In sci.physics, Androcles

wrote
on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 09:59:30 GMT
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...

| http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gpsinfo.html#tt
|
| Yes, that'll do nicely, thank you. I'll have to look at it and
| see how close it gets to the theoretical computations done in
| various places -- the logical start point being someplace like
|
| http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...es/lrr-2003-1/ .
|
| I might also have a copy of Hafele-Keating floating around here
| in my computer system somewhere.

How about "The Revelation of St. John the Divine" as well?
You can see how closely it gets to the theoretical computations done in
various places -- the logical start point being someplace like
"Genesis".

You are correct in being skeptical. That is the problem of us SRians
here; we've had very little actual data. Presumably, someone has
raw data from a Compton scattering experiment, for example -- but
I've yet to see it.

This will have to do.


Androcles



--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message ...
In sci.physics, Androcles

wrote
on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 09:59:30 GMT
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...

| http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gpsinfo.html#tt
|
| Yes, that'll do nicely, thank you. I'll have to look at it and
| see how close it gets to the theoretical computations done in
| various places -- the logical start point being someplace like
|
| http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...es/lrr-2003-1/ .
|
| I might also have a copy of Hafele-Keating floating around here
| in my computer system somewhere.

How about "The Revelation of St. John the Divine" as well?
You can see how closely it gets to the theoretical computations done in
various places -- the logical start point being someplace like
"Genesis".

You are correct in being skeptical. That is the problem of us SRians
here; we've had very little actual data. Presumably, someone has
raw data from a Compton scattering experiment, for example -- but
I've yet to see it.

You mean Compton "effect"
Classical and quantum models take a different POV
Jumping between models or gauges to prove an absurdity
is just that... an absurbdity.

Sue...


This will have to do.


Androcles



--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message ...
In sci.physics, sue jahn

wrote
on Sun, 7 Aug 2005 00:09:55 -0400
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message ...
In sci.physics, Sue...

wrote
on 6 Aug 2005 13:29:48 -0700
. com:

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, sue jahn

wrote
on Sat, 6 Aug 2005 13:31:37 -0400
:

"Sue..." wrote in message oups.com...

http://news.google.com/news?sa=N&tab=gn
PRN MID PASS BGTK TRK MC-GPS SLOPE RMS SAMP EL AZM ION MC-SATCL SLOPE TROP
MJD HHMM SEC NS PS/S NS N DG DEG NS NS PS/S NS
3 53587.02535 0030 780 -2.5 -5.3 1.7 52 36.6 50.4 10.1 -23330.1 -2.0 13.7

[rest snipped]

Erm... you wouldn't mind indicating where you got that data, would you?
;-) I can't say the columns are all that obvious in its posted form.
Oops Sorry

GPS SYSTEM TIME
GPS system time is given by its Composite Clock (CC). The CC or "paper"
clock consists of all operational Monitor Station and satellite
frequency standards. GPS system time, in turn, is referenced to the
Master Clock (MC) at the USNO and steered to UTC(USNO) from which
system time will not deviate by more than one microsecond. The exact
difference is contained in the navigation message in the form of two
constants, A0 and A1, giving the time difference and rate of system
time against UTC(USNO,MC). UTC(USNO) itself is kept very close to the
international benchmark UTC as maintained by the BIPM, and the exact
difference, USNO vs. BIPM is available in near real time.
The latest individual satellite measurements are updated daily. (Data
format explanation.)

The best current measure of the difference, UTC(USNO MC) - GPS is based
on filtered and smoothed data over the past two days.
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gpsinfo.html#tt

Yes, that'll do nicely, thank you. I'll have to look at it and
see how close it gets to the theoretical computations done in
various places -- the logical start point being someplace like

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...es/lrr-2003-1/ .
primarily because its frequency is gravitationally blueshifted

What is the mechanism for "gravitational blueshift" ;-)

There is no mechanism for "grav blueshift".

That is what the GPS gravitational presets would indicate.



I might also have a copy of Hafele-Keating floating around here
in my computer system somewhere.

