The Theory of Relativity will begin to fall apart in 2016/2017

[fuelair]

Funny, my PC asked me when I set it up. Whom do you suppose programmed those computers, just other computers? Who do you think set the time zones my PC asked me about when I set it up? You're not lying, you just don't know what you are talking about.

Also I will caution you as to referring to other posters as lairs or as "boy".

You are kind, I am hoping he does that or better. Drop the total by one!!!!

 

[fuelair]

There are many stupid reason for not accepting facts.. Its nothing wrong with Youtube, but rather with some people using it.
The video I refer to is very serious

For example this ESA video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eavab9siYg

Take a watch boy

You try sending me (and the rest of us) the info to check out the actual research paper the video covers in a peer reviewed journal. Amazingly you are correct that YouTube does not be bad, BUT it is not, never has been and never will be a source for SCIENCE YOU CAN TRUST. It is simply a place where any idiot or amazingly bright or really stupid person can post brilliant or totally ridiculous material. It is not science as science is done. But send me to a legitimate source and I will happily read it!!!
By the by, I will overlook the boy **** this time. In the US it is not a good idea to say or write ( racist), but if it shows up again since I can't do what I would prefer, I will be reporting this post and the new one to the mods.

 

[Bjarne]

While there is no "reality transformation" in any form of relativity even Galilean relativity has a, well, Galilean transformation. What is transformed are the coordinate values (from one frame to another) of events. This is a consequence of the basis of relativity, that the laws of physics are frame independent. For SR and GR there is the addition of the speed of light as a frame independent upper limit.

Are you opposed to such transformations? If not then by your own assertions you won't be opposed to SR and GR. If so then please provide your transformation equations.

Try to imagine what your pretend to know, and then try to tell what you see at your inner cinema in a language your grandmother can understand, if this not is possible you haven't understood what you just wrote.

Which comparable differences will grandmother experience if she could jump from one set of "coordinate values" to another ?

Answer; - you have no idea..

And this is the problem with that load of rubbish

 

[Bjarne]

Can I add computers to the list of things you know nothing of, then? Computers do absolutely nothing unless someone programs them to do it.

That was a very silly reply, Bjarne. How did they program those computers if they didn't know the actual science?

Hans

Do you really believe you know where a satellit is without a altitude measurement devise on board ?

If you don't know the exact altitude, you are not able to properly distinguish between GR and SR influence

GPS is not a scientific program.

The are a lot of influences that have to be taken into account...

• perturbation due to the moon, planets, the syn
• space whether
• atmosphere collision
• signal delay
• gravitational anomalies
• and I believe a couple more significant influences.

Its not a GPS task constantly to scientific analyse all these ever changing factors, but just to program software that automatic all can calibrates clocks, to be able to get the wanted result.

And that's it.

 

[dasmiller]

Do you really believe you know where a satellit is without a altitude measurement devise on board ?

If you don't know the exact altitude, you are not able to properly distinguish between GR and SR influence

GPS is not a scientific program.

This is fractally wrong. GPS requirements are created by a group that includes a number of research groups, in addition to military, civil, and commercial groups. Science considerations are absolutely part of the GPS system design.


And GPS altitudes are known to within centimeters. More significantly, they are predicted to within centimeters.

The are a lot of influences that have to be taken into account...

• perturbation due to the moon, planets, the syn
• space whether
• atmosphere collision
• signal delay
• gravitational anomalies
• and I believe a couple more significant influences.

Its not a GPS task constantly to scientific analyse all these ever changing factors,

Wrong. Absolutely, completely wrong. In order to forecast the GPS orbit, all of those factors (and others) must be accurately accounted for. They are constantly analyzing all those factors.

but just to program software that automatic all can calibrates clocks, to be able to get the wanted result.

As I've tried to explain, over and over again, no. You are asserting things that are simply wrong and, as I've said, betray a fundamental misunderstanding of GPS.

What is your basis for these statements?

 

[Bjarne]

You try sending me (and the rest of us) the info to check out the actual research paper the video covers in a peer reviewed journal. Amazingly you are correct that YouTube does not be bad, BUT it is not, never has been and never will be a source for SCIENCE YOU CAN TRUST. It is simply a place where any idiot or amazingly bright or really stupid person can post brilliant or totally ridiculous material. It is not science as science is done. But send me to a legitimate source and I will happily read it!!!
By the by, I will overlook the boy **** this time. In the US it is not a good idea to say or write ( racist), but if it shows up again since I can't do what I would prefer, I will be reporting this post and the new one to the mods.

