It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Einstein Proven Wrong, Yet Again

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

Does not change the fact that you still have to sync them manually sometimes, and that´s in alignment with the article. You´re wrong. I don´t care if you have been a pilot, because it has nothing to do with GR.




posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

Believe whatever you want to believe.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Reverbs

They are? I always thought they were a feet off the ground. Huh. You learn new things everyday. Well thanks for explaining the reason for the GPS-relativity connection. (Of course the beginning was a joke)



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: ksiezyc

yes.

I laughed by the way.





posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Reverbs

Hah, glad you did.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 03:23 PM
link   
I was going to jump into this, but then, I saw both TerryDon79 and AugustusMasonicus were already on it.

No need for a third wheel



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Also, I'm going with ColdWisdom on this one.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 06:31 PM
link   
To the OP...... See that GPS on your phone..... if Einstein was wrong.... you would get lost every time you use it... or worse



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 08:22 PM
link   
OP, could you share your maths on the proof? I don't care for word games and opinion when we're speaking math.
Here is the original equation, please indicate where this is wrong?
t = t0/(1-v^2/c^2)1/2

This would be calculated for each clock, where t = time observed in the other reference frame

t0 = time in observers own frame of reference (rest time)

v = the speed of the moving object

c = the speed of light in a vacuum

Thank you,
edit on 6-9-2016 by LetsGoViking because: added equation for clarification

edit on 6-9-2016 by LetsGoViking because: because I can't type....



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 11:02 PM
link   
So, in order to prove Einstein wrong, I take it the OP evaluated the experiment by running it through the General Relativity field equations, taking into account all factors, including speed, acceleration, gravity, etc?

Right?


If this was done, please submit to a peer reviewed journal post-haste, as there isn't a physics journal in existence who would't publish this.

So... why haven't we read about this in a peer reviewed journal?

Could it be you didn't run the equations?



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 01:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Source local oscillator freq can only go up, if time dilates.
You're abusing the dictionary because time dilation according to the way it's defined and the way everybody else uses it means the exact opposite of what you say it means. In other words, when time dilates, the frequency goes down, by definition, not up as you claim.

Lol, you have it backwards. time dilation means stretching the time vector



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 01:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Nochzwei

You really need me to explain this to you?

GPS,
Satellites,
ISS,
Other space craft,
Computers,
And a whole host of other things wouldn't work correctly if GR was wrong.
If you really want to, we can go over those one at a time



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 01:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: ksiezyc
a reply to: Peeple

I agree it is funny. Especially this: (Credit to TerryDon79)




So you're saying that Einstein wasn't proven wrong by a random guy on the Internet who thinks a heater is a time machine? I never saw that coming.
Lol, good for you. but be my guest and wallow in your ignorance



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 01:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

All you've done in this thread is said to everyone, "No you have it backwards". That's what makes up most of your replies(to my memory without looking back).



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 01:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Nochzwei
stop relying on wiki


The first link is the Ohio State Astronomy Department and those little numbers on the bottom of the Wikipedia page are called footnotes.

Try clicking on them instead of being purposefully ignorant.
I stay from all the bunk on the internet



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 01:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Nochzwei

You really need me to explain this to you?

GPS,
Satellites,
ISS,
Other space craft,
Computers,
And a whole host of other things wouldn't work correctly if GR was wrong.
If you really want to, we can go over those one at a time


There no point. You'll just dismiss it without actually countering it. Same rubbish you always do.

"GR is bunk!" but never offer any explanation.

"GR doesn't work!" but never show why.

Where's your equations to counter GR?

Oh, that's right. A silly YouTube video of a heater is your "proof". LOL!



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 01:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

btw gps does not use anything from GR. hope that helps


You're flat out wrong.

GPS satellites have to get their time adjusted due to the slight time differences it incurs by being in orbit. If the time wasn't adjusted, the GPS wouldn't be accurate.
GPS receivers have an empirically applied correction, independent of any GR. Talk to gps manufacturers. Ive also been a pilot, btw


Of course they have a correction built in. That correction is calculated using GR.
there is no calcultion. its empirical


So there's no calculation apart from the calculation?

Do you even think before you reply?
here empirical means corrected by trial and error over the years of its history. d you should wanna talk to the us navy that used to fly those satelleites. you should really


(post by Nochzwei removed for a manners violation)

posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 01:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

So all the unmanned GPS satellites are functioning because of "trial and error"?

I guess you can prove that?

While your at it, prove "GR is bunk".



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 01:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: Nochzwei

Does not change the fact that you still have to sync them manually sometimes, and that´s in alignment with the article. You´re wrong. I don´t care if you have been a pilot, because it has nothing to do with GR.
wtf are you on about mate? pl elaborate



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join