AFAIK the only four space detected in H&K was
between the experimenters ears.
http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/H&KPaper.htm

I do not pretend to explain the time anomaly; I merely hope to
verify that there's a possibility it is there.

Stay skeptical and remeber the bell hop problem and be prepared
to counter 100 years of the blind leading the blind.

Sue...


[.sigsnip]

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 19:00:06 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, sue jahn

wrote

PRN MID PASS BGTK TRK MC-GPS SLOPE RMS SAMP EL AZM ION MC-SATCL SLOPE TROP
MJD HHMM SEC NS PS/S NS N DG DEG NS NS PS/S NS
3 53587.02535 0030 780 -2.5 -5.3 1.7 52 36.6 50.4 10.1 -23330.1 -2.0 13.7

[rest snipped]

Erm... you wouldn't mind indicating where you got that data, would you?
;-) I can't say the columns are all that obvious in its posted form.

Satellite Timing data from the looks of it.
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gps_datafiles.html

Could be an attempt at stego.
John Bailey
http://home.rochester.rr.com/jbxroads/mailto.html

"John Bailey" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 19:00:06 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, sue jahn

wrote

PRN MID PASS BGTK TRK MC-GPS SLOPE RMS SAMP EL AZM ION MC-SATCL SLOPE TROP
MJD HHMM SEC NS PS/S NS N DG DEG NS NS PS/S NS
3 53587.02535 0030 780 -2.5 -5.3 1.7 52 36.6 50.4 10.1 -23330.1 -2.0 13.7

[rest snipped]

Erm... you wouldn't mind indicating where you got that data, would you?
;-) I can't say the columns are all that obvious in its posted form.

Satellite Timing data from the looks of it.
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gps_datafiles.html

Could be an attempt at stego.

More an attempt to pare down an inconsiderat subject header.
;-)

Sue...

John Bailey
http://home.rochester.rr.com/jbxroads/mailto.html

In sci.physics, sue jahn

wrote
on Sun, 7 Aug 2005 08:05:11 -0400
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message ...
In sci.physics, sue jahn

wrote
on Sun, 7 Aug 2005 00:09:55 -0400
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message ...
In sci.physics, Sue...

wrote
on 6 Aug 2005 13:29:48 -0700
. com:

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, sue jahn

wrote
on Sat, 6 Aug 2005 13:31:37 -0400
:

"Sue..." wrote in message oups.com...

http://news.google.com/news?sa=N&tab=gn
PRN MID PASS BGTK TRK MC-GPS SLOPE RMS SAMP EL AZM ION MC-SATCL SLOPE TROP
MJD HHMM SEC NS PS/S NS N DG DEG NS NS PS/S NS
3 53587.02535 0030 780 -2.5 -5.3 1.7 52 36.6 50.4 10.1 -23330.1 -2.0 13.7

[rest snipped]

Erm... you wouldn't mind indicating where you got that data, would you?
;-) I can't say the columns are all that obvious in its posted form.
Oops Sorry

GPS SYSTEM TIME
GPS system time is given by its Composite Clock (CC). The CC or "paper"
clock consists of all operational Monitor Station and satellite
frequency standards. GPS system time, in turn, is referenced to the
Master Clock (MC) at the USNO and steered to UTC(USNO) from which
system time will not deviate by more than one microsecond. The exact
difference is contained in the navigation message in the form of two
constants, A0 and A1, giving the time difference and rate of system
time against UTC(USNO,MC). UTC(USNO) itself is kept very close to the
international benchmark UTC as maintained by the BIPM, and the exact
difference, USNO vs. BIPM is available in near real time.
The latest individual satellite measurements are updated daily. (Data
format explanation.)

The best current measure of the difference, UTC(USNO MC) - GPS is based
on filtered and smoothed data over the past two days.
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gpsinfo.html#tt

Yes, that'll do nicely, thank you. I'll have to look at it and
see how close it gets to the theoretical computations done in
various places -- the logical start point being someplace like

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...es/lrr-2003-1/ .
primarily because its frequency is gravitationally blueshifted

What is the mechanism for "gravitational blueshift" ;-)

There is no mechanism for "grav blueshift".

That is what the GPS gravitational presets would indicate.



