Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims

Eric Gisse wrote:
mluttgens@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:

[repost #3, google is being uppity]

GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims

A fascinating assertion, considering general relativity was used in the
design of GPS and the successful explanation of the H&K observations.

Intrestingly... science does not award the same recognition to an
'explanation' as it does for a 'prediction' based on logical
intrepretation and application. It is as tho' the dicipline anticipates
something about human nature that anyone who has ever
bought snake oil knows through experience anyway.
<< According to Hafele & Keating "special relativity predicts
that a moving standard clock will record less time compared
with (real or hypothetical) coordinate clocks distributed at rest
in an inertial reference space" (their words). >>
http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw/tcr/volume-01/number-03/footnode.html

<<Predictions (reasoning including logical
deduction from hypotheses and theories) >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

So... the H&K observation fails as science because it
credits the phenomena to motion of the aeroplane.

The GPS altitude effect is reduced to a quantitative
formalism because is incorrectly attributes the frequency
shift to a path effect.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9907017

Can one misinterpretation disprove another misinterpretation?


Sue...








I'm sure this rant will be as based in reality as your others.


"In the GPS, all atomic clocks in all reference frames (in orbit
and on the ground) are set once and stay synchronized.

Off to an excellent start, you already made a gigantic error. Once the
clocks are moved, they are nolonger synchornized.

However, initial expectations based on special relativity were that
clocks in different reference frames should have different readings
and rates. Yet the Global Positioning System is designed in such
a way that, after the individual clock rates are adjusted once
pre-launch for the predicted relativity effects, all satellite clocks
in all orbits remain in synchronization with one another and with
all ground clocks without need for further consideration of relativity
corrections, with the exception of one small correction needed for
the slight non-circularity of the orbits."

Going strong! Another impressive fuckup..!

Question to alert readers: Why might special relativity be a poor
choice of theory for an environment that has an observable
gravitational field?


(Apeiron, Vol. 10, No. 1, January 2003 69
What the Global Positioning System Tells Us about the Twin's Paradox,
Tom Van Flandern).

Hahahahah.


Interestingly, all "pre-launch" adjusted clocks remain synchronized,
a fact which excludes additive relativistic effects. In fact,
those effects are straightforwardly explained by

Even more interestingly, they do NOT remain synchronized - contrary to
your claim. If only someone had considered an experiment to test this.


1) the blue shift of the the signals due to difference of gravitational
potentials between the satellites and the Earth surface (the photons
gain potential energy), and

How does one gain potential energy?

2) the redshift of the signals due to their travel along
the hypothenuse of an approximately right-angled triangle whose
other sides are vt (v is the orbital velocity) and ct, where t
is the time that the signals would need to cover the satellites
altitude.

Think so?

Why don't you compare your...interesting...explanation with reality?


Obviously, such effects are not additive

Only to you.


Marcel Luttgens

.