The most evident proof about that relativity is a PSEUDOSCIENCE is the infamous "twin paradox", which occupied time and words of (otherwise)
bright minds exposed to relativism since 1910.
But the awful truth is that SR Lorentz equations are symmetrical, and
that the heart of SR is that any reference frame can be chosen at will.
So, the result is that each traveler will PERCEIVE that the other has
aged.
Den 25.09.2024 00:25, skrev rhertz:
The most evident proof about that relativity is a PSEUDOSCIENCE is the
infamous "twin paradox", which occupied time and words of (otherwise)
bright minds exposed to relativism since 1910.
It is much easier to claim that SR is inconsistent,
than it is to prove it.
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
So you can claim what the Lorentz transform predicts for
the twin paradox, but can you apply the Lorentz transform to prove
that you are right?
Consider the following thought experiment:
Given an inertial frame K with coordinates [t, x]. (y = z = 0)
Twin A stays stationary at x = 0 in K, while twin B starts from
x = 0 when A’s clock shows 0 and travels at the constant speed v
to x = L, where she turns abruptly around with a brief, very high acceleration for a very short time, and thereafter travels back
to x = 0 at the constant speed v.
She is back at the time T as measured in K.
Since twin A is stationary in K, her proper time when twin B is
back will be τA = T.
If K'[t',x'] is moving along the positive x axis of K[]
The Lorentz transform is:
t' = γ(t - (v/c²)x)
x' = γ(x - vt)
inverse:
t = γ(t' + (v/c²)x')
x = γ(x' + vt')
γ = √(1 − v²/c²)
The challenge is:
Show what the LT predicts the proper time of B
is perceived to be τB = T.
You are free to use as many frames of reference you might wish.
SIMPLY PUT:
You have TWO reference frames (E and E'), which have a DIFFERENTIAL
SPEED OF v. For SR, as it was installed since 1906, the COMMON SPEED of
both frames IS IRRELEVANT (it could be 1,500 times v).
You have TWO imaginary observers at E and E' origins, pretending that
they are 100% human biological entities.
Relativism SAYS that there is TIME DILATION WITH INERTIAL MOTION, and
the choice of any reference frames is IRRELEVANT.
CHOICE ONE: You select E as the frame AT RELATIVE REST compared with E', which is moving far away at speed v. THEN, the humanoid at E PERCEIVES
that the REMOTE TIME for the other humanoid at E' is RUNNING SLOWER THAN
HIS. So, the humanoid at E BELIEVES that the bastard at E' IS AGING MORE SLOWLY THAN HIM.
CHOICE TWO: Adopt E' as being at RELATIVE REST. Then it's E the frame
that is moving away at !v! speed. Relativists claim that TIME DILATION
is going ON over the frame E, and now is the humanoid at E' who says: I PERCEIVE that time at E is running slower than mine, so the bastard at E
is AGING SLOWER THAN ME!
The PARADOX, explained without using ANY STUPID FORMULA, is that both humanoids PERCEIVE THAT THE OTHER IS AGING SLOWER.
The most evident proof about that relativity is a PSEUDOSCIENCE is the infamous "twin paradox", which occupied time and words of (otherwise)
bright minds exposed to relativism since 1910.
But the awful truth is that SR Lorentz equations are symmetrical, and
that the heart of SR is that any reference frame can be chosen at will.
So, the result is that each traveler will PERCEIVE that the other has
aged.