I might also have a copy of Hafele-Keating floating around here
in my computer system somewhere.

AFAIK the only four space detected in H&K was
between the experimenters ears.
http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/H&KPaper.htm

I do not pretend to explain the time anomaly; I merely hope to
verify that there's a possibility it is there.

Stay skeptical and remeber the bell hop problem and be prepared
to counter 100 years of the blind leading the blind.

Sue...


I doubt we're all that blind; GPS, after all, is a *designed*
infrastructure.

It turns out your data isn't all that useful. (A pity,
admittedly.) A preliminary analysis on a 30-day variant
(found with some very minor digging) suggests that each
and every satellite clock drifts in a rather nastily
variable fashion. Satellite #2 in particular has a
"jiggle" which shows up fairly clearly when graphed.
Try an X-Y graph between MID PASS MJD (column #2 or B)
and MS-SATCL NS (column #12 or L), restricting the graph
to satellite #2, as indicated by PRN (column #1 or A).
You may need to sort or filter. I'm using OpenOffice but
presumably Excel and Gnumeric have similar functionality.

For satellites 1 and 3, one gets a fairly smooth linear
curve. (#1 apparently went out of service for about 10
days; after it came back the clock was reset. I only
plotted the bit prior to the reset.) For #2, the curve
slopes *upward* and has lots of wigglies in it. This may
be because of the details of my curve interpolation
algorithm, it turns out. There is, however, a visible
"hiccup" in #2 when one uses lines or plots just the
points, especially if one plots a regression line as well.

The odd thing is that the #1 slope (prior to reset)
is -204.5 ns /day, but the #2 slope is +19.78 ns/day.
Satellite #3's slope is -282.05 ns/day.

I could analyze the rest of the constellation but it's not
clear I can draw too many conclusions therefrom. The
expected anomaly is on the order of 38.5 *microseconds* per day.
The data clearly isn't showing this, given my current interpretation.

I suspect an error in my analysis. I'll admit I wouldn't mind
analyzing all 24 in a similar fashion but that's going to take
a bit of work to do properly -- and the intercepts are so
different I can't simply superimpose them.

There is also another problem. Two of the columns refer
to elevation and azimuth; the problem is that the location
of the ground target (presumably, a tracking antenna)
used as reference is either not specified, or so obvious
that I've missed it. Judicious searching suggests that
USNO has the address

New Zealand Embassy, 37 Observatory Circle NW, Washington, DC, 20008

so that's probably it. (The actual circle is a near-true
circle, about 705m in diameter; Massachusetts Avenue forms
the north-east portion thereof as well. Google (or the
satellite data Google is using) has cuboided the actual
interior of the circle, presumably for security reasons.
Note that this circle is not to be confused with the far larger
irregular circle that is Route 495 or the Capital Beltway.
That one has an EW width of about 35 km.)

There is also data regarding the delta between GPS vs UTC but I
consider that data slightly doctored. Even the data you've
provided me has had some analysis done on it.

I'm now not at all sure what to look for in this data.

[.sigsnip]

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics, sue jahn

wrote
on Sun, 7 Aug 2005 08:05:11 -0400
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message ...
In sci.physics, sue jahn

wrote
on Sun, 7 Aug 2005 00:09:55 -0400
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message ...
In sci.physics, Sue...

wrote
on 6 Aug 2005 13:29:48 -0700
. com:

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, sue jahn

wrote
on Sat, 6 Aug 2005 13:31:37 -0400
:

"Sue..." wrote in message oups.com...

http://news.google.com/news?sa=N&tab=gn
PRN MID PASS BGTK TRK MC-GPS SLOPE RMS SAMP EL AZM ION MC-SATCL SLOPE TROP
MJD HHMM SEC NS PS/S NS N DG DEG NS NS PS/S NS
3 53587.02535 0030 780 -2.5 -5.3 1.7 52 36.6 50.4 10.1 -23330.1 -2.0 13.7

[rest snipped]

Erm... you wouldn't mind indicating where you got that data, would you?
;-) I can't say the columns are all that obvious in its posted form.
Oops Sorry