A lot of that you call science you can't trust
There are always opposite opinions.
The bad thing is only that if the huge mass of people, due to massive systematic brainwash and propaganda accept a paradigm, it become the holy book, and nothing except hard evidence can change the new fanatic intolerant religion

 

[Bjarne]

This is fractally wrong. GPS requirements are created by a group that includes a number of research groups, in addition to military, civil, and commercial groups. Science considerations are absolutely part of the GPS system design.

Still there are no altitude measurement devices on board.
Russian scientist are not stupid, they was the first that put a satellite in orbit.
The problem is that sometimes commercial outcome is more important than scientific red lamps, for example Chernobyl.
Don’t tell me they haven’t hear about the possible danger in Kiev.

And GPS altitudes are known to within centimeters. More significantly, they are predicted to within centimeters.

Completely rubbish, such certianty is only possible with a altitude measurement devise on board OR by estimation (which is not scientific)..

 

[dasmiller]

Still there are no altitude measurement devices on board.

How would such a device work? Seriously, I've worked on more spacecraft designs than I can count, and I've been personally involved with perhaps a hundred spacecraft that are orbiting right now, and I don't know of any onboard system that could approach the accuracy that GPS gets by using TDOA at multiple well-surveyed ground stations.

Russian scientist are not stupid, they was the first that put a satellite in orbit.
The problem is that sometimes commercial outcome is more important than scientific red lamps, for example Chernobyl.
Don’t tell me they haven’t hear about the possible danger in Kiev.

What does that have to do with GPS?

Completely rubbish, such certianty is only possible with a altitude measurement devise on board OR by estimation (which is not scientific)..

Do you know how they measure the altitude of a GPS spacecraft? What the error sources are? Seriously, what conceivable onboard sensor would be more accurate than the GPS approach? 'Cause ranging error is a popular topic in the GPS community, and if you have a better approach than TDOA to multiple well-surveyed sites, we'd love to hear it.

And, for the 3rd time, what is your basis for these statements? Are you simply making them up?

ETA: if you don't know what TDOA stands for (without googling it), you probably shouldn't be making assertions about how GPS works.

 

[fuelair]

A lot of that you call science you can't trust
There are always opposite opinions.
The bad thing is only that if the huge mass of people, due to massive systematic brainwash and propaganda accept a paradigm, it become the holy book, and nothing except hard evidence can change the new fanatic intolerant religion

That's religion. In science you make your name and fame by proving your idea is better than the other guy's, not by saying it, posting it on facebook , and/or posting it on YouTube.

Note that opinions do not mean feces in science. Best experiments and best explanations always win out. You continually miss this point. Which is why I and others continue to mention it.

 

[Daylightstar]

That's religion. In science you make your name and fame by proving your idea is better than the other guy's, not by saying it, posting it on facebook , and/or posting it on YouTube.
...

This would require the ability to perform the necessary work, unfortunately, in the current example, this is clearly not currently present nor is it latently present ....

 

[Daylightstar]

...
What is your basis for these statements?

He saw it in his inner cinema .....

... what you see at your inner cinema ...

 

[Bjarne]

How would such a device work? Seriously, I've worked on more spacecraft designs than I can count, and I've been personally involved with perhaps a hundred spacecraft that are orbiting right now, and I don't know of any onboard system that could approach the accuracy that GPS gets by using TDOA at multiple well-surveyed ground stations.


What does that have to do with GPS?



Do you know how they measure the altitude of a GPS spacecraft? What the error sources are? Seriously, what conceivable onboard sensor would be more accurate than the GPS approach? 'Cause ranging error is a popular topic in the GPS community, and if you have a better approach than TDOA to multiple well-surveyed sites, we'd love to hear it.

And, for the 3rd time, what is your basis for these statements? Are you simply making them up?

ETA: if you don't know what TDOA stands for (without googling it), you probably shouldn't be making assertions about how GPS works.

I read years ago that a altitude measuring devise would be brought to ISS together with a atomic clock..
But how it works hmmm I have never dig in to this.

It is not the TDOA that is the problem, but that you cannot distinguish SR and GR time dilation contribution / "signals".

And therefore what really is a missing SR signal, can easy instead be understood as a wrong GR signal and therefore lower orbit altitude, which really not is the case ( when moving north). The signal transfer time can easy contribute to such confusion / misinterpretation.

 

[Paul]

this is clearly not currently present nor is it latently present ....