As you, viking relativity warrior, are very prone to spit numbers and
simple equations, that you repeat and reuse like a parrot, I address you
to ANALYZE AND JUSTIFY this part of the Hafele paper:
********************************************************************** PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS OF PORTABLE CLOCKS IN AIRCRAFT
by J.C. Hafele
https://www.masterclock.com/cmss_files/attachmentlibrary/Archived-papers/Performance-and-Results-of-Portable-Clocks-in-Aircraft-1971.pdf
*********************************************************************
Go to Page 8 (part of it I quote):
------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the assumption of an
equatorial circumnavigation at constant ground speed and altitude is not essential, it does simplify somewhat the calculations for estimating the magnitude of expected relativistic effects. For an equatorial circumna igation with constant ground speed v (m/sec) and altitude h (m), the predicted relativistic time gain for the flying clock over a similar reference clock kept at "rest" on the Earth's surface is given by
τ - τ₀ = [gh/c²-( 2RΩv + v²) /2c² ] τ₀ (1)
where τ and τ₀ are the respective times recorded by the flying and
ground clocks; R (m) is the Earth's radius and Ω (rad/sec) its angular speed; g (m/sec²) is the surface value of the acceleration of gravity;
and c (m/sec) is the speed of light. In Equation 1, the GROUND SPEED is positive for eastward and negative for westward circumnavigations. ------------------------------------------------------------------
PAY ATTENTION TO THE "GROUND SPEED" OF EARTH. THERE IS NO PLACE FOR THE
SPEED OF THE PLANES!!
Now, I quote this SHAMEFUL ASSERTION OF HAFELE:
----------------------------------------------------------
The actual time gain Δτ is a bit more instructive than the time
ratio of Equation 1 and it follows from multiplication of Equation 1 by τ₀. Because standard clocks keep the same time while sitting on the
ground anywhere on Earth (at average sea level and to this order of approximation), only the actual time in flight during a trip contributes
to relativistic effects.
However, ground time does contribute to increasing the random,
unpredictable time offset and therefore to the threshold for detection
of relativistic effects.
(Relativistic effects were not detected during previous flying clock
trips because they accumulate only while the clocks are in flight, and
for those trips most of the time was spent on the ground.) Suppose for
the moment that ground time, for example, for refueling stops, is
negligibly small compared with the time it takes to fly around the
world. Then the time recorded by the ground clock during the
circumnavigation is given by
τ₀ = 2πR/|v|
Solving for Δτ and inserting this value for τ₀ in Equation 1 gives
Δτ = 2πRgh/(!v!c²)- 2πR² Ωv/(!v!c²) - πR !v!/2c²
Figure 1 is a graph of this equation showing Δτ versus v for altitudes
of O, 10, and 20 kilometers.
----------------------------------------------------------
(See attached Figure 1)
Now, Paul, take the time to EXTRACT the value of !v! from the cryptic reasoning of Hafele. ALSO, try to calculate HOW IN HELL Hafele derived a value for τ₀, IF SUCH DATA WAS AVAILABLE ONLY AT USNO (Washington).
SEE IF YOU CAN REACH THESE VALUES (I DARE YOU), AND JUSTIFY THEM!!!
τ₀ = 7071.48 ± 691.78 nsec
|v| = -1753.188 ± 81.659 m/sec
THEN, AND ONLY THEN, TELL ME THAT THE ENTIRE EXPERIMENT IS NOT A FRAUD!
GROUND SPEED! WHAT PAIR OF CRETINS, PLUS ACCOMPLISHES!
AND YOU DARE TO DEFEND THIS EXPERIMENT AND THE RESULTS??
DO THE MATH, RELATIVIST, AND TELL ME I'M WRONG AND YOU'RE RIGHT!
Paul. you are PROJECTING. And as a good cornered relativist, try to
divert the attention with something else, EXCEPT what I questioned.
I put these simple calculations for you TO LEARN, but I sincerely doubt
that you may go the first lines WITHOUT CRYING FOUL, like a little girl.
***************************************************************
THEORETICAL TOTAL EASTWARD FLIGHT: -40 ± 23
MEASURED TOTAL EASTWARD FLIGHT: -59 ± 10
NOTE: Starting 4 October 1971, eastward flights lasted 65 hours, with 41 accumulated hours of flight.
