GPS World: USNO's Fountain: Time at 100 Trillionths of a Second

Helmut Wabnig · Feb 7, 2009

............
but the point I was trying to make,
is that there are more ways than one to skin a cat.
Click to expand...

haha, another goodie for ya, Pom Totter,
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEM7I9R1VED_index_0.html
from that page, for the usenet archives:
##############################################################
Relativity and the 1919 eclipse

Probably the most important eclipse in the history of science occurred
on 29 May 1919. Just six months after the end of World War I, British
astronomers used it to test a new idea that came from Germany in 1915.

The proposition was that gravity affected light, space and time
itself, and as a result the Sun would deflect starlight passing by it.
Changes in the apparent direction of stars in the sky, seen close to
the Sun during a total eclipse, could confirm the idea.

The announcement of favourable results in London on 8 November 1919
signalled the replacement of Newton's theory of gravity by the theory
of general relativity. Its originator, a 40-year old Berliner called
Albert Einstein, at once became the most famous scientist in the
world.

Revolutionary theory

Expeditions of astronomers photographed the eclipse in difficult
tropical conditions in Brazil and on the African island of Principe.
At the time, the Sun was in front of a useful cluster of stars, the
Hyades. The astronomers compared the relative positions in the sky
near the Sun with the positions of the same stars as previously
photographed in the night sky.

The expeditions and analyses, organised by the Royal Society and the
Royal Astronomical Society, were masterminded by Arthur Eddington of
Cambridge. He was one of the very few experts who immediately
understood Einstein's theory and appreciated its revolutionary
importance, if it was correct.

Illustration of gravitational bending

Illustration of gravitational bending

ESA's Hipparcos confirms Einstein

Even for stars almost in line with the Sun, the shift in apparent
position is less than two seconds of arc, or a few ten-thousandths of
a degree. The 1919 measurements confirmed that the Sun bent the light
rays by roughly the right extent - less than predicted in Principe,
more than predicted in Brazil.

After half a century of similar eclipse observations of the shifting
stars, critics still said that there could be a 20% error in the
results. They were not accurate enough to rule out newer theories of
gravity that challenged Einstein's version. Radio astronomers did
somewhat better with Quasar 3C279 which passes behind the Sun on 8
October every year.

ESA's Hipparcos satellite (1989-93) provided the emphatic confirmation
of Einstein's prediction. Hipparcos charted the positions of stars so
accurately that no eclipse was needed to see the effect of the Sun's
gravity.

Where previous observations of the shifts had been confined to objects
seen within a degree or two of the edge of the Sun, where the effect
is strongest, the European satellite sensed the bending of light rays
even from stars in the night sky, at right angles to the Sun.
According to the Hipparcos scientists, Einstein's prediction is
correct to within one part in a thousand.

Last update: 13 September 2004
Copyright 2000 - 2009 © European Space Agency. All rights reserved.
############################################################

Androcles · Feb 7, 2009

Helmut Wabnig said:

Quartz Crystals in a satellite?

hahaha...good joke.

Here, have a look at the actual GPS satellite clocks:

http://www.spectratime.com/

Hint: look at the offset ranges provided on the rubidium tickers,
what do you think why there is such a big offset range necessary?

w.
Click to expand...

spectratime in a Quartz Crystal?
hahaha...good joke.
Here, have a look at an actual spectrum:
http://confusedofcalcutta.com/images/fraunhofer-500.jpg

Only you could make such a stupid mistake, wabnigga.

Androcles · Feb 7, 2009

Helmut Wabnig said:

haha, another goodie for ya, Pom Totter,
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEM7I9R1VED_index_0.html
from that page, for the usenet archives:
##############################################################
Relativity and the 1919 eclipse

Probably the most important eclipse in the history of science occurred
on 29 May 1919. Just six months after the end of World War I, British
astronomers used it to test a new idea that came from Germany in 1915.

The proposition was that gravity affected light, space and time
itself, and as a result the Sun would deflect starlight passing by it.
Changes in the apparent direction of stars in the sky, seen close to
the Sun during a total eclipse, could confirm the idea.

The announcement of favourable results in London on 8 November 1919
signalled the replacement of Newton's theory of gravity by the theory
of general relativity. Its originator, a 40-year old Berliner called
Albert Einstein, at once became the most famous scientist in the
world.