Even if we changed his position to the University of Copenhagen I doubt he'd have the potential either.

 

[dasmiller]

I read years ago that a altitude measuring devise would be brought to ISS together with a atomic clock..
But how it works hmmm I have never dig in to this.

It is not the TDOA that is the problem, but that you cannot distinguish SR and GR time dilation contribution / "signals".

And therefore what really is a missing SR signal, can easy instead be understood as a wrong GR signal and therefore lower orbit altitude, which really not is the case ( when moving north). The signal transfer time can easy contribute to such confusion / misinterpretation.

First, if the real problem is that the altitude measurement is wrong, why won't that affect the ISS experiment as well? Unless it's got an accurate way to measure the altitude that doesn't rely on propagating a signal between Earth and the satellite?*

Second, if the GPS altitude measurements were not accurate, then the GPS orbit propagation would not be accurate and, as stated repeatedly, GPS orbit propagation is very accurate.

*Offhand, I know of 2 ways to do this, but neither is applicable to the ISS experiment.

 

[Dancing David]

"The Last Answer " was historical, and Asimov's was finally offed by his fellow Illuminati for divulging too much...

.... sounds like Kyoon!

 

[Dancing David]

Completely rubbish, such certianty is only possible with a altitude measurement devise on board OR by estimation (which is not scientific)..

So now multiple triangulation points of reference don't work?

Why not Bjarne?

If I have multiple angles of reference, lets say just a hundred for example, why can't I know the orbital position of a GPS satellite?

 

[Dancing David]

I read years ago that a altitude measuring devise would be brought to ISS together with a atomic clock..
But how it works hmmm I have never dig in to this.

So you remember something, that is not a good citation, maybe you should refresh you knowledge...

 

[The Man]

Try to imagine what your pretend to know, and then try to tell what you see at your inner cinema in a language your grandmother can understand, if this not is possible you haven't understood what you just wrote.

Which comparable differences will grandmother experience if she could jump from one set of "coordinate values" to another ?

Answer; - you have no idea..

And this is the problem with that load of rubbish

So are you saying that it is the transformations that you do oppose?

Once again for your own edification my grandmothers, when they were alive, were both able to understand the language of mathematics quite well. If it is that you simply don't understand mathematics then just say so and stop trying to blame grandmothers.

Once again I recommend you start with just Galilean relativity and if it, for whatever reason, helps you then imagine theses are your great great great great grandmothers.


One is on train traveling down the tracks and just bouncing a ball up and down. The other is at the station as the train passes. To the first the ball just goes up and down as her frame is co-moving with the train. For the other at the station the ball travels forward with the train as it bounces up and down moving in more of a wave like path. With the Galilean transformation we can get the coordinate values of the ball in one frame from those of the other.


For your gun example in a frame originally co-moving with the gun. When the gun goes off the bullet accelerates away in one direction while the gun accelerates away in the other (recoils). In your CBR frame both the bullet and gun are originally moving in the same direction at the same speed. When the gun goes off the bullet comes to a halt in that frame and the gun accelerates to a higher speed.

The first case exemplifies the change in spatial coordinate values between frames. While the second example exemplifies the difference in a change of relative speed as seen from each frame.

Together then exemplify the fact that it is evidently you who has "no idea" as you apparently just haven't tried to find one (perhaps even from your grandmothers).

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Which comparable differences will grandmother experience if she could jump from one set of "coordinate values" to another ?

None. Jumping from one set of coordinate values to another is exactly the same as using the coordinate system of a different map to describe your location on earth.

The mathematical terminology of differentiable manifolds is based on that fact. Mathematicians refer to an individual coordinate system as a chart, and to a collection of charts (together with transformations between charts) as an atlas.

Answer; - you have no idea..

You misspelled the first person singular pronoun.

 

[The Man]

I read years ago that a altitude measuring devise would be brought to ISS together with a atomic clock..
But how it works hmmm I have never dig in to this.

It is not the TDOA that is the problem, but that you cannot distinguish SR and GR time dilation contribution / "signals".

And therefore what really is a missing SR signal, can easy instead be understood as a wrong GR signal and therefore lower orbit altitude, which really not is the case ( when moving north). The signal transfer time can easy contribute to such confusion / misinterpretation.

Once again GR, being the general application of special relativity, explicitly includes, well, SR. Seriously?!?! "missing SR signal" "wrong GR signal" ?!?! Apparently the message about GR entirely and specifically including SR just ain't getting through.