FOR EASTWARD FLIGHT, CALCULATIONS:
τ - τ₀ = - τ₀ (2RΩv + v²)/2c² = - 2πR/|v| (2RΩv + v²)/2c² = -184 ± 18
<snip nonsense>
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 25.09.2024 23:54, skrev rhertz:
THEORETICAL TOTAL EASTWARD FLIGHT: -40 ± 23
MEASURED TOTAL EASTWARD FLIGHT: -59 ± 10
NOTE: Starting 4 October 1971, eastward flights lasted 65 hours,
with 41 accumulated hours of flight.
FOR EASTWARD FLIGHT, CALCULATIONS:
τ - τ₀ = - τ₀(2RΩv + v²)/2c² = - 2πR/|v| (2RΩv + v²)/2c² = -184±18
τ - τ₀ = - 2πR/|v| (2RΩv + v²)/2c² = -πR/c² (2RΩ + |v|) = -184±18
You yet again demonstrates your ability to read a text and
misinterpret what you read.
https://www.masterclock.com/cmss_files/attachmentlibrary/Archived-papers/Performance-and-Results-of-Portable-Clocks-in-Aircraft-1971.pdf
On the top of page 268:
"Although the assumption of an equatorial circumnavigation at
constant ground speed and altitude is not essential, it does
simplify somewhat the calculations for estimating the magnitude
of expected relativistic effects.
For an equatorial circumnavigation with constant ground speed v
(m/sec) and altitude h (m), the predicted relativistic time gain
for the flying clock over a similar reference clock kept at "rest"
on the Earth's surface is given by:" see equation (1)
Paul, I quote this SHAMEFUL part of your post. You are becoming
a disgraceful LIAR and DECEIVER, as it correspond to a relativist.
kinematic term: τₖ = (-(2RΩv + v²)/2c²)τ₀
Eastward trip:
τ₀ = 65.42 hours |v| = 2πR/τ₀ = 170.16 m/s = 612.58 km/h
v = +170.16 m/s
τₖ = -245.32 ns
If you insert τ₀ = 2πR/|v| in (1), the result is obviously the same.
Your giant blunder:
Not recognising that this is a very simplified example with
"equatorial circumnavigation at constant ground speed and altitude".
for estimating the magnitude of expected relativistic effects."
(-245 ns is of the same order of magnitude as -184 ns)
How could you imagine that this was the equation to calculate
the kinetic terms from all the flights?
THE CORRECT FORMULA, FROM THE HAFELE PAPER, IS:
kinematic term: (τ - τ₀) = (-(2RΩv + v²)/2c²)τ₀
where τ₀ is the USNO ELAPSED TIME after the eastward round trip.
This is a GROSS estimation, which gives
τ₀ = 65.42 hours = 235,512,000,000,000 theoretical nanoseconds
elapsed at USNO clocks!
You CAN´T (unless you are a fraudster) to calculate a theoretical USNO elapsed time of 235.51E+12 nsec (out of thin air), and ESTIMATE a
difference of 245 nsec between USNO and "flying clocks".
This represents a fraction of about 1,000,000,000,000 parts between
both clocks, and calculated for trips around the Equator.
Of course that, if you are a CROOK used to hack and cook, are used to
LIE and DECEIVE, and have a bunch of people that support your SCAM,
then you can produce an HOAX like this one.
Your emphasis in supporting this entire FARCE shows your true colors.
You are not different from these people or others who committed fraud
in widely published "experiments", like Gravity Probe A, Pound-Rebka,
Cassini and so many others.
Shame on you, as you don't have a bit of it.
τ - τ₀ = - τ₀ (2RΩv + v²)/2c² = - 2πR/|v| (2RΩv + v²)/2c² = -184±18
No. That formula will never give that result.
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf
The Kinematic effect for the Eastward trip = -184±18 ns
is given in the introduction to the paper.
This value is obviously the final result when all the flights
in different direction and with different speeds are taken
into consideration.
