Re: GPS versus source dependency / ballistic theory

From: Androcles (androc1es_at_nospamblueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 09/13/04 

Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:17:28 GMT

"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:df76407e.0409130539.ad5aa3f@posting.google.com...
| H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message
news:<38h9k09j4aciqc17l7r8fqkt3jttav2b49@4ax.com>...
| > On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 15:08:32 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@hia.no>
| > wrote:
| >
| > >
| > >"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:
| > >>
| > >> >
| >
| > >> >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.
| >
| > Crap.
| > the clocks are funed tuned
|
| You meant "fine-tuned".
| - That is a correction of a few nanoseconds per day.
| - An adjustment on the order of 38 us per day is built
| into the clocks and never adjusted after launch. Never.
|
| > empirically and continuously.
|
| Once per day, not "continuously". There's a difference.
|
| > The GR correction is a complete myth.
|
| Please mark the following statements true or false:
|
| - Physicists predicted that GPS clocks would gain 38 us/day if
| they frequency was not altered relative to clocks on the ground.

True.
|
| - A steady gain of 38 us/day was observed when GPS satellites
| were run with unadjusted clocks.
False.
|
| - The GPS atomic clocks are altered in such a way that, when on the
| ground, they lose 38 us/day.
True.
|
| - GPS clocks on station gain or lose less than 0.02 us/day.

True. They are maintained at that rate by groundstation signals.
3/4 isn't bad, huh?
Now try mine.

Stella flies to TurnAround at 0.9898c and returns (at the same speed) after
an absence of 14 years. Terence, her twin bother, stays home. Every year,
her time, Stella emails Terence a birthday card. Terence does the same, his
time.
They do this via dish antenna connected to the internet.

1) How far is it to TurnAround, to the nearest light year?
a) 1 light year
b) 7 light years
c) 4 light years
d) Other (specify)
e) Don't know.

2) How long does it take Stella to get to TurnAround (nearest year)?
a) 1 year
b) 7 years
c) 4 years
d) Other (specify)
e) Don't know

3) How long does Terence think it takes Stella to get to TurnAround?
a) 1 year
b) 7 years
c) 4 years
d) Other (specify)
e) Don't know

4) How long does Terence think it takes Stella for the round trip?
a) 2 years
b) 14 years
c) 8 years
d) Other (specify)
e) Don't know

5) How many birthday cards does Terence send Stella?
a) 2
b) 14
c) 8
d) Other (specify)
e) Don't know

6) How many birthday cards does Stella send Terence?
a) 2
b) 14
c) 8
d) Other (specify)
e) Don't know

7) How many birthday cards does Stella receive?
a) 2
b) 14
c) 8
d) Other (specify)
e) Don't know

8) How many birthday cards does Terence receive?
a) 2
b) 14
c) 8
d) Other (specify)
e) Don't know

Score:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1: a) 0. b) 5. c) 1 d) 0. e) 1.
2: a) 0. b) 5. c) 2 d) 0. e) 1.
3: a) 0. b) 5. c) 3 d) 0. e) 1.
4: a) 0. b) 5. c) 3 d) 0. e) 1.
5: a) 0. b) 5. c) 3 d) 0. e) 1.
6: a) 0. b) 5. c) 3 d) 0. e) 1.
7: a) 0. b) 5. c) 4 d) 0. e) 1.
8: a) 0. b) 5. c) 4 d) 0. e) 1.

If your score was 40, you are a truly logical thinker.
If your score was 23-39, you should learn to read the question.
If your score was 8-22, you are at least honest.
If your score was 0-7, you are totally useless and have no deductive ability
whatsoever.

For the full explanation,
 http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/KoksDoppler.htm
Androcles.
| - Randy

Quantcast