Re: GPS versus source dependency / ballistic theory

From: Paul B. Andersen (paul.b.andersen_at_hia.no)
Date: 09/11/04 

Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 15:08:32 +0200

"Henri Wilson" <H@..> skrev i melding news:jov4k0p051bgj5egeh1fo1dq6ptat8dikm@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 11:47:28 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hia.no>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> skrev i melding news:cqp1k0tgoq0h6jnusi20frigsj3mal546r@4ax.com...
> >> The free fall correction is incorporated into the clocks before launch, for
> >> obvious reasons.
> >
> >Yep.
> >And the obvious reason is that the GPS wouldn't work without it.
> >Since this "free fall correction" was predicted by GR with amazing
> >precision, the very fact that the GPS works is a confirmation of GR.
>
> Crap. The GR correction incorporates a fictitious velocity component.

Fact 1: GR predicts that clocks in GPS orbit will run fast by 38 us a day.
Fact 2: The GPS prove that clocks in GPS orbit run fast by 38 us/day.

Don't let us quarrel about facts.

Can you please explain which part of the GR prediction is fictitious?

Paul

Quantcast