READ THE PAPER PROPERLY!
On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 11:53:42 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 27.09.2024 02:47, skrev rhertz:
Final remarks about why I believe that Paul is a fraudster. Actually, I
think that you are much more stupid than fraudulent.
<snip all the text that you REPEATED from my post>
Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
The USNO clocks advances τ₀ = 65.42 hours during the 65.42 hours trip, >>>>
I put the values:
τ₀ = 65.42 h = 235512 s
R = 6378137 m
Ω = 7.2921159e-5 rad/s
c = 299792458 m/s
v = 2πR/τ₀ = +170.16 m/s
into THE FORMULA Δτₖ = (-(2RΩv + v²)/2c²)τ₀
and get Δτₖ = -245.32 ns.
This is the kinematic term, so it is only part of the difference
between the USNO clock and the "flying" clock.
But can you please explain why doing what I did made me a fraudster?
I´LL REPEAT ONE MORE TIME:
YOU CAN'T, UNDER ANY DECENT ASSUMPTION, DARE TO ESTIMATE WHAT WAS THE
ELAPSED TIME AT THE USNO CLOCKS IN WASHINGTON, IF YOU ARE 15,000 MILES
FAR AWAY AND HAVE NOT ANY MEANS (NOT EVEN AS OF TODAY) TO ESTIMATE THE
TIME VALUE OF SUCH REFERENCE CLOCK.
WHEN YOU ASSUME THAT IT'S CORRECT TO ESTIMATE SUCH ELAPSED TIME AS THE
REMOTE FLIGHT TIME PLUS TIME SPENT AT AIRPORTS (65.42 HOURS), YOU ARE
BEYOND CRETINISM, BECAUSE OVER THAT RESULT YOU DARE TO ESTIMATE A 200
NSEC DIFFERENCE WITH THE HAFELE'S CLOCKS.
WHEN YOU ACCEPT THAT OVER A THEORETICAL VALUE OF 235,512,000,000,000
NSEC ELAPSED AT USNO CLOCKS (VALUE PULLED OUT OF YOUR ASS),
THEORETICALLY CAN ESTIMATE A DIFFERENCE OF 200 NSEC, YOU ARE A LIAR, A DECEIVER AND A FRAUDSTER.
CAPITO?
YOUR REPUTATION AS AN IMBECILE IS WRITTEN ALL OVER THE GOOGLE FORUM FOR
MORE THAN 20 YEARS. YOU CAN'T ESCAPE FROM SUCH HISTORY OF YOUR
ADVENTURES HERE. I DON'T KNOW HOW A FRAUDSTER FEEL ABOUT HIMSELF OR HOW
CAN HE LIVE WITH SUCH SHAME, BECAUSE I'M AN HONEST PERSON AND ALWAYS
HAVE BEEN. SOMETHING THAT YOUR PARENTS TEACH, BUT THEY FAILED ON YOU.
Den 16.09.2024 18:32, skrev rhertz:
2) The satellite clock is PERCEIVED to be ticking slower (from the
Earth's ground) by a factor: Δf/f = Φ/c² = GMe/c² (1/Re - 1/Rs)
with respect to a TWIN CLOCK, located on the Earth's surface.
As if the above IS NOT ENOUGH, exhaustive experiments done by France
since 2017 SHOWS (with error <10E-15) that THE EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE
BREAKS AT QUANTUM LEVEL.
As they wrote here:
Den 10.09.2024 07:42, skrev rhertz:
WHY THE ASSERTION ABOUT RELATIVITY BEING A PSEUDOSCIENCE? THE FOLLOWING
APPLY:
1) As the distance between both reference frames is increasing
constantly, the communication of data between both frames is IMPOSSIBLE
to exist while exchanging information about time and position of both
frames, even using light as a carrier of data. Both origins will be
always out of sync, even when ghost observers, located at both origins,
are trying to communicate between them.
