Einstein Proven Wrong, Yet Again

a reply to: Greggers

I know lol.

Could you imagine how famous he would be IF he had proven any of GR wrong? And the amount of money he would receive? And the research grants?

But instead, he decides to post something, that doesn't prove GR wrong, on a conspiracy website.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Assuming the OP is being honest in his perceived observations, this is the problem when someone with a layman's understanding of physics based on pop-science attempts to falsify a theory that is based on concrete math.

The reason I originally requested the OP to show us the equations (prior to the move to Skunk Works) was because his OP shows he doesn't really understand GR, and doing the math would force him to learn the variables he has failed to consider.

a reply to: Greggers

Completely agree.

Well, I'm going to leave the thread to die now.

Ciao.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: kruphix

submitting a paper to a science journal will happen in the future.
but the MO exhibited by all the ats dimwits was hilarious, to say the least. was fun while it lasted.
have a nice day everyone

There is no need to refer to anyone as a dimwit. When you do submit to a peer-reviewed journal, please let us know, as clearly you must be holding back your evidence from this thread if you have enough to sway an actual journal, and that proof is something we'd all enjoy seeing.

a reply to: Nochzwei

When in the future? Will you post a link or share the journal? Of course this will be in the news if you do. But you haven't done anything so..

originally posted by: ksiezyc
a reply to: Nochzwei

When in the future? Will you post a link or share the journal? Of course this will be in the news if you do. But you haven't done anything so..

Lol i must say you have worked wonders.

a reply to: Nochzwei

And you failed to answer questions. Dear what a surprise.

a reply to: Nochzwei

No, in fact, you have not.

In fact, you've been condescending in your avoidance of answering. You've been calling members names. You've done everything possible to avoid answering.

If this is how you intend to submit a paper in the "future", I certainly hope you'll answer the questions then. But I suspect you will not.

a reply to: ksiezyc

I keep coming back as sort of a psychological study on denial..
Not as interesting as I thought it would be, but it does shed light on how not to communicate new ideas.

I was tempted to play devils advocate..
But I wasn't able to do it as the op gave no information to go on..

I like sometimes playing spin doctor to get people on their toes making sure everything is on point, but there is nothing here to be on point about with no actual responses from the OP about the subject in question.

This lowers my expectations from this particular poster into the future which is unfortunate because I want to respect everyone and their viewopints..

I can't help somone who doesn't want the help.

I've spent lots of time trying to disprove science theories in my past.. Never did.. So when I saw this OP I was interested.. Could have been another fun physics learning workshop..

too bad.

a reply to: Reverbs

I found the thread originally humorous and then later a bit off putting as the OP kept repeating the same thing that we are ignorant and he is right. I wouldn't mind devil playing, but really you'd have to stretch far and wide for that here.

a reply to: ksiezyc

I'm very good at streching, but stretching to where?
I was never informed on any where so I couldn't move that way to bolster the troops on his side. Or her side. The OP's side

I wanted to try so bad too.

I love physics. It was my favorite class in highschool. On the second day they moved me to AP physics in 10th grade.
I miss it.

Now I'm rusty.. (mainly the math)

Not rusty enough to fall for bs though.

a reply to: Nochzwei

The fact, that at the day the receivers are dead on a GPS sat, and ground control can´t sync it anymore, the internal clocks will drift, until it´s a blob of useless trash in orbit. If that happens, you have to update every god damn GPS receiver to ignore that satelite, because it will mess with the whole system.

wtf are you on about mate? pl elaborate

That the # I am on "mate". If you had any idea about GPS (and their counterparts), you would know this.

originally posted by: ksiezyc
a reply to: Nochzwei

And you failed to answer questions. Dear what a surprise.

and your question is....

a reply to: seagull

Lol i told yall to stick to the op and not beat about the bush

a reply to: Reverbs

Lol geez, and you didnt learn anything? typical nvm

a reply to: verschickter
No. It goes beyond that.

While it is true that the satellites transmit a time of day timestamp which our receivers use to tell us what time it is, there's a problem. There is a lightlag between the time the satellite sends that packet and the time it gets to you. The satellites are at different distances from you. So, which satellite do you believe because the lightlag for each will be different and what is used in calculating position is the relative lag between satellites, not the lag between a satellite and the receiver.

A satellite says, "the time now is 0.0" but when the receiver gets it the time actually 0.001 (for example) because of the time it takes for the signal to reach it.

But what about the satellite which is farther away? It says, "the time is now 0.0", but when the receiver gets the signal, it is now 0.0015.

See the problem? While you can get a time of day that's pretty good for getting somewhere on time, you cannot get enough accuracy for the positional calculations to get you "there" with a high degree of accuracy. That is why the clock time (time of day) is not used for positional calculations. That is why the relative time lags between satellites is used, that is why the actual time of day is not necessary for the calculations. If the clocks on the satellites were running at a different rate than those on the receivers, no joy.

What having a fairly accurate time of day gives you (your GPS receiver that is) is the ability to know where to look for the satellites, based on their ephemerides (which are periodically updated). It means you don't have to search the whole sky each time you turn your GPS on.

That's what selective availability was about, it sent a jiggered "0.00" which civilian receivers had no way to decode. One of the best things Clinton did was end that.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: verschickter
No. It goes beyond that.

While it is true that the satellites transmit a time of day timestamp which our receivers use to tell us what time it is, there's a problem. There is a lightlag between the time the satellite sends that packet and the time it gets to you. The satellites are at different distances from you. So, which satellite do you believe because the lightlag for each will be different and what is used in calculating position is the relative lag between satellites, not the lag between a satellite and the receiver.

A satellite says, "the time now is 0.0" but when the receiver gets it the time actually 0.001 (for example) because of the time it takes for the signal to reach it.

But what about the satellite which is farther away? It says, "the time is now 0.0", but when the receiver gets the signal, it is now 0.0015.

See the problem? While you can get a time of day that's pretty good for getting somewhere on time, you cannot get enough accuracy for the positional calculations to get you "there" with a high degree of accuracy. That is why the clock time (time of day) is not used for positional calculations. That is why the relative time lags between satellites is used, that is why the actual time of day is not necessary for the calculations. If the clocks on the satellites were running at a different rate than those on the receivers, no joy.

What having a fairly accurate time of day gives you (your GPS receiver that is) is the ability to know where to look for the satellites, based on their ephemerides (which are periodically updated). It means you don't have to search the whole sky each time you turn your GPS on.

That's what selective availability was about, it sent a jiggered "0.00" which civilian receivers had no way to decode. One of the best things Clinton did was end that.

This is an excellent post. I was reluctant to call attention to it for fear the OP might decide he's won an argument, but decided he'd likely do that anyway, so what the hey.

The way I have always viewed it, GPS does provide empirical validation of Relativity because it is possible to know the clock speed at the satellites and compare it to atomic clocks running on earth, and the difference in the speeds of the clocks does indeed match what is predicted by Einstein's equations.

However, the notion that failure to account for GR would render GPS worthless as described in numerous articles online is not correct, because the positional information is calculated as you've indicated.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
like ive said ive been a pilot and have used gps rather extensively. take you bs elsewhere. verstanden

I've been the driver of a car and have used gps rather extensively. Take your bs elsewhere, Nochzwei. Capiche?