscillators, as can one, simple, clear, 200 year old equation discovered by
Galileo,
it is not necessary to use either,
and in fact NASA used neither.

Tom, do you have a reference to this equation by Galileo?

 

[Bhanwara]

Cite your sources!

Unless you are really out of it, this is rather
well-known. However there is no published
research paper I can cite that says
"it was found that research papers cannot be
against relativity in order to be published."

But if your world-sense _is_ really out of it,
unfortunately this is not something I can
help with.

 

[Phineas T Puddleduck]

Unless you are really out of it, this is rather
well-known. However there is no published
research paper I can cite that says
"it was found that research papers cannot be
against relativity in order to be published."

But if your world-sense _is_ really out of it,
unfortunately this is not something I can
help with.

In your head perhaps. If you truly have the answer that disproves GR,
the world will beat a path to your door. The problem is, in so many ways
GR has proved its accuracy - in the solar system (GPS, Mercury) and
beyond with lensing.

There's no doubt that perhaps GR is part and parcel of a larger
framework, but at the end of the day if you're going to make
extraordinary claims - you need extraordinary proofs. I dealt daily with
someone rather well versed in GR and very abrasive - but even he
admitted that if someone could prove their case the world, and the Nobel
prize, would beat a path to your door.

The "censorship" argument cannot be used anymore with the web. If you
self publish on the web and people think you are onto something, you'll
know it. You yourself have admitted you haven't done GR formally, which
is ALWAYS going to go against you. The phrase about "know your enemy"
springs to mind ;-)

--
The greatest enemy of science is psuedoscience.

"Time is pseudo-directional because randomness is always pseudo-random..."
Jeff revolutionises physics in sci.physics.

"Now there's two stuck naysay lose cannons and a third sick puppy on the
way."
Brad tries to reason with the voices in his head...

 

[Sam Wormley]

Sam Wormley wrote:




Unless you are really out of it, this is rather
well-known. However there is no published
research paper I can cite that says
"it was found that research papers cannot be
against relativity in order to be published."

Total fabrication on your part Bhanwara... No evidence
what-so-ever.

 

[dda1]

Tom, do you have a reference to this equation by Galileo?

Fun to watch: two kooks talking nonsense.

 

[Sam Wormley]

Sam Wormley wrote:




Are you sure you mean "pre-dicted" rather than "post-dicted"?
If GR personnel were an integral part of the GPS design team
(as you have been saying) it would not have been impossible
to take the observed correction from earlier experiments
and manipulate the math until it post-dicted it. The entire
orientation of any GR personnel on the team would have
been "how can I use it to try to publish a paper that
proves GR", because almost all "research" in GR appears
to be nothing but the umpteenth "proof" of GR.

You should research that Bhanwara! Cite credible references.

 

[Phineas T Puddleduck]

Fun to watch: two kooks talking nonsense.

So that means the equation was 200 years old when Galileo discovered it???


--
The greatest enemy of science is psuedoscience.

"Time is pseudo-directional because randomness is always pseudo-random..."
Jeff revolutionises physics in sci.physics.

"Now there's two stuck naysay lose cannons and a third sick puppy on the
way."
Brad tries to reason with the voices in his head...

 

[Guest]

[...]

No, there is no lack of published research. But
all published research *must* support relativity
in order to get published.

This is complete nonsense.

Here's a simple way to check. In many areas of physics, papers
often first appear as electronic preprints on the "arXiv,"
http://arxiv.org/. In the past *one week*, the following papers
that don't "support relativity" -- that discuss alternatives to
standard general relativity or talk about observations that could
conflict with general relativity -- have appeared.

In gr-qc:

gr-qc/0606012 [abs, ps, pdf, other] :
Title: An Algorithm for Generating Rotating Brans-Dicke Wormhole
Solutions
Authors: Kamal K. Nandi, Yuan-Zhong Zhang

gr-qc/0606008 [abs, ps, pdf, other] :
Title: Modifying the Einstein Equations off the Constraint Hypersuface
Authors: J. David Brown, Lisa L. Lowe

gr-qc/0605152 [abs, ps, pdf, other] :
Title: Understanding Gravity: Some Extra Dimensional Perspectives
Authors: V H Satheesh Kumar, P K Suresh

gr-qc/0605147 [abs, ps, pdf, other] :
Title: Quantum Modified Null Trajectories in Schwarzschild Spacetime
Authors: Avtar Singh Sehra

In hep-ph:

hep-ph/0606051 [abs, ps, pdf, other] :
Title: Noncommutative Inspired Black Holes in Extra Dimensions
Authors: Thomas G. Rizzo

hep-ph/0606048 [abs, ps, pdf, other] :
Title: Methods of approaching decoherence in the flavour sector
due to space-time foam
Authors: N.E. Mavromatos (King's Coll. London), Sarben Sarkar
(King's Coll. London)

hep-ph/0606045 [abs, ps, pdf, other] :
Title: Soft Gluon Resummation Effects in Single Graviton Production
at the CERN Large Hadron Collider in the Randall-Sundrum Model
Authors: Qiang Li, Chong Sheng Li, Li Lin Yang

hep-ph/0605326 [abs, ps, pdf, other] :
Title: Probing Brane-World Scenarios with Vacuum Refraction of Light
Using Gamma-Ray Bursts
Authors: Merab Gogberashvili (Tbilisi, Inst. Phys.), Alexander S.
Sakharov (CERN & Zurich, ETH), Edward K.G. Sarkisyan (CERN &
Manchester U.)