Revolutionary theory

Expeditions of astronomers photographed the eclipse in difficult
tropical conditions in Brazil and on the African island of Principe.
At the time, the Sun was in front of a useful cluster of stars, the
Hyades. The astronomers compared the relative positions in the sky
near the Sun with the positions of the same stars as previously
photographed in the night sky.

The expeditions and analyses, organised by the Royal Society and the
Royal Astronomical Society, were masterminded by Arthur Eddington of
Cambridge. He was one of the very few experts who immediately
understood Einstein's theory and appreciated its revolutionary
importance, if it was correct.

Illustration of gravitational bending

Illustration of gravitational bending

ESA's Hipparcos confirms Einstein

Even for stars almost in line with the Sun, the shift in apparent
position is less than two seconds of arc, or a few ten-thousandths of
a degree. The 1919 measurements confirmed that the Sun bent the light
rays by roughly the right extent - less than predicted in Principe,
more than predicted in Brazil.

After half a century of similar eclipse observations of the shifting
stars, critics still said that there could be a 20% error in the
results. They were not accurate enough to rule out newer theories of
gravity that challenged Einstein's version. Radio astronomers did
somewhat better with Quasar 3C279 which passes behind the Sun on 8
October every year.

ESA's Hipparcos satellite (1989-93) provided the emphatic confirmation
of Einstein's prediction. Hipparcos charted the positions of stars so
accurately that no eclipse was needed to see the effect of the Sun's
gravity.

Where previous observations of the shifts had been confined to objects
seen within a degree or two of the edge of the Sun, where the effect
is strongest, the European satellite sensed the bending of light rays
even from stars in the night sky, at right angles to the Sun.
According to the Hipparcos scientists, Einstein's prediction is
correct to within one part in a thousand.

Last update: 13 September 2004
Copyright 2000 - 2009 © European Space Agency. All rights reserved.
############################################################
Click to expand...

=======================================
Bending of a ball's path:

http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov

According to the merry-go-round scientists, Newton's prediction is
correct to within one part in a billion, you asinine jerk.

Last update: Feb 7 2009
Copyright 2000 - 2009 © Androcles. All rights reserved.

Helmut Wabnig · Feb 7, 2009

spectratime in a Quartz Crystal?
Click to expand...

Only GOD knows, why Andro wrote that.
As usual, with eldery people, just let him brabble.
Then they often start laughing about their own cryptic jokes,
you know.

hahaha...good joke.
Click to expand...

What I said I said.

Here, have a look at an actual spectrum:
http://confusedofcalcutta.com/images/fraunhofer-500.jpg
Click to expand...

Very nice indeed.

Only you could make such a stupid mistake, wabnigga.
Click to expand...

Of course, Androcles, of course.

WAITER !
This man needs fresh diapers!

w.

Androcles · Feb 7, 2009

Only GOD knows, why wabnigga wrote that.
Certainly it wasn't anything Tom said, you fucking dork.

Tom Potter · Feb 8, 2009

Sam Wormley said:

Are there temperature ranges where frequency change and a function
of temperature in minimized?

Potter should put a number to "perform pretty good" and calculate
position accuracy in feet instead of guessing!

I counted 31 active GPS satellites just now. I don't know
about passes, as some barely clear the horizon, but those
birds are in half sidereal day orbits.

Beats of what against what Potter. Could you be thinking
L1 CA carrier frequency against a synthesized clock in a
GPS receiver?

And Google Earth, cell phone towers or manual data entry

If there are a sufficient density of enabled cell towers in
the area, position can be determined to about 125 feet of actual
position.

Relative with respect to what?

Yes it is.

What do you mean by "perform best". Are there temperature
ranges where frequency change and a function of temperature
in minimized?

Similar to an oven.

Atomic clocks are more stable by orders of magnitude than
temperature controlled crystal. Where have you been, Potter?

I'd like to see any other skinned cat perform as well as our
relativistically compensated satellite based atomic clocks.
Click to expand...

Regarding Sammy's comment:
"Similar to an oven.",

a water ice bath can be controlled to a known
and fixed temperature far, far better that an oven
can be controlled.

Temperature controlled ovens are usually controlled
by bi-metal strips clicking off and on,
thus generating increasing and decreasing temperature gradients,
whereas a mixture of ice and water remains at the same temperature.

Hopefully Sammy will explain how to
""relativistically compensate"
the frequency output of an oscillator.