GR predicts that the gravitational deflection of em-radiation
by the Sun, observed from the Earth, is:
θ = 2GM/(AU⋅c²)⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ
Where:
AU= an astronomical unit (distance Sun-Earth)
φ = angle Sun-Earth as observed from the Earth
c = speed of light in vacuum
G = Gravitational constant
M = solar mass
Your formula, that you wrote with sheer cockiness claiming that it's
what GR predicts (false), contain an incredible amount of nonsense. Read
the Mikhailov´s paper, if you want to write meaningful statements
Δf/f₀ = gh/c² - [(vˢᵃᵗ)²+ (rΩₑ)²]/2c² ----- Mudrak 2017
Δτ/τ₀ = gh/c² - (2RΩv + v²)/2c² ------------ Hafele 1971
Does it rings any bell on the void of your skull, or should I explain?
Who made a fraudulent approximation in GR using Schwarzschild?
NOW, GO AND HIDE IN SHAME FOR A COUPLE OF MONTHS, UNTIL THIS FADES. IT'S
WHAT YOU'VE DONE ALL THESE YEARS, WHEN CAUGHT WITH YOUR LIES OR YOUR
STUPID COMMENTS.
Either being a physical or a thought experiment, since around 1910 every experiment to prove or explain relativity is either blatantly stupid or
is a fraud, based on deceptive narratives, data hacking and statistical manipulation plus complicity of the members of such despicable cult.
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 21:37:55 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
For the innocent kiddies who might have strayed in here:
Relativity, both special and general theory,
is long past the stage where demonstration experiments are relevant.
Like with any mature science,
much of it has passed into everyday engineering.
Much engineering requires high accuracies nowadays,
and to achieve these accuracies
relativistic corrections need to be taken into account.
Information networks are synchronised, satnav just works,
power grids can remain synchronised over continents,
shares are bought and sold in microseconds,
accelerators accelerate, star positions are measured
to micro-arcseconds, space probes get routinely navigated
through the whole solar system, and so on, and so on.
All of this would not be possible
without correctly taking relativistic time into acount.
So, just ignore the noises, except for amusement,
Jan
*************************************************************
Your patent ignorance and your level of indoctrination on relativity are shocking. Even more than that, are DISGUSTING in extreme levels.
Typical of a die hard relativist is to attribute every scientific
advance in physics and engineering to relativity. It can be taken well
among the members of your cult but, for critics of relativity such
actions generates laugh and, even more, a LOT OF PITY when contemplating
how ruined its judgment is.
EVERY SINGLE COMMENT YOU MADE, FALSELY ATTRIBUTING TO RELATIVITY
ADVANCES IN SCIENCE, MAKES ME FEEL BAD FOR YOU AND YOUR IGNORANCE.
1) Information networks are synchronised.
Information networks run over DIGITAL HIGHWAYS based on fiber optics, photonics and atomic clocks, which are the Level 1 of global information networks. Software for routing and information run SEVERAL LAYERS ABOVE. Digital communications progress IS UNRELATED TO RELATIVITY.
2) satnav just works.
Current GNSS are just an evolutionary step over different techniques
from the last 70 years. The impact of relativity on these networks IS
JUST A RELATIVISTIC MYTH.
3) power grids can remain synchronised over continents.
This is, ESSENTIALLY, due to every single country institution in charge
of keeping time with respect to BIPM, obtaining a sync level of +/- 10
nsec worldwide. This has been achieved thanks to 1) and GNSS, for distribution of signaling info, at the lowest level of processing.
https://www.bipm.org/en/
NO RELATIVITY ROLE HERE.
4) shares are bought and sold in microseconds.
Same as above (3). Computer networks are synchronized thousand of times
less tightly than digital communication networks, because SOFTWARE is a random process with random delays, which is not the case of digital
networks (Level 1). Just the use of routers introduces the first layer
of random delays. Software (Level 4+) introduces MORE random delays.