GPS SYSTEM TIME
GPS system time is given by its Composite Clock (CC). The CC or "paper"
clock consists of all operational Monitor Station and satellite
frequency standards. GPS system time, in turn, is referenced to the
Master Clock (MC) at the USNO and steered to UTC(USNO) from which
system time will not deviate by more than one microsecond. The exact
difference is contained in the navigation message in the form of two
constants, A0 and A1, giving the time difference and rate of system
time against UTC(USNO,MC). UTC(USNO) itself is kept very close to the
international benchmark UTC as maintained by the BIPM, and the exact
difference, USNO vs. BIPM is available in near real time.
The latest individual satellite measurements are updated daily. (Data
format explanation.)

The best current measure of the difference, UTC(USNO MC) - GPS is based
on filtered and smoothed data over the past two days.
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gpsinfo.html#tt

Yes, that'll do nicely, thank you. I'll have to look at it and
see how close it gets to the theoretical computations done in
various places -- the logical start point being someplace like

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...es/lrr-2003-1/ .
primarily because its frequency is gravitationally blueshifted

What is the mechanism for "gravitational blueshift" ;-)

There is no mechanism for "grav blueshift".

That is what the GPS gravitational presets would indicate.



I might also have a copy of Hafele-Keating floating around here
in my computer system somewhere.

AFAIK the only four space detected in H&K was
between the experimenters ears.
http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/H&KPaper.htm

I do not pretend to explain the time anomaly; I merely hope to
verify that there's a possibility it is there.

Stay skeptical and remeber the bell hop problem and be prepared
to counter 100 years of the blind leading the blind.

Sue...


I doubt we're all that blind; GPS, after all, is a *designed*
infrastructure.

It turns out your data isn't all that useful. (A pity,
admittedly.)

It was designed to position weapons, not test theories.

A preliminary analysis on a 30-day variant
(found with some very minor digging) suggests that each
and every satellite clock drifts in a rather nastily
variable fashion. Satellite #2 in particular has a
"jiggle" which shows up fairly clearly when graphed.
Try an X-Y graph between MID PASS MJD (column #2 or B)
and MS-SATCL NS (column #12 or L), restricting the graph
to satellite #2, as indicated by PRN (column #1 or A).
You may need to sort or filter. I'm using OpenOffice but
presumably Excel and Gnumeric have similar functionality.

For satellites 1 and 3, one gets a fairly smooth linear
curve. (#1 apparently went out of service for about 10
days; after it came back the clock was reset. I only
plotted the bit prior to the reset.) For #2, the curve
slopes *upward* and has lots of wigglies in it. This may
be because of the details of my curve interpolation
algorithm, it turns out. There is, however, a visible
"hiccup" in #2 when one uses lines or plots just the
points, especially if one plots a regression line as well.

The odd thing is that the #1 slope (prior to reset)
is -204.5 ns /day, but the #2 slope is +19.78 ns/day.
Satellite #3's slope is -282.05 ns/day.

I could analyze the rest of the constellation but it's not
clear I can draw too many conclusions therefrom. The
expected anomaly is on the order of 38.5 *microseconds* per day.
The data clearly isn't showing this, given my current interpretation.

I suspect an error in my analysis. I'll admit I wouldn't mind
analyzing all 24 in a similar fashion but that's going to take
a bit of work to do properly -- and the intercepts are so
different I can't simply superimpose them.

There is also another problem. Two of the columns refer
to elevation and azimuth; the problem is that the location
of the ground target (presumably, a tracking antenna)
used as reference is either not specified, or so obvious
that I've missed it. Judicious searching suggests that
USNO has the address

New Zealand Embassy, 37 Observatory Circle NW, Washington, DC, 20008

so that's probably it. (The actual circle is a near-true
circle, about 705m in diameter; Massachusetts Avenue forms
the north-east portion thereof as well. Google (or the
satellite data Google is using) has cuboided the actual
interior of the circle, presumably for security reasons.
Note that this circle is not to be confused with the far larger
irregular circle that is Route 495 or the Capital Beltway.
That one has an EW width of about 35 km.)