Is the use of analog tuning
or adjusting digital frequency dividers
"relativistically compensation"???

Or do adjustments compensate for WHATEVER effects,
like the affects of distance, velocity, acceleration, temperature,
pressure, aging, chemical, etc.?

Regarding Sammy's question:
"Are there temperature ranges where frequency change and a function
of temperature in minimized?"

As I recall, any cut will have a zero temperature affect
at some frequency. For most applications (Watches, computers, etc.)
cutting for best room temperature performance seems to be the best choice.
As I suggest, cutting for the freezing temperature of water
would likely be the best choice for making a small, cheap,
ultra-stable, crystal controlled oscillator.

But cut to the chase,

I might also point out to Sammy,
that clocks are time accumulators,

and that what is offset in the GPS system is a frequency,
and that when the accumulated count of a satellite accumulator
differs from the master system accumulator,
that the GPS receivers are advised of this.

It is interesting to see that the General Relativity Gurus
and Cultists make a big deal about
the desirability of having the oscillators in the satellites
operate near the same frequency as the Earth bound Master oscillator,
but none of them seems to understand why.

I suggest that if they understand CDMA cell phones,
they will begin to appreciate autocorrelation and crosscorrelation,
and quit worshipping General Relativity.

I must point out that using a rubber time base in CDMA receivers
( And this can be done simply and quickly using modern
large scale integrated circuits.)
does away with the tweaking of the GPS signals and data.
( Galileo effect, Doppler effect, Hubble effect, atmospheric effects,
reflections, etc. and the generic term for these effects "Relativistic effects".)

--
Tom Potter
http://tdp1001.spaces.live.com/
http://www.tompotter.us/misc.html
http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm

Tom Potter · Feb 8, 2009

Helmut Wabnig said:

Quartz Crystals in a satellite?

hahaha...good joke.
Click to expand...

I was sadden to see that my pal "Helmut Wabnig"
has a serious reading comprehension problem,
and confused quartz crystals in GPS receivers
with the atomic oscillators used in the GPS satellites.

Perhaps there are ways to improve one's reading comprehension,
and I urge Helmut to do a web search on "reading comprehension"
and see if he can find a fix for his problem.

--
Tom Potter
http://tdp1001.spaces.live.com/
http://www.tompotter.us/misc.html
http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm

Tom Potter · Feb 8, 2009

Helmut Wabnig said:

haha, another goodie for ya, Pom Totter,
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEM7I9R1VED_index_0.html
from that page, for the usenet archives:
##############################################################
Relativity and the 1919 eclipse

Probably the most important eclipse in the history of science occurred
on 29 May 1919. Just six months after the end of World War I, British
astronomers used it to test a new idea that came from Germany in 1915.

The proposition was that gravity affected light, space and time
itself, and as a result the Sun would deflect starlight passing by it.
Changes in the apparent direction of stars in the sky, seen close to
the Sun during a total eclipse, could confirm the idea.

The announcement of favourable results in London on 8 November 1919
signalled the replacement of Newton's theory of gravity by the theory
of general relativity. Its originator, a 40-year old Berliner called
Albert Einstein, at once became the most famous scientist in the
world.

Revolutionary theory

Expeditions of astronomers photographed the eclipse in difficult
tropical conditions in Brazil and on the African island of Principe.
At the time, the Sun was in front of a useful cluster of stars, the
Hyades. The astronomers compared the relative positions in the sky
near the Sun with the positions of the same stars as previously
photographed in the night sky.

The expeditions and analyses, organised by the Royal Society and the
Royal Astronomical Society, were masterminded by Arthur Eddington of
Cambridge. He was one of the very few experts who immediately
understood Einstein's theory and appreciated its revolutionary
importance, if it was correct.

Illustration of gravitational bending

Illustration of gravitational bending

ESA's Hipparcos confirms Einstein

Even for stars almost in line with the Sun, the shift in apparent
position is less than two seconds of arc, or a few ten-thousandths of
a degree. The 1919 measurements confirmed that the Sun bent the light
rays by roughly the right extent - less than predicted in Principe,
more than predicted in Brazil.

After half a century of similar eclipse observations of the shifting
stars, critics still said that there could be a 20% error in the
results. They were not accurate enough to rule out newer theories of
gravity that challenged Einstein's version. Radio astronomers did
somewhat better with Quasar 3C279 which passes behind the Sun on 8
October every year.