With PROPER ALGORITHMS, sync can be established at microsec levels.
NO RELATIVITY ROLE HERE.
5) accelerators accelerate.
?????????
6) star positions are measured to micro-arcseconds.
NO RELATIVITY ROLE HERE.
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Gaia
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Gaia/ How_does_Gaia_study_the_Milky_Way
7) space probes get routinely navigated through the whole solar system.
ABSOLUTELY FALSE.
NO RELATIVITY ROLE HERE.
NEWTON RULES EVERYWHERE ON SPATIAL NAVIGATION.
Modern measurements greatly tighten the error bars.
At some level of measurement precision, it is expected that the
equivalence principle must eventually break down. So far it hasn't.
Den 01.10.2024 01:16, skrev rhertz:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 21:37:55 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
For the innocent kiddies who might have strayed in here:
Relativity, both special and general theory,
is long past the stage where demonstration experiments are relevant.
Like with any mature science,
much of it has passed into everyday engineering.
Much engineering requires high accuracies nowadays,
and to achieve these accuracies
relativistic corrections need to be taken into account.
Information networks are synchronised, satnav just works,
power grids can remain synchronised over continents,
shares are bought and sold in microseconds,
accelerators accelerate, star positions are measured
to micro-arcseconds, space probes get routinely navigated
through the whole solar system, and so on, and so on.
All of this would not be possible
without correctly taking relativistic time into acount.
So, just ignore the noises, except for amusement,
Jan
*************************************************************
Your patent ignorance and your level of indoctrination on relativity are
shocking. Even more than that, are DISGUSTING in extreme levels.
Typical of a die hard relativist is to attribute every scientific
advance in physics and engineering to relativity. It can be taken well
among the members of your cult but, for critics of relativity such
actions generates laugh and, even more, a LOT OF PITY when contemplating
how ruined its judgment is.
EVERY SINGLE COMMENT YOU MADE, FALSELY ATTRIBUTING TO RELATIVITY
ADVANCES IN SCIENCE, MAKES ME FEEL BAD FOR YOU AND YOUR IGNORANCE.
1) Information networks are synchronised.
Information networks run over DIGITAL HIGHWAYS based on fiber optics,
photonics and atomic clocks, which are the Level 1 of global information
networks. Software for routing and information run SEVERAL LAYERS ABOVE.
Digital communications progress IS UNRELATED TO RELATIVITY.
2) satnav just works.
Current GNSS are just an evolutionary step over different techniques
from the last 70 years. The impact of relativity on these networks IS
JUST A RELATIVISTIC MYTH.
3) power grids can remain synchronised over continents.
This is, ESSENTIALLY, due to every single country institution in charge
of keeping time with respect to BIPM, obtaining a sync level of +/- 10
nsec worldwide. This has been achieved thanks to 1) and GNSS, for
distribution of signaling info, at the lowest level of processing.
https://www.bipm.org/en/
NO RELATIVITY ROLE HERE.
4) shares are bought and sold in microseconds.
Same as above (3). Computer networks are synchronized thousand of times
less tightly than digital communication networks, because SOFTWARE is a
random process with random delays, which is not the case of digital
networks (Level 1). Just the use of routers introduces the first layer
of random delays. Software (Level 4+) introduces MORE random delays.
With PROPER ALGORITHMS, sync can be established at microsec levels.
NO RELATIVITY ROLE HERE.
5) accelerators accelerate.
?????????
6) star positions are measured to micro-arcseconds.
NO RELATIVITY ROLE HERE.
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Gaia
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Gaia/
How_does_Gaia_study_the_Milky_Way
7) space probes get routinely navigated through the whole solar system.
ABSOLUTELY FALSE.
NO RELATIVITY ROLE HERE.
NEWTON RULES EVERYWHERE ON SPATIAL NAVIGATION.
Well said, Richard.