LOL


There is also data regarding the delta between GPS vs UTC but I
consider that data slightly doctored. Even the data you've
provided me has had some analysis done on it.

I'm now not at all sure what to look for in this data.

Short of the anecdotal account of early launches, which
supports LPI violation I don't think there is much in GPS
which could resolve any open relativity issues.

For the ones keeping a candle in the window for LPI or
"falling photons", perhaps the SUMO or GP-B will settle
their hopes down a bit.

Sue...





[.sigsnip]

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
| In sci.physics, sue jahn
|
| wrote
| on Sun, 7 Aug 2005 00:09:55 -0400
| :
|
| "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
| In sci.physics, Sue...
|
| wrote
| on 6 Aug 2005 13:29:48 -0700
| . com:
|
| The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
| In sci.physics.relativity, sue jahn
|
| wrote
| on Sat, 6 Aug 2005 13:31:37 -0400
| :
|
| "Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| http://news.google.com/news?sa=N&tab=gn
| PRN MID PASS BGTK TRK MC-GPS SLOPE RMS SAMP EL AZM
ION MC-SATCL SLOPE TROP
| MJD HHMM SEC NS PS/S NS N DG DEG
NS NS PS/S NS
| 3 53587.02535 0030 780 -2.5 -5.3 1.7 52 36.6 50.4
10.1 -23330.1 -2.0 13.7
|
| [rest snipped]
|
| Erm... you wouldn't mind indicating where you got that data,
would you?
| ;-) I can't say the columns are all that obvious in its posted
form.
| Oops Sorry
|
| GPS SYSTEM TIME
| GPS system time is given by its Composite Clock (CC). The CC or
"paper"
| clock consists of all operational Monitor Station and satellite
| frequency standards. GPS system time, in turn, is referenced to
the
| Master Clock (MC) at the USNO and steered to UTC(USNO) from which
| system time will not deviate by more than one microsecond. The
exact
| difference is contained in the navigation message in the form of
two
| constants, A0 and A1, giving the time difference and rate of
system
| time against UTC(USNO,MC). UTC(USNO) itself is kept very close to
the
| international benchmark UTC as maintained by the BIPM, and the
exact
| difference, USNO vs. BIPM is available in near real time.
| The latest individual satellite measurements are updated daily.
(Data
| format explanation.)
|
| The best current measure of the difference, UTC(USNO MC) - GPS is
based
| on filtered and smoothed data over the past two days.
| http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gpsinfo.html#tt
|
| Yes, that'll do nicely, thank you. I'll have to look at it and
| see how close it gets to the theoretical computations done in
| various places -- the logical start point being someplace like
|
| http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...es/lrr-2003-1/ .
| primarily because its frequency is gravitationally blueshifted
|
| What is the mechanism for "gravitational blueshift" ;-)
|
| There is no mechanism for "grav blueshift".
|
|
| I might also have a copy of Hafele-Keating floating around here
| in my computer system somewhere.
|
| AFAIK the only four space detected in H&K was
| between the experimenters ears.
| http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/H&KPaper.htm
|
| I do not pretend to explain the time anomaly; I merely hope to
| verify that there's a possibility it is there.

It is very simple.
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Definitions are not postulates, they are assertions.
This particular assertion is false, it is not true that the time
for required by light to travel from A to B equals the time it
requires to travel from B to A if B moves relatively to A.
Hafele and Keating believe it true, so they fly a clock and report
the noise level (not the signal), and get kudos for garbage.

Androcles

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
| In sci.physics, Androcles
|
| wrote
| on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 09:59:30 GMT
| :
|
| "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
| message ...
|
| | http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gpsinfo.html#tt
| |
| | Yes, that'll do nicely, thank you. I'll have to look at it and
| | see how close it gets to the theoretical computations done in
| | various places -- the logical start point being someplace like
| |
| | http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...es/lrr-2003-1/ .
| |
| | I might also have a copy of Hafele-Keating floating around here
| | in my computer system somewhere.
|
| How about "The Revelation of St. John the Divine" as well?
| You can see how closely it gets to the theoretical computations
done in
| various places -- the logical start point being someplace like
| "Genesis".
|
| You are correct in being skeptical.


