On Jan 31, 12:20 am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:36:23 -0800 (PST), Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jan 30, 1:03 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:02:45 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"

wrote:
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.

According to the 'religious jargon' the Schwarzschild metric
GPS clocks should gain 38us per day on the ground clock,
and according to continuous observations during 30+ years,
we know that GPS clocks do indeed gain 38us/day on the ground clock.

No they don't...but that's another matter.

Yes, they do. This is explained in the GPS specifications as well as
the original GPS test satellites which you have been quoted but will
never read.

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

I see you are invoking your tick fairies again. :-)

When the ground clock shows X and the orbiting clock shows X+38us,
why do you think an orbiting observer would read that as X-14us and X+38us?
How can anybody disagree about what a clock shows?
What a veird idea. :-)

Well I never did see a plausible explanation or the '-7us/d speed component'.

That's because you are unwilling to understand the explanations given
to you. What you think is irrelevant.

Apparently, according to relativists, the GO is moving wrt the inertial frame
but not the OO.

Actually, according to physicists, neither are in inertial frames.

| to "Paul's tick fairies", please?
|
| Otherwise I will have to remind you about this scenario again.

Henri Wilson wrote:
| OK Paul, I will never refer to PAUL ANDERSEN'S FAMOUS TICK FAIRIES again.......

You are really something, Henry.
Is this scenario really so hard to grasp that
you have to screw it up and invoke your tick fairies
every second day?

Why does the OO not see the GC running 52us'd slow, as Jeckyl so wisely
claimed?

There is no symmetry, idiot. The frames are non-inertial.

Hahahahahahhahaha!

the ultimate SRian escape route. "IT ISN'T INERTIAL''

When you learn what an inertial frame is, you will understand why.


hahahahahaha!

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm