On Feb 13, 2:29*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 06:04:58 -0800 (PST), PD wrote:
On Feb 12, 6:20*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:52:35 -0800 (PST), PD wrote:
On Feb 12, 4:19*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
Yes, depending on the observer A or B.
Or no, if the observer is C.

Silly you! You think the clock rate is intrinsic to the clock! How
doofus is THAT?

Hey Henri! Has C's speed increased or decreased?

The clock's period defines and absolute time interval.

Can't possibly do that if the interval is observer-dependent, as is
found experimentally. Something that is observer-dependent is not
absolute, by definition. Insisting that it is anyway is not just
idiotic, it is persistently idiotic.

Observer dependence, ie., doppler shift, of anything depends on the speed of
information.
The period of a tin whistle appears different for differently moving observers
simply because of sound's finite travel time.
Its period defines an absolute time interval in its own frame. That period has
the same absolute value in all frames.... but any relatively moving observer
who wishes to use it as a time standard must correct for sound's travel time .

A similar principle applies when light is used to carry information.
For instance the absolute period of a distant pulsar, moving towards earth at v
is given by [observed period]/[c/(c+v)].

If I want to set my watch by a relatively moving pulsar's known period, I have
to apply the doppler correction.

IS THAT CLEAR, NOW, DRAPER.

Why, no, no it's not. Observer dependence is not a strictly Doppler
shift phenomenon. The observer-dependence of linear momentum is in no
way related to Doppler shifting, as there is nothing oscillating
associated with the linear momentum. The observer-dependence of
translational kinetic energy is in no way related to Doppler shifting,
as there is nothing oscillating associated with the translational
kinetic energy. The observer-dependence of length of a rod is in no
way related to Doppler shifting, as there is nothing oscillating
associated with the rod's length. The observer-dependence of the
electric field surrouding a charged ping-pong ball is in no way
related to Doppler shifting, as there is nothing oscillating
associated with the electric field of the ping-pong ball.

Once again, you are simply spouting idiotic nonsense, and then
hammering in the idiocy by asking in all caps whether the idiotic
nonsense is now clear.


Does it increase or decrease after the above velocity change?

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's *Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index 0.95.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:01:35 GMT, Bryan Olson wrote:

"Dr." Henri Wilson wrote:
Bryan Olson wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
The people who build GPS don't give a stuff about relativity. They merely

Why take "Dr." Wilson's word for what the people who built the GPS
find important when modern Internet tools give us access to what
those people actually say?

GPS works because cesium clocks are extremely stable.
[...]
Relativity has nothing whatsoever to do with the whole process.

Says Henri, who himself had nothing to do the whole process. I did
not either, but Google up the obvious terms for what some of the
actual scientists and engineers say.

If they didn't agree they would lose their jobs.

Relativity is firmly established because the inbred physics world is run by
brainwashed fools like Einstein's papal guard....which obviously includes YOU.

Such as the inbred fools of the Manhattan Project, who were so
deluded as to think they could build some kind of giant bomb.

Don't change the subject.

Henri's theory does really well in Henri's head. It soars in its
author's imagination, like rocket-ships drawn by third-graders.

BaTh has withstood all the criticism leveled at it so far by hte relativist
lunatic fringe. very known experiment supports the BaTh of light. NO KNOWN
EXPERIMENT SUPPORTS EINSTEIN'S STUPID THEORY.

In the make-believe world of "Dr." Henri Wilson.

Please tell me exactly how and why relativity is involved in the operation of
the GPS system.



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index 0.95.

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:16:46 -0800 (PST), PD wrote:

On Feb 13, 2:29*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 06:04:58 -0800 (PST), PD wrote:
On Feb 12, 6:20*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

Observer dependence, ie., doppler shift, of anything depends on the speed of
information.
The period of a tin whistle appears different for differently moving observers
simply because of sound's finite travel time.
Its period defines an absolute time interval in its own frame. That period has
the same absolute value in all frames.... but any relatively moving observer
who wishes to use it as a time standard must correct for sound's travel time .

A similar principle applies when light is used to carry information.
For instance the absolute period of a distant pulsar, moving towards earth at v
is given by [observed period]/[c/(c+v)].

If I want to set my watch by a relatively moving pulsar's known period, I have
to apply the doppler correction.

IS THAT CLEAR, NOW, DRAPER.

Why, no, no it's not. Observer dependence is not a strictly Doppler
shift phenomenon. The observer-dependence of linear momentum is in no
way related to Doppler shifting, as there is nothing oscillating
associated with the linear momentum. The observer-dependence of
translational kinetic energy is in no way related to Doppler shifting,
as there is nothing oscillating associated with the translational
kinetic energy. The observer-dependence of length of a rod is in no
way related to Doppler shifting, as there is nothing oscillating
associated with the rod's length. The observer-dependence of the
electric field surrouding a charged ping-pong ball is in no way
related to Doppler shifting, as there is nothing oscillating
associated with the electric field of the ping-pong ball.

These speed dependent quantities are not relevant to the disussion. We are
talking about time.

Once again, you are simply spouting idiotic nonsense


hammering in the idiocy by asking in all caps whether the idiotic
nonsense is now clear.



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index 0.95.

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 02:55:39 -0800 (PST), Jerry
wrote:

On Feb 13, 2:47*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 06:42:36 -0800 (PST), Jerry


Simpler tests using publicly available (searchable) data:

1) Compare the correction applied to Glonass clocks versus GPS clocks.
* If HW is right, both Glonass and GPS would require the same
* correction, since free-fall is free-fall.

No comment, Henri?

GPS satellites circle the earth in 12 hour orbits, while Glonass
satellite travel in 12.5 hour orbits. They circle at significantly
different heights above the earth, and their required clock
corrections differ from each other EXACTLY AS PREDICTED BY GR.

......You mean, "Exactly as claimed by relativists for the benefit of other
deluded relativists".

BaTh cannot explain this difference, except through the vague
invocation of "cutting field fairies", and the field fairies
are completely non-quantitative.

Any difference is quite unimportant anyway since the clocks are software
adjusted after launch.

2) Compare the correction applied to Cesium beam clocks versus
* rubidium gas cell clocks, which are of fundamentally different
* construction. If HW is right, there is no reason to believe that
* the same correction should apply to both.

It doesn't.

The same correction applies to both, with a small proviso.

Cesium beam clocks are totally immune to the mechanical stresses
of launch,

Apparently NOT. They emit N ticks per orbit before launch and N+n ticks per
orbit AFTER launch.....same orbit, same observer.....
They have obviously physically changed.

and require absolutely no adjustments from the clock
offset predicted by GR.

Never even remotely proved.

Rubidium gas cell clocks are of entirely different construction
than cesium beam clocks. They are subject to SMALL glitches, and
after launch will generally be found to be running a SMALL NUMBER
of nanoseconds per day slower or faster than the nominal value.
The frequency corrections needed are incorporated in the clock
correction polynomial that accompanies the navigation message.
The clocks themselves are not adjusted.

THe stability of the atomic clock is used to synch a secondary clock. The
relationship between the two is very easily software adjusted.
Obviously it is advantageous to preset the primary clock to approximately
accommodate the required correction.




Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index 0.95.

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 06:01:48 -0800 (PST), PD wrote:

On Feb 13, 5:57*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:58:38 -0800 (PST), PD wrote:
On Feb 13, 2:45*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:21:39 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

A simpler test is to check the clock rates at different orbit radii.

That's been done, between low-altitude orbiting clocks (at roughly
1.05 earth radii) and geosynchronous orbiting clocks (at 5.5 earth
radii). One wouldn't expect automatically that the magnitude of the
effects due cutting through earth's fields at those two radii would
necessarily match the predictions that GR makes. Interestingly, the
relative size of the effect is exactly what is predicted by GR. Now, I
suppose there are "earth field" fairies that *conspire* to make the
effect of cutting through the fields have *exactly* the size of the
effect predicted by relativity, don't you think?

Relativists never mention this...It is hushed up.

Nonsense. The data are right there. You do know that satellites fly at
more than one altitude, don't you? You do know that communications
satellites, the Space Shuttle, meteorological satellites, and
reconaissance satellites all fly at different altitudes, don't you?

Besides, clocks in orbit at different radii and speeds are cutting the Earth's
fields at different rates....and nobody has investigated this effect.

Well, the size of the effect has certainly been measured, and it comes
out to be exactly what GR predicts.

Hahahahahaha!
....and you actually believe that...


hahahahahaaha!
You relativists would believe anything that suits you.