I know that. No physicist should be without skepticism.


That is the problem of us SRians
| here; we've had very little actual data.

Yes you have, you don't know how to read it.
You are only interested in something that will prove what you
believe and ignore the wealth of data that disproves it.
It is hardly surprising you cannot find what you seek, it desn't exist.

| Presumably, someone has
| raw data from a Compton scattering experiment, for example -- but
| I've yet to see it.
|
| This will have to do.

Then you are stuck in a hole.

As has been pointed out by others, clocks operating at different rates
to each other when driving the wheels of a car axle, will turn the drive
shaft to the engine through the differential. That's free energy, you
have
violated a fundamental law.
SR is riddled with such paradoxical results, all of which can be traced
to Einstein's definition
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
which is not a postulate but an assertion, from which the ½ in

½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))

is found and the cuckoo transforms are derived.
There is the bug in SR, and you'll have paradox after paradox forever
until you stop believing in nonsense.

Whatever odd results you find from physical experiments, investigate
them; do not lay them at the door of special relativity, it is pure
nonsense disguised as physics by a huckster.

Androcles

In sci.physics, Androcles

wrote
on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:37:22 GMT
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
| In sci.physics, Androcles
|
| wrote
| on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 09:59:30 GMT
| :
|
| "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
| message ...
|
| | http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gpsinfo.html#tt
| |
| | Yes, that'll do nicely, thank you. I'll have to look at it and
| | see how close it gets to the theoretical computations done in
| | various places -- the logical start point being someplace like
| |
| | http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...es/lrr-2003-1/ .
| |
| | I might also have a copy of Hafele-Keating floating around here
| | in my computer system somewhere.
|
| How about "The Revelation of St. John the Divine" as well?
| You can see how closely it gets to the theoretical computations
done in
| various places -- the logical start point being someplace like
| "Genesis".
|
| You are correct in being skeptical.


I know that. No physicist should be without skepticism.


That is the problem of us SRians
| here; we've had very little actual data.

Yes you have, you don't know how to read it.

Actually, we have very little data *proving* SR. (There's a fair
amount substantiating it, of course. But that's not proof,
any more than mud on the rug, a gray light, certain noises,
and an order prove an elephant in the bedroom. All that
can be done with a scoop, some poop, a wire loop in a bulb,
and a speaker system. Of course if one bumps *into* the
elephant, that's a different story.)

You are only interested in something that will prove what you
believe and ignore the wealth of data that disproves it.
It is hardly surprising you cannot find what you seek, it desn't exist.

| Presumably, someone has
| raw data from a Compton scattering experiment, for example -- but
| I've yet to see it.
|
| This will have to do.

Then you are stuck in a hole.

As has been pointed out by others, clocks operating at different rates
to each other when driving the wheels of a car axle, will turn the drive
shaft to the engine through the differential. That's free energy, you
have violated a fundamental law.

An interesting idea. Of course, anyone daft enough to try to take
advantage of this "free energy" will discover that the amount thereof
is ridiculously small.

SR is riddled with such paradoxical results, all of which can be traced
to Einstein's definition
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.

Except that it doesn't. This is why.

Assume the planet surface is to your left.

E | S
a | p
r A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B a
t | c
h | e

Now remember that we're talking GR-curved spacetime here.
A bounces to B to A. That takes a certain amount of
A-seconds. B bounces to A to B. That takes a certain
amount of *B*-seconds. These are not equal; these cannot
be equal.

One can, of course, attempt to compensate by some sort of
transformation, but both A and B are forever locked within
their own respective coordinate-spaces. B cannot measure
A-seconds; it can only calculate them; similarly for vice
versa.

[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
which is not a postulate but an assertion, from which the ½ in

½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))

is found and the cuckoo transforms are derived.
There is the bug in SR, and you'll have paradox after paradox forever
until you stop believing in nonsense.

Whatever odd results you find from physical experiments, investigate
them; do not lay them at the door of special relativity, it is pure
nonsense disguised as physics by a huckster.

Androcles


A hucksterism that is still with us after more than a century.

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.