ESA's Hipparcos satellite (1989-93) provided the emphatic confirmation
of Einstein's prediction. Hipparcos charted the positions of stars so
accurately that no eclipse was needed to see the effect of the Sun's
gravity.

Where previous observations of the shifts had been confined to objects
seen within a degree or two of the edge of the Sun, where the effect
is strongest, the European satellite sensed the bending of light rays
even from stars in the night sky, at right angles to the Sun.
According to the Hipparcos scientists, Einstein's prediction is
correct to within one part in a thousand.

Last update: 13 September 2004
Copyright 2000 - 2009 © European Space Agency. All rights reserved.
############################################################
Click to expand...

"Helmut Wabnig" raises a good point
when he points out that billions of dollars have been spent on
thousands of experiments to confirm the limited set of effects
that fit the General Relativity model,

and that an enormous amount of
time, money and minds have been consumed
in teaching, promoting, learning, debating
the General Relativity model.

Considering that Time Magazine, the New York Times,
and the Washington Post made Einstein their
"MAN OF THE CENTURY",

and declared the General Relativity model as man's
greatest intellectual achievement,

it is helpful to compare the General Relativity model to
some other models of reality.

After Newton's model,
there were immediate and rapid advances
in mechanics, astronomy, etc.

After Maxwell's model
there were immediate and rapid advances
in chemistry, electricity, etc.

After Watson's and Crick's DNA model
there were immediate and rapid advances
in medicine, genetics, animal husbandry,
the history of the Earth and Mankind,
fighting crime, developing food crops, etc.

Here we are, 100 years after General Relativity
and it continues to generate more hype and heat
than light and advances.

General Relativity seems to be a Tower of Babel
that wastes time, money and minds on such
pursuits as time travel, worm holes, gravity waves, etc.

as millions of "kooks" are constantly talking nonsense
about things far beyond man's capacity to ever
experience in time and space, like the
birth and death of the universe, the mind of God,
time travel, warping through space, etc.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

--
Tom Potter
http://tdp1001.spaces.live.com/
http://www.tompotter.us/misc.html
http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm

Sam Wormley · Feb 8, 2009

Tom said:

Regarding Sammy's comment:
"Similar to an oven.",

a water ice bath can be controlled to a known
and fixed temperature far, far better that an oven
can be controlled.
Click to expand...

Since when was it hard to control an oven?

Temperature controlled ovens are usually controlled
by bi-metal strips clicking off and on,
thus generating increasing and decreasing temperature gradients,
whereas a mixture of ice and water remains at the same temperature.
Click to expand...

And how does one maintain this ice and water mixture in
a GPS satellite, Potter?

Hopefully Sammy will explain how to
""relativistically compensate"
the frequency output of an oscillator.
Click to expand...

It's done in all GNSS satellite clocks, Potter!

Is the use of analog tuning
or adjusting digital frequency dividers
"relativistically compensation"???
Click to expand...

For low eccentricity orbits, a fixed offset correction works well!

Or do adjustments compensate for WHATEVER effects,
like the affects of distance, velocity, acceleration, temperature,
pressure, aging, chemical, etc.?
Click to expand...

Atomic clocks are well behaved in orbit... most of those variables
are very well controlled, Potter.

Regarding Sammy's question:
"Are there temperature ranges where frequency change and a function
of temperature in minimized?"

As I recall, any cut will have a zero temperature affect
at some frequency.
Click to expand...

You need to cite some literature, as I do not believe you, Potter.

For most applications (Watches, computers, etc.)

cutting for best room temperature performance seems to be the best choice.
As I suggest, cutting for the freezing temperature of water
would likely be the best choice for making a small, cheap,
ultra-stable, crystal controlled oscillator.

But cut to the chase,

I might also point out to Sammy,
that clocks are time accumulators,
Click to expand...

Clocks are what measure time, Potter. The atomic clocks on the
GPS SVs drive the carriers, and function of the electronics.

L1 1575.4200 Civil/Military Frequency
L2 1227.6000 Civil/Military Frequency
L3 1381.0500 Nuclear Burst Detection
L4 1841.4000 Ionospheric correction (proposed)
L5 1176.4500 Civil/Military Frequency

There are currently three frequencies used and a fourth (L5)
beginning in 2009.

