"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:05:59 +1100, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
...
On Jan 29, 7:54 pm, Randy Poe wrote:
On Jan 29, 8:14 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

According to relativists, GPS clocks GAIN 38us per day on the ground
clock.
That is due to two components, 45us for gravity and -7us for relative
speed.

Accordingly, an observer (OO) in GPS orbit would see the GC LOSING
52us
per
day.

After one year, the OO would calculate that the OC was about 19ms
ahead
of the
GC.
However, the GO would calculate that his GC was only 13ms behind.

What happens when the clocks are reunited?
Who is right?

Two people drive different routes from city A to
city B. When they are reunited, one odometer reads
220 km and the other reads 230 km. Which one is
right?

Is Mr. Poe really as blind as Androcles has claimed you to be?

This is a classical case of the twin's paradox if you have not
realized it finally. It is absolutely impossible to resolve because
of the mathematics of the Lorentz transform.

It doesn't need to be 'resolved' as there is no real paradox involved ..
and
it is *due* to the Lorentz transforms .. they predict it. Get it right,
dumbo.

So what's the answer?

There is no question. Other than "can one explain the so-called twin
paradox result using relativity", and one certainly can (and via a number of
approaches to the problem)

When the clocks are reunited, do they differ by 19ms or 13ms?

In the twins paradox? Once one has the parameters of the experiment, one
can calculate the difference in elapsed time for the two paths. I've seen
it done many times. Haven't you?

In the case of a GPS satellite returning to earth, the calculations are
quite complex and it would not be possible to say without a *lot* of
information what the difference would be .. I wouldn't like to attempt it
myself. That there would be some difference, we already know from other
experiments/observations.

Or are you forced to admit that Einstein's theory is a load of crap?

No .. only your pitiful lack of understanding