"HenriWilson" skrev i melding ...
On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 22:54:15 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


"HenriWilson" skrev i melding ...
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:31:35 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

"HenriWilson" skrev i melding ...
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:39:00 GMT, "Minor Crank"
wrote:
If GPS clocks were not corrected for GR effects, they'd need to be adjusted
AT LEAST TWENTY TIMES AN HOUR for the system to maintain marginal accuracy.

They are corrected for the 'free fall' effect.

Obviously.

Note that Henry's 'free fall theory' doesn't - as GR does -
suffer from the serious flaw that it predicts the value _before_
the experiment was done. That would of course have made
the theory highly suspectable. But we know now that Henry's
theory predicts that the clocks will speed up by exactly
the measured amount.

Don't lie again Paul. I have no theory as to why clocks change rates in free
fall. I can explain grandfather clocks but not cesium. Something to do with
young's modulus, was my only suggestion.

OK.
I stand corrected.
There is no "free fall theory", and thus no "free fall effect prediction".

One doesn't need a theory to make an empirical measurement.
The clock rates are OBSERVED to change when in orbit. Do you dispute this?

Quite the contrary, Henry.
I agree.
The rate is OBSERVED to be exactly as predicted by GR.

That GR predicts the correct value to a precision of 10^-12
is obviously accidental, and besides - GR predicted the value
_before_ the first satellite was launched. This fact alone
obviously disqualifies the theory.
If you to this add the fact that if the prediction of GR had
been 20% different from what it is, then GR would have
been 20% off, then it should be blatantly obvious to everybody
that GR is CRAP!

It is indeed a scandal that GR takes credit for the effect
that really is predicted by Henry Wilson's 'free fall' theory.

The fact that the GR prediction was within 20% of the obserevd free fall effect
is purely coincidental.

So the 'free fall effect' is 20% different from the GR prediction?
So we can conclude that the non existing "free fall prediction"
of the non existing "free fall theory" is wrong by 20%
- and that's purely coincidental!

That figures!


Please give me observed figures for clocks in different orbits. You will find
that they change by exactly the same amount.

ONE FREE FALL IS AS GOOD AS ANOTHER.

Sure Henry.
Since what you are shouting so loudly isn't based on
any theory (there is no 'free fall theory', you know),
it must OBVIOUSLY be how it actually is.

The reason there is no 'free fall' theory is that ever since Einstein hijacked
physics, nobody has been game enough to upgrade NM. They wouldn't get funding
anyway.

So we agree.
There is no "free fall theory based on NM".
GR is thus the only theory correctly predicting the rate of
free falling clocks.

The same pre-launch offset would be correct for an orbiting clock at any
radius.

As demonstraded by the free falling gravity probe A?

Do you mean the vessot rocket expt. It is another SRian joke.

Of course, Henry.
A real experiment in the real world does OBVIOUSLY not count
compared to an assertion by Henry Wilson. IN CAPITALS!

And Vessot's rocket was never launched,
because it was impossible to get funded.
The establishment couldn't risk an experiment with
the potential of falsifying GR.

Oooops.
Sorry. I forgot. Silly me.
Experimental evidence doesn't count.
And since Vessot knew the predictions _before_ the experiment
was done, it is faked anyway.

Henry Wilson is OBVIOUSLY right because Henry thinks he is right.

The doppler velocity measuring method is flawed.

Sure, Henry. You are OBVIOUSLY right.
Counting every cycle doesn't help.
Those fairies screw it up, you know.

They forgot that light speed changes in gravity gradients.

Ah.
So if we count every tick emitted from the rocket from
it was launched to it hits the ground, the total number
of ticks we count depend on the speed of light?

Paul

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:32:22 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


"HenriWilson" skrev i melding ...
On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 22:54:15 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


"HenriWilson" skrev i melding ...
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:31:35 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

"HenriWilson" skrev i melding ...
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:39:00 GMT, "Minor Crank"
wrote:
If GPS clocks were not corrected for GR effects, they'd need to be adjusted
AT LEAST TWENTY TIMES AN HOUR for the system to maintain marginal accuracy.

They are corrected for the 'free fall' effect.

Obviously.

Note that Henry's 'free fall theory' doesn't - as GR does -
suffer from the serious flaw that it predicts the value _before_
the experiment was done. That would of course have made
the theory highly suspectable. But we know now that Henry's
theory predicts that the clocks will speed up by exactly
the measured amount.

Don't lie again Paul. I have no theory as to why clocks change rates in free
fall. I can explain grandfather clocks but not cesium. Something to do with
young's modulus, was my only suggestion.

OK.
I stand corrected.
There is no "free fall theory", and thus no "free fall effect prediction".

One doesn't need a theory to make an empirical measurement.
The clock rates are OBSERVED to change when in orbit. Do you dispute this?

Quite the contrary, Henry.
I agree.
The rate is OBSERVED to be exactly as predicted by GR.

Why? Because one experiment run over 25 orbits proved it?
Do you realize that corresponds to an orbit error of only 1.75 metres?

Would you stake your house on someone on earth pinpointing a clock 26000 kms
away to within 1.75 metres accurate to 1 part in 100 as you claim?


That GR predicts the correct value to a precision of 10^-12
is obviously accidental, and besides - GR predicted the value
_before_ the first satellite was launched. This fact alone
obviously disqualifies the theory.
If you to this add the fact that if the prediction of GR had
been 20% different from what it is, then GR would have
been 20% off, then it should be blatantly obvious to everybody
that GR is CRAP!

It is indeed a scandal that GR takes credit for the effect
that really is predicted by Henry Wilson's 'free fall' theory.

The fact that the GR prediction was within 20% of the obserevd free fall effect
is purely coincidental.

So the 'free fall effect' is 20% different from the GR prediction?
So we can conclude that the non existing "free fall prediction"
of the non existing "free fall theory" is wrong by 20%
- and that's purely coincidental!

That figures!


Please give me observed figures for clocks in different orbits. You will find
that they change by exactly the same amount.

ONE FREE FALL IS AS GOOD AS ANOTHER.

Sure Henry.
Since what you are shouting so loudly isn't based on
any theory (there is no 'free fall theory', you know),
it must OBVIOUSLY be how it actually is.

The reason there is no 'free fall' theory is that ever since Einstein hijacked
physics, nobody has been game enough to upgrade NM. They wouldn't get funding
anyway.

So we agree.
There is no "free fall theory based on NM".
GR is thus the only theory correctly predicting the rate of
free falling clocks.

Paul, I think even you could make up an NM free fall theory to suit a pendulum
clock.


The same pre-launch offset would be correct for an orbiting clock at any
radius.

As demonstraded by the free falling gravity probe A?

Do you mean the vessot rocket expt. It is another SRian joke.

Of course, Henry.
A real experiment in the real world does OBVIOUSLY not count
compared to an assertion by Henry Wilson. IN CAPITALS!

And Vessot's rocket was never launched,
because it was impossible to get funded.
The establishment couldn't risk an experiment with
the potential of falsifying GR.

I haven't noticed it being launched a second time.
Hasn't anyone thought of checking the results?
I wonder why?

Sounds to me like a variation on 'If it ain't broke don't fix it'.


Oooops.
Sorry. I forgot. Silly me.
Experimental evidence doesn't count.
And since Vessot knew the predictions _before_ the experiment
was done, it is faked anyway.

Henry Wilson is OBVIOUSLY right because Henry thinks he is right.

The doppler velocity measuring method is flawed.

Sure, Henry. You are OBVIOUSLY right.
Counting every cycle doesn't help.
Those fairies screw it up, you know.

They forgot that light speed changes in gravity gradients.

Ah.
So if we count every tick emitted from the rocket from
it was launched to it hits the ground, the total number
of ticks we count depend on the speed of light?

Positioning Paul, Positioning!


Paul



Henri Wilson.

Relativity is based on WYGIWYS.
Physical reality implies WYGINWYS.

See the funny side of relativity:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm

"HenriWilson" skrev i melding ...
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:32:22 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


"HenriWilson" skrev i melding ...
On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 22:54:15 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


"HenriWilson" skrev i melding ...
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:31:35 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

"HenriWilson" skrev i melding ...
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:39:00 GMT, "Minor Crank"
wrote:
If GPS clocks were not corrected for GR effects, they'd need to be adjusted
AT LEAST TWENTY TIMES AN HOUR for the system to maintain marginal accuracy.

They are corrected for the 'free fall' effect.

Obviously.

Note that Henry's 'free fall theory' doesn't - as GR does -
suffer from the serious flaw that it predicts the value _before_
the experiment was done. That would of course have made
the theory highly suspectable. But we know now that Henry's
theory predicts that the clocks will speed up by exactly
the measured amount.

Don't lie again Paul. I have no theory as to why clocks change rates in free
fall. I can explain grandfather clocks but not cesium. Something to do with
young's modulus, was my only suggestion.

OK.
I stand corrected.
There is no "free fall theory", and thus no "free fall effect prediction".

One doesn't need a theory to make an empirical measurement.
The clock rates are OBSERVED to change when in orbit. Do you dispute this?

Quite the contrary, Henry.
I agree.
The rate is OBSERVED to be exactly as predicted by GR.

Why? Because one experiment run over 25 orbits proved it?
Do you realize that corresponds to an orbit error of only 1.75 metres?

Would you stake your house on someone on earth pinpointing a clock 26000 kms
away to within 1.75 metres accurate to 1 part in 100 as you claim?

OK, Henry.

You have documented your confusion thoroughly enough now.
You won't have to repeat it any more.

But you will, of course.

Paul