L5 L2 L3 L1 L4
------------+-------+-----------|---------------------------+--------------+----
1176.45 1227.60 1381.05 1575.42 MHz 1841.40
115 x 120 x 135 x 154 x 10.23 MHz 180 x
| | | |
| | | |
Current | | | C/A
Signals | P(Y) NUDET P(Y)
| | |
| | |
| | |
Proposed P-like C/A(Possibly P-like code) C/A
New Signal code P(Y) P(Y)
Structure M-Codes M-Codes

Note that the military and other authorized users have access to
the Y-code at the chip rate of 10.23 Mbps. Course Acquisition (C/A)
is at a chip rate of 1.023 Mbps. However, since the unknown Y-code
is identical on both L1 and L2, several techniques can be used to
extract the 10.23 MHz carrier information, which is used in high
accuracy differential receivers (surveying).

Technique SNR loss**
---------------------------------------------------------
Squaring -30 dB
Cross correlation -27 dB
Code correlation plus squaring -17 dB
Z-Tracking (reported by Ashjaee and Lorenze 1992) -14 dB

**Loss compared to direct code correlation as used on
military dual frequency receivers.

L1 and L2 Navigation satellite Signal Power Budget

Parameter L1 P-Code L1 C/A-Code L2 P-Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
User minimum received power -163.0 dBw -160.0 dBw -166.0 dBw
Users linear antenna gain 3.0 dB 3.0 dB 3.0 dB
Free-space propagation loss 184.4 dB 184.4 dB 182.3 dB
Total atmospheric loss 2.0 dB 2.0 dB 2.0 dB
Polarization mismatch loss 3.4 dB 3.4 dB 4.4 dB
Required satellite EIRP +23.8 dBw +26.8 dBw +19.7 dBw
Satellite Antenna gain at 14.3? 13.5 dB 13.4 dB 11.5 dB
worst case Block II off-axis angle
Required minimum satellite antenna +10.3 dBw +13.4 dBw +8.2 dBw
input power 10.72W 21.88W 6.61W

and that what is offset in the GPS system is a frequency,
and that when the accumulated count of a satellite accumulator
differs from the master system accumulator,
that the GPS receivers are advised of this.
ILLUCID

It is interesting to see that the General Relativity Gurus
and Cultists make a big deal about
the desirability of having the oscillators in the satellites
operate near the same frequency as the Earth bound Master oscillator,
but none of them seems to understand why.
Click to expand...

Potter's understanding is flawed.

I suggest that if they understand CDMA cell phones,
they will begin to appreciate autocorrelation and crosscorrelation,
and quit worshipping General Relativity.
Click to expand...

Potter misses the purpose of relativistic corrections. The reason is that
the clock rates of the satellite clocks will be the same as the ground
based clocks for ground based observers. If you can't understand that,
Potter, no wonder you screw up all the rest.

Sam Wormley · Feb 8, 2009

Tom said:

"Helmut Wabnig" raises a good point
when he points out that billions of dollars have been spent on
thousands of experiments to confirm the limited set of effects
that fit the General Relativity model,

and that an enormous amount of
time, money and minds have been consumed
in teaching, promoting, learning, debating
the General Relativity model.
Click to expand...

Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/frctfrq.png

Hey, Potter, GTR has directly contributed to a $30B+ GPS industry,
benefiting people all over the world. Aviation, shipping, asset
management, survey, mining, agriculture, time dissemination,
communications networks... and on and on!

Bluster on, Potter, bluster some more! Froth at the mouth! Whatever!

Sue... · Feb 8, 2009

Tom Potter wrote:
Click to expand...

"Helmut Wabnig" raises a good point
when he points out that billions of dollars have been spent on
thousands of experiments to confirm the limited set of effects
hat fit the General Relativity model,
<< Einstein's relativity principle states that:

All inertial frames are totally equivalent
for the performance of all physical experiments.

In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical
experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense
between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's
laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames.
Einstein generalized this result in
his special theory of relativity by asserting that all
laws of physics take the same form in all
inertial frames. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html

So If the SV clocks require correction for motion
relative to the receiver, isn't the theory wrong?

If not, why not?

Relativistic particle dynamics
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node126.html

Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/frctfrq.png

Sue...

gabydewilde · Feb 8, 2009

[snip]
Click to expand...