Considering that all physicists born after 1900 are members of
a MAFFIA, and profit from it, and their experimental results are
COOKED with the help of statistical manipulations, fraud, cooking
and peer complicity, it is clear that NEWTON RULES.
Physics hasn't evolved at all for since 1900.
You can OBVIOUSLY design particle accelerators and Satellite navigation systems and synchronise TAI-clocks with Newtonian mechanics only.
Doesn't your moronic Shit forbid to
synchronize moving relatively clocks,
Final remarks about why I believe that Paul is a fraudster. Actually, I
think that you are much more stupid than fraudulent.
I'll explain, but first I extracted some gems from your post:
Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
The USNO clocks advances τ₀ = 65.42 hours during the 65.42 hours trip,
I put the values:
τ₀ = 65.42 h = 235512 s
R = 6378137 m
Ω = 7.2921159e-5 rad/s
c = 299792458 m/s
v = 2πR/τ₀ = +170.16 m/s
into THE FORMULA Δτₖ = (-(2RΩv + v²)/2c²)τ₀
and get Δτₖ = -245.32 ns.
This is the kinematic term, so it is only part of the difference
between the USNO clock and the "flying" clock.
But can you please explain why doing what I did made me a fraudster?
1) The eastward flight lasted 65.42 hours, of which 42.23 hours were
spent on planes flying at about 9 Km high, on average.
Your STUPID and ILLOGICAL thinking is about having bought THIS CRAP:
Hafele considered a good approximation the following INSANE assertion:
- WE (H&K, plus the gang at USNO) considered A GOOD IDEA to think that
a good approximation is:
- Earth rotates at 459,24 m/sec (Equator level). We SUPPOSE that USNO
labs are FLOATING IN THE AIR for the duration of our eastward trip.
- So, in a stroke of a genius, we SUPPOSED that being still for
65.42 hours (flight time + waiting in airports) at ALTITUDE 0.0 Km,
we WOULD REACH USNO LABS while Earth rotates such amount (either 0°
latitude or the average 34° latitude).
- The only thing that we have to do is TO SIT COMFORTABLY, while Earth
rotates, AND in 65.42 hours we will reach USNO AGAIN (because we
departed from USNO, which MAGICALLY remained STILL IN SPACE, without
ANY MOTION. We are, by the hand of Einstein, who slipped eastward,
to finally reach USNO again.
- The only uncomfortable aspect of such adventure is that OUR ASSES
got wet, while moving over water at height ZERO, plus a lot of
bruises in our asses while moving over earth, at h=0.
- But all the pain suffered worth the sacrifice, as we COULD
THEORETICALLY compute the elapsed time τ₀ = 65.42h = 235.512E+12 ns.
- That such value, which we pulled out of our asses, contain errors
in the order of BILLIONS OF PARTS is irrelevant, because we proved
that Einstein was right.
See, Paul, WHY YOU ARE A FRAUDSTER OR IMBECILE BEYOND REDEMPTION?
I go for an IMBECILE, A BLIND ONE. But that is just me.
Paul, more beating on you. I feel bad.
1) Check AGAIN the Hafele's chart. from 1971. Use the red line for h=0.
2) Check out this comparison: Mudrak 2017 (Galileo) vs. Hafele 1971.
Feel ashamed or stupid. These are your only choices, old man.
************************************************************
Mudrak's 2017 formula for GNSS Galileo:
Δf/f₀ = -GMₑ/c²r - (-GMe/c²a (1 + J₂/2)) - (vˢᵃᵗ)²/2c² + (aΩₑ)²/2c²
J₂/2 = 0.0005413134 (DISCARDED FOR BEING << 1)
Δf/f₀ = -GMₑ/c² (1/r - 1/a) - 1/2c² [(vˢᵃᵗ)²+ (aΩₑ)²]
If a (satellite height) is only "h" times higher than r (i.e. 10 Km),
then
Δf/f₀ = gh/c² - [(vˢᵃᵗ)²+ (rΩₑ)²]/2c² ----- Mudrak 2017
Δτ/τ₀ = gh/c² - (2RΩv + v²)/2c² ------------ Hafele 1971
Does it rings any bell on the void of your skull, or should I explain?