hep-ph/0605325 [abs, ps, pdf, other] :
Title: TASI 2004 Lectures on the Phenomenology of Extra Dimensions
Authors: Graham D. Kribs

In hep-th:

hep-th/0606032 [abs, ps, pdf, other] :
Title: Exponential Potentials and Attractor Solution of Dilatonic
Cosmology
Authors: Wei Fang, H.Q.Lu, Z.G.Huang

hep-th/0606026 [abs, ps, pdf, other] :
Title: Noncommutative $D_3$-brane, Black Holes and Attractor Mechanism
Authors: Supriya Kar, Sumit Majumdar

hep-th/0606019 [abs, ps, pdf, other] :
Title: Transverse Fierz-Pauli symmetry
Authors: E. Alvarez, D. Blas, J. Garriga, E. Verdaguer

hep-th/0606021 [abs, ps, pdf, other] :
Title: Dynamical generation of fuzzy extra dimensions, dimensional
reduction and symmetry breaking
Authors: Paolo Aschieri, Theodoros Grammatikopoulos, Harold Steinacker,
George Zoupanos

hep-th/0606006 [abs, ps, pdf, other] :
Title: Braneworld stars and black holes
Authors: Simon Creek, Ruth Gregory, Panagiota Kanti, Bina Mistry

hep-th/0606005 [abs, ps, pdf, other] :
Title: Rotating Einstein-Maxwell-Dilaton Black Holes in D Dimensions
Authors: Jutta Kunz, Dieter Maison, Francisco Navarro-Lerida, Jan Viebahn

hep-th/0605287 [abs, ps, pdf, other] :
Title: Comment on the first order noncommutative correction to gravity
Authors: Pradip Mukherjee, Anirban Saha

In astro-ph:

astro-ph/0606078 [abs, ps, pdf, other] :
Title: Cosmology and Astrophysical Constraints of Gauss-Bonnet Dark Energy
Authors: Tomi Koivisto, David F. Mota

astro-ph/0606047 [abs, ps, pdf, other] :
Title: Braneworld inflation from an effective field theory after WMAP
three-year data
Authors: M. C. Bento, R. Gonzalez Felipe, N. M. C. Santos

If this isn't good enough to convince you, you can go to Spires
(http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/hep/) and look for papers with the
keyword "MOND" ("Modified Newtonian Dynamics") -- 10 papers so far in 2006.
Or papers with keywords "modified gravity" -- 20 so far in 2006. Or
"Pioneer anomaly" -- 6 so far in 2006. Or "tests of gravity" -- 4 so far.
Or "DGP" (one of the currently popular alternatives to GR) -- 5 in 2006.
Or "TeVeS" (another alternative) -- only one so far in 2006, but 4 in 2005.
Or "higher curvature gravity" (another alternative) -- 2 papers so far in
2006. Or "dilaton gravity" (another alternative) -- 5 papers in 2006.
Or "massive gravity" (another alternative) -- only one so far this year,
but 12 last year. Or "generalized gravity" -- 7 papers so far this year.
Or "Lorentz violation" (papers about the possibility of violations of the
basic structure of special relativity) -- 11 papers so far in 2006, and 78
in 2005.

The idea that papers that don't "support GR' are suppressed is paranoid
nonsense.

Steve Carlip

 

[Mike]

Einstein's Relativity and Everyday Life -- Clifford M. Will
http://www.physicscentral.com/writers/writers-00-2.html

________________________________


Einstein's Relativity and Everyday Life
Clifford M. Will

What good is fundamental physics to the person on the street?

This is the perennial question posed to physicists by their non-science
friends, by students in the humanities and social sciences, and by
politicians looking to justify spending tax dollars on basic science.
One of the problems is that it is hard to predict definitely what the
payback of basic physics will be, though few dispute that physics is
somehow "good."

Physicists have become adept at finding good examples of the long-term
benefit of basic physics: the quantum theory of solids leading to
semiconductors and computer chips, nuclear magnetic resonance leading
to MRI imaging, particle accelerators leading to beams for cancer
treatment. But what about Einstein's theories of special and general
relativity? One could hardly imagine a branch of fundamental physics
less likely to have practical consequences. But strangely enough,
relativity plays a key role in a multi-billion dollar growth industry
centered around the Global Positioning System (GPS).

You can find the correction factor by trial-and-error in a trivial way.
GPS clocks are corrected just once before lift-off and that is all.

[snip remaining crap]

Is there another application of GR? Even the cats in the streets are
starting getting tired of this apologetic talk about GPS and such.

By the way, INS (inertial navigation system) worked in 747's long
before GPS and did the job as well.

SR/GR - hahahahahahahahahahahaha - Falsified over ten times

By someone who can't even calculate how many men it takes
to dig a hole?
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/BrainHoles.html

Dirk Vdm

AT least I get partial credit for my error. What about you unethical
person:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt....53098/abd6fadea0a31456?hl=en#abd6fadea0a31456

You have been warned.


Mike