Eric Gisse · Feb 8, 2009

[snip]

NOBODY AGREES WITH YOU.

When will you finally SHUT UP about this?

Sam Wormley · Feb 8, 2009

Sue... said:

"Helmut Wabnig" raises a good point
when he points out that billions of dollars have been spent on
thousands of experiments to confirm the limited set of effects
hat fit the General Relativity model,

<< Einstein's relativity principle states that:

All inertial frames are totally equivalent
for the performance of all physical experiments.

In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical
experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense
between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's
laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames.
Einstein generalized this result in
his special theory of relativity by asserting that all
laws of physics take the same form in all
inertial frames. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html

So If the SV clocks require correction for motion
relative to the receiver, isn't the theory wrong?

If not, why not?
Click to expand...

Perhaps Dennis Sue fails to understand that general relativity
already takes relative velocity into account.

See: Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/frctfrq.png

Sue... · Feb 8, 2009

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html

Perhaps Dennis Sue fails to understand that general relativity
already takes relative velocity into account.

See: Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5....
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/frctfrq.png
Click to expand...

Relativistic particle dynamics
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node126.html

If you knew as much about relativity as you do about
Dennis your contributions might have some value.

Have you considered starting a group for Dennis
worshippers so you aren't trashing a science group
where you and Dork seem to be the ones obsessed
with him?

Sue...

Y.Porat · Feb 8, 2009

haha, another goodie for ya, Pom Totter,http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEM7I9R1VED_index_0.html
from that page, for the usenet archives:
##############################################################
Relativity and the 1919 eclipse

Probably the most important eclipse in the history of science occurred
on 29 May 1919. Just six months after the end of World War I, British
astronomers used it to test a new idea that came from Germany in 1915.

The proposition was that gravity affected light, space and time
itself, and as a result the Sun would deflect starlight passing by it.
Changes in the apparent direction of stars in the sky, seen close to
the Sun during a total eclipse, could confirm the idea.

The announcement of favourable results in London on 8 November 1919
signalled the replacement of Newton's theory of gravity by the theory
of general relativity. Its originator, a 40-year old Berliner called
Albert Einstein, at once became the most famous scientist in the
world.

Revolutionary theory

Expeditions of astronomers photographed the eclipse in difficult
tropical conditions in Brazil and on the African island of Principe.
At the time, the Sun was in front of a useful cluster of stars, the
Hyades. The astronomers compared the relative positions in the sky
near the Sun with the positions of the same stars as previously
photographed in the night sky.

The expeditions and analyses, organised by the Royal Society and the
Royal Astronomical Society, were masterminded by Arthur Eddington of
Cambridge. He was one of the very few experts who immediately
understood Einstein's theory and appreciated its revolutionary
importance, if it was correct.

Illustration of gravitational bending

Illustration of gravitational bending

ESA's Hipparcos confirms Einstein

Even for stars almost in line with the Sun, the shift in apparent
position is less than two seconds of arc, or a few ten-thousandths of
a degree. The 1919 measurements confirmed that the Sun bent the light
rays by roughly the right extent - less than predicted in Principe,
more than predicted in Brazil.

After half a century of similar eclipse observations of the shifting
stars, critics still said that there could be a 20% error in the
results. They were not accurate enough to rule out newer theories of
gravity that challenged Einstein's version. Radio astronomers did
somewhat better with Quasar 3C279 which passes behind the Sun on 8
October every year.

ESA's Hipparcos satellite (1989-93) provided the emphatic confirmation
of Einstein's prediction. Hipparcos charted the positions of stars so
accurately that no eclipse was needed to see the effect of the Sun's
gravity.

Where previous observations of the shifts had been confined to objects
seen within a degree or two of the edge of the Sun, where the effect
is strongest, the European satellite sensed the bending of light rays
even from stars in the night sky, at right angles to the Sun.
According to the Hipparcos scientists, Einstein's prediction is
correct to within one part in a thousand.