Who made a fraudulent approximation in GR using Schwarzschild?
I'll cease to post on this thread, because I'm bored as hell with you.
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 21:37:55 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
Either being a physical or a thought experiment, since around 1910 every >> experiment to prove or explain relativity is either blatantly stupid or
is a fraud, based on deceptive narratives, data hacking and statistical
manipulation plus complicity of the members of such despicable cult.
For the innocent kiddies who might have strayed in here:
Relativity, both special and general theory,
is long past the stage where demonstration experiments are relevant.
Like with any mature science,
much of it has passed into everyday engineering.
Much engineering requires high accuracies nowadays,
and to achieve these accuracies
relativistic corrections need to be taken into account.
Information networks are synchronised, satnav just works,
power grids can remain synchronised over continents,
shares are bought and sold in microseconds,
accelerators accelerate, star positions are measured
to micro-arcseconds, space probes get routinely navigated
through the whole solar system, and so on, and so on.
All of this would not be possible
without correctly taking relativistic time into acount.
So, just ignore the noises, except for amusement,
Jan
*************************************************************
Your patent ignorance and your level of indoctrination on relativity are shocking. Even more than that, are DISGUSTING in extreme levels.
Typical of a die hard relativist is to attribute every scientific
advance in physics and engineering to relativity. It can be taken well
among the members of your cult but, for critics of relativity such
actions generates laugh and, even more, a LOT OF PITY when contemplating
how ruined its judgment is.
EVERY SINGLE COMMENT YOU MADE, FALSELY ATTRIBUTING TO RELATIVITY
ADVANCES IN SCIENCE, MAKES ME FEEL BAD FOR YOU AND YOUR IGNORANCE.
1) Information networks are synchronised.
Information networks run over DIGITAL HIGHWAYS based on fiber optics, photonics and atomic clocks, which are the Level 1 of global information networks. Software for routing and information run SEVERAL LAYERS ABOVE. Digital communications progress IS UNRELATED TO RELATIVITY.
2) satnav just works.
Current GNSS are just an evolutionary step over different techniques
from the last 70 years. The impact of relativity on these networks IS
JUST A RELATIVISTIC MYTH.
3) power grids can remain synchronised over continents.
This is, ESSENTIALLY, due to every single country institution in charge
of keeping time with respect to BIPM, obtaining a sync level of +/- 10
nsec worldwide. This has been achieved thanks to 1) and GNSS, for distribution of signaling info, at the lowest level of processing.
https://www.bipm.org/en/
NO RELATIVITY ROLE HERE.
4) shares are bought and sold in microseconds.
Same as above (3). Computer networks are synchronized thousand of times
less tightly than digital communication networks, because SOFTWARE is a random process with random delays, which is not the case of digital
networks (Level 1). Just the use of routers introduces the first layer
of random delays. Software (Level 4+) introduces MORE random delays.
With PROPER ALGORITHMS, sync can be established at microsec levels.
NO RELATIVITY ROLE HERE.
5) accelerators accelerate.
?????????
6) star positions are measured to micro-arcseconds.
NO RELATIVITY ROLE HERE.
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Gaia_the_Milky_Way
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Gaia/How_does_Gaia_study
7) space probes get routinely navigated through the whole solar system.
ABSOLUTELY FALSE.
NO RELATIVITY ROLE HERE.
NEWTON RULES EVERYWHERE ON SPATIAL NAVIGATION.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 366 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 06:31:13 |
Calls: | 7,825 |
Calls today: | 8 |
Files: | 12,930 |
Messages: | 5,769,093 |
Posted today: | 1 |