Actually, no, what we do is believe experimental data, and use that to
determine whether the theory has accurately predicted real behavior.
You, on the other hand, believe a theory of your choosing, and then
weigh the value of experimental data on whether it agrees with that
theory. As I've told you before, this is what separates you from
scientists, even though you claim you were "born with a scientific
mind".

Draper, the clock emits N tick per GPS orbit before launch and N+n ticks per
same orbit AFTER launch.
The clock has clearly changed its PROPER rate. ('proper' being the relativity
substitute for 'absolute').



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index 0.95.

On Feb 14, 3:59*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:16:46 -0800 (PST), PD wrote:
On Feb 13, 2:29*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 06:04:58 -0800 (PST), PD wrote:
On Feb 12, 6:20*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
Observer dependence, ie., doppler shift, of anything depends on the speed of
information.
The period of a tin whistle appears different for differently moving observers
simply because of sound's finite travel time.
Its period defines an absolute time interval in its own frame. That period has
the same absolute value in all frames.... but any relatively moving observer
who wishes to use it as a time standard must correct for sound's travel time .

A similar principle applies when light is used to carry information.
For instance the absolute period of a distant pulsar, moving towards earth at v
is given by [observed period]/[c/(c+v)].

If I want to set my watch by a relatively moving pulsar's known period, I have
to apply the doppler correction.

IS THAT CLEAR, NOW, DRAPER.

Why, no, no it's not. Observer dependence is not a strictly Doppler
shift phenomenon. The observer-dependence of linear momentum is in no
way related to Doppler shifting, as there is nothing oscillating
associated with the linear momentum. The observer-dependence of
translational kinetic energy is in no way related to Doppler shifting,
as there is nothing oscillating associated with the translational
kinetic energy. The observer-dependence of length of a rod is in no
way related to Doppler shifting, as there is nothing oscillating
associated with the rod's length. The observer-dependence of the
electric field surrouding a charged ping-pong ball is in no way
related to Doppler shifting, as there is nothing oscillating
associated with the electric field of the ping-pong ball.

These speed dependent quantities are not relevant to the disussion. *We are
talking about time.

Length doesn't have [L]/[T] in its units. Electric field doesn't
either. You made a broad statement that is in fact wrong, as the
counterexamples illustrate. Therefore, your broad statement as applied
to the case at hand is also wrong, because it is in general wrong.


Once again, you are simply spouting idiotic nonsense

hammering in the idiocy by asking in all caps whether the idiotic
nonsense is now clear.

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's *Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index 0.95.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Feb 14, 4:15*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 06:01:48 -0800 (PST), PD wrote:
On Feb 13, 5:57*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:58:38 -0800 (PST), PD wrote:
On Feb 13, 2:45*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:21:39 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

A simpler test is to check the clock rates at different orbit radii.

That's been done, between low-altitude orbiting clocks (at roughly
1.05 earth radii) and geosynchronous orbiting clocks (at 5.5 earth
radii). One wouldn't expect automatically that the magnitude of the
effects due cutting through earth's fields at those two radii would
necessarily match the predictions that GR makes. Interestingly, the
relative size of the effect is exactly what is predicted by GR. Now, I
suppose there are "earth field" fairies that *conspire* to make the
effect of cutting through the fields have *exactly* the size of the
effect predicted by relativity, don't you think?

Relativists never mention this...It is hushed up.

Nonsense. The data are right there. You do know that satellites fly at
more than one altitude, don't you? You do know that communications
satellites, the Space Shuttle, meteorological satellites, and
reconaissance satellites all fly at different altitudes, don't you?

Besides, clocks in orbit at different radii and speeds are cutting the Earth's
fields at different rates....and nobody has investigated this effect..

Well, the size of the effect has certainly been measured, and it comes
out to be exactly what GR predicts.

Hahahahahaha!
....and you actually believe that...
hahahahahaaha!
You relativists would believe anything that suits you.

Actually, no, what we do is believe experimental data, and use that to
determine whether the theory has accurately predicted real behavior.
You, on the other hand, believe a theory of your choosing, and then
weigh the value of experimental data on whether it agrees with that
theory. As I've told you before, this is what separates you from
scientists, even though you claim you were "born with a scientific
mind".

Draper, the clock emits N tick per GPS orbit before launch and N+n ticks per
same orbit AFTER launch.
The clock has clearly changed its PROPER rate. ('proper' being the relativity
substitute for 'absolute').