Last update: 13 September 2004
Copyright 2000 - 2009 © European Space Agency. All rights reserved.
############################################################
Click to expand...

and who told you fucken idiot parrots
that any of you knows how to calculate
the bend of a massive photon in gravity???!!!
and were are the crooks that ddint tell you
that all that story of curved space time
was not a big fitting in (fiddling in)
of experimental data to that fucken theory ??
at that time
it was known'' that the photon has no mass'...
those fuckers could not see the mass of the photon
in the formula
E+hf
and all those fuckers could not immagine that
yhe photon is a limit case of which it can move at c
and still have a mass (may be the smallest )
and as a special limit case
it must have a specific way of calculating its
deviation by gravity !!
keeping in their fucken minds
that the photon is a special limit case
and all those fiddling ins could be done fot that case
in not less a success than the fraud calculations
of *curved space time*

the difference of 100percent difference
is not a principal difference
the principal fact is the very fact that the photon is curving
bext to the sun
and that is a good enough reason to stay with the
previous theories that has to be fitted in
AND SAVE THE NEED TO INVENT NEW
STUPID AD HOCK LAWS OF PHYSICS
that invent new IDIOTIC properties to** EMPTY SPACE** !!
while is is obvious and experimental fact that
without mass there is no curvature of anything
that leads directly and simply to the understanding tcurved movement
is
A PROPERTY OF MASS !! and not any witch craft
of empty space !!!

yet after all that
Einstein was RIGHT about SR !!!
ps
all the above is not only about curbvature of photon path

we have on stake
the much heavier problem of
ADVANCING PHYSICS to better directions
because the unknown is still in head of us
and wrong theories prevent advance in the right directions!!!

ATB
Y.Porat

Sam Wormley · Feb 8, 2009

Sue... said:

Relativistic particle dynamics
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node126.html

If you knew as much about relativity as you do about
Dennis your contributions might have some value.
Click to expand...

I can read. I am a life long learner. One goal from the outset in
these USENET newsgroups is that I try not to embarrass myself and
at the same time try to make a contribution.

As far as your identity... you are the one doing the confirming.
If you will remember I indicated that I was likely mistaken. But
you seem to be spending a lot of effort denying... almost as if
I was right on!

Tom Potter · Feb 8, 2009

[snip]

NOBODY AGREES WITH YOU.

When will you finally SHUT UP about this?
Click to expand...

Considering that this thread is one of the most active
threads on Usenet,

and considering that all of the posters,
other than the General Relativity Cultists
seem to support my position,

I think what Gisse meant to say was
that my posts upset the General Relativity Cultists.

--
Tom Potter
http://tdp1001.spaces.live.com/
http://www.tompotter.us/misc.html
http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm

Sue... · Feb 8, 2009

I can read. I am a life long learner. One goal from the outset in
these USENET newsgroups is that I try not to embarrass myself and
at the same time try to make a contribution.

As far as your identity... you are the one doing the confirming.
If you will remember I indicated that I was likely mistaken. But
you seem to be spending a lot of effort denying... almost as if
I was right on!
Click to expand...

I am guessing the leap second got under you craw.

Don't waste your kestrokes on me.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q="dennis+mccarthy"+usno&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

You can get look for the email about halfway down the
page and lodge your complaints directly.

Sue...

Sam Wormley · Feb 8, 2009

Sue... said:

I am guessing the leap second got under you craw.
Click to expand...

I used to be on the listserv about leap seconds. I was always
in favor of keeping them. Given that there is a good mechanism
for dissemination of those leap seconds in GPS and the terrestrial
time system, I think they are the way to go.

GPS World: USNO's Fountain: Time at 100 Trillionths of a Second

Helmut Wabnig Guest

Androcles Guest

Androcles Guest

Helmut Wabnig Guest

Androcles Guest

Tom Potter Guest

Tom Potter Guest

Tom Potter Guest

Sam Wormley Guest

Sam Wormley Guest

Sue... Guest

gabydewilde Guest

Eric Gisse Guest

Sam Wormley Guest

Sue... Guest

Y.Porat Guest

Sam Wormley Guest

Tom Potter Guest

Sue... Guest

Sam Wormley Guest

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

GPS World: USNO's Fountain: Time at 100 Trillionths of a Second

Helmut Wabnig Guest

Androcles Guest

Androcles Guest

Helmut Wabnig Guest

Androcles Guest

Tom Potter Guest

Tom Potter Guest

Tom Potter Guest

Sam Wormley Guest

Sam Wormley Guest

Sue... Guest

gabydewilde Guest

Eric Gisse Guest

Sam Wormley Guest

Sue... Guest

Y.Porat Guest

Sam Wormley Guest

Tom Potter Guest

Sue... Guest

Sam Wormley Guest

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

Useful Searches