Why, no, no it hasn't. The rate is absolutely the same. If you use the
clock to time the death of a population of muons sitting there with
that clock, it will take exactly the same number of ticks as it did
when when it was timing a population of muons on the ground. It's
proper rate is therefore exactly the same. But from the ground, you're
not observing its proper rate.

PD


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's *Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index 0.95.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"PD" wrote in message
...

| Length doesn't have [L]/[T] in its units. Electric field doesn't
| either. You made a broad statement that is in fact wrong, as the
| counterexamples illustrate. Therefore, your broad statement as applied
| to the case at hand is also wrong, because it is in general wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravita..._time_dilation

tf = 1,000 years
gravitational constant G = 6.673E-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2
Mass of Earth = 5.9736E+24 kg
r = 385000 km (distance to Moon)
c = 299792.458 km/sec

t0 ~= 994 years.

An observer on Earth measures the Moon making ~6 more
orbits around the Sun in a thousand years, as prophesied
by Einstein. You'd think someone would notice by now.

Of course my arithmetic might be wrong, maybe some relativist
can tell me just how far off in its orbit the Moon really is right now.
It would be really interesting if it were anything other than an integer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravita..._time_dilation
"Background knowledge the reader may need to learn: What is a gravitational
field? What is time dilation? What is spacetime?" What is a ****head?

On Feb 12, 4:30 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:01:51 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"



wrote:
Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:43:00 -0800 (PST), PD wrote:

On Jan 29, 7:14 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.

Once upon a time, there was a North Village with a large post in the
center of the town square. There was also a visitor from the
neighboring South Village who always came to this village's town
square for lunch. The visitor wore a shirt that said "My village is
missing its idiot" and he had tags with "My name is Henri Please take
me home if I wander too far" sewn into all of his clothes.
snip rubbish

Albert sighed, "Nothing happens to the pole. Why would you think there
is something happening to the pole?"

Henri stamped his golf shoes and exclaimed, "Because you can't change
a Standard Shadow without changing the pole! Are you an idiot or a
religious zealot that believes that evil spirits are changing the
Standard Shadow without changing the pole???"

If this pathetic analogy applies to anything, it would be Einstein's view that
OWLS wrt anything you like defines the constant c.

The analogy is spot on!
This is exactly what you are doing: The evidence is staring
you in the face, but you are denying its existence and are
calling it 'unbelievable' whenever it is contrary to your faith.

The evidence supporting BaTh is indeed staring me in the face....just as is the
evidence ridiculing relativity.

"How can the evidence be believable when it falsifies the BaTh?
It can't! Because the BaTh /must/ be correct. How can it not be?"

Nothing happens to the absolute period of a PERFECT clock (or any stable
oscillator) when it is moved.
A few very minor changes occur in the period of a cesium clock when it is sent
into freefall orbit.

You still haven't solved Jeckyl's Paradox.
The OO says the OC is 12ms ahead of the GC after 1 year.
The GO says the GC is 19ms behind the OC.

Maybe, when they are reunited, they both disappear in a gigantic
flash similar to the big bang.

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of
a parrot and a gullibility index 0.95.


You are being far too kind.
.. - Brad Guth

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:05:46 -0800 (PST), PD wrote:

On Feb 14, 3:59*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:16:46 -0800 (PST), PD wrote:
On Feb 13, 2:29*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:


IS THAT CLEAR, NOW, DRAPER.

Why, no, no it's not. Observer dependence is not a strictly Doppler
shift phenomenon. The observer-dependence of linear momentum is in no
way related to Doppler shifting, as there is nothing oscillating
associated with the linear momentum. The observer-dependence of
translational kinetic energy is in no way related to Doppler shifting,
as there is nothing oscillating associated with the translational
kinetic energy. The observer-dependence of length of a rod is in no
way related to Doppler shifting, as there is nothing oscillating
associated with the rod's length. The observer-dependence of the
electric field surrouding a charged ping-pong ball is in no way
related to Doppler shifting, as there is nothing oscillating
associated with the electric field of the ping-pong ball.

These speed dependent quantities are not relevant to the disussion. *We are
talking about time.

Length doesn't have [L]/[T] in its units.

Length is not observer dependent.

Electric field doesn't
either. You made a broad statement that is in fact wrong, as the
counterexamples illustrate. Therefore, your broad statement as applied
to the case at hand is also wrong, because it is in general wrong.

Electric field is an entirely different subject.




Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index 0.95.