"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:34:31 -0700, George Dishman

wrote:

On 6 Aug, 23:10, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 05:47:06 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:

Pound Rebka tells us that photons do indeed accelerate according to
Newton and
BaTh.

Nope, Pound-rRebka tells us the frequency changes while
ballistic theory predicts it should not.

No, NO, No! According to my 'serated bullet' model,

Sorry Henry, your silly analogies are worthless, restrict
your self to ballistic theory which consists of just the
two equations, v=c+u where v is the velocity of the light
and u is the velocity of the source, and dv/ds = (c/n-v)/R

George, I have a photon model that works...YOU have nothing but classical
wave
theory..

No Henry, your ballistic equations only tell me the
speed of classical wavefronts, while the scientific
community has QED.

photon frequency SHOULD
increase. It is very simple.

Demonstrate the maths that leads to that conclusion.

It should be obvious.

It is obvious, ballistic theory provides no mechanism
for wavefronts to be lost or gained therefore there
is no frequency change.

The second one is bull****.

Rofl, it is is simple measurement of the Doppler shift
and yet agian since it confirms SR, you have to bury
your head in the sand. Dream on Henry.

It was just an aether experiment.

ROFL, it was just an experiment and it showed that the
Doppler shift has a second order component not predicted
by ballistic theory. Ballistic theory gets it wrong yet
again.

oh rubbish...

Statement of fact.

The question is, how much are RF or higher frequency generated
signals blue
shifted IN FREQUENCY as they fall to Earth. I say they are not at
all.

Pound-Rebka found they were.

DOES NASA ADJUST ALL ITS RECEIVERS UP A LITTLE, GEORGE?

Not NASA Henry, the DSN. They measure the telemetry carrier
to navigate spacecraft and the frequencies are shifted as
relativity predicts.

You mean there is the normal Vdoppler shift.

Yes.

...which of course at these speeds
is effectively the same for all theories.

No, there is a second order component at these
speeds which is significant.

Hahaaha!


Statement of fact.

Right. Note it is the speed of light, not c+v where v is the
speed of the craft, and that is only a cursory description
because the Sagnac effect also has to be included since the
grond receiver moves during the downlink time due to the
rotation of the earth. Using ballistic theory there would
give quite large errors.

No. Triangulation relies of an accurate knowledge of the clocks' orbits
and
their mutual synchronisation with each other.

GPS doesn't use triangulation (i.e. multiple bearings), it
uses the time of arrival.

It uses triangulation....actually 4 signals.

"Triangulation" usually refers to constructing a
triangle using two lines of known bearing from
two known locations. GPS does not work that way,
it solves for the location at which the difference
in times of arrival of the four signals would match
the measured values.

Naturally, Earth movement has to
be corrected out.

Anyway the point is that the supposed 'GR corection' is exactly
the same
as
light's fractional change in velocity in falling from 26000 kms to
Earth.

(I should have noted I was assuming you meant the gravitational
blueshift here, not the clock offset factor.)

That's another laugh. The GR correction includes the fictitious
'velocity
component'

Since the correction exactly compenates the clocks, it is not
ficticious. That factor is around 7us per day from memory so
again the prediction is accurate to one part in a thousand.

Statement of fact.


Ballistic theory say it should be zero so gets it wrong again.




Show your alternative prediction if you disagree.

I have never spoken to him and what he writes is such
utter garbage I killfiled him the first time I saw one
of his posts. It doesn't surprise me that he would get
it wrong. At least you have some basic knowledge and
you have given your own derivation above showing the
same as my method, ballistic theory doesn't predict
an alteration of the frequency on the downlink.

Do the calculation yourself George.

Trivial, the answer from ballistic theory is zero.

In other words, you don't know how to do the calculation.

Ballistic theory provides no mechanism for wavefronts
to be lost or gained therefore there is no frequency
change. What do you think needs to be calculated?

Any real physicist will find it quite easy.

Yep, mental arithmetic.

..... you don't know how to do the calculation.

You can calculate the speed change but as you agreed
that doesn't change the frequency, only the wavelength,
so again how do you suggest calculating a frequency
change?

"wrt the source" is synonymous with "in the source frame"

OK, ...and the rays are shown to move at +/-v wrt that frame,

No, the rays are not shown isn that frame AT ALL, and
if a diagram were drawn in that frame it would show them

No, you keep making statements which are contradictory
when using the technical definitions. They are OK for a
layman in general conversation where the differences
between the theories are insignficant but if you want
to talk about the subject, then you need to start using
the term correctly.

What you cnnot seem to understand is that objects can move wrt a
frame...and
their velocities relative to each other can be equated relative to that
frame.

Of course the can, but you then call that the difference
between the velocities in that frame, it is not the same
as the velocity in any other frame.

Accordoing to Newton, ...

You forget you were asking about SR. Newton was wrong.

.. the difference of two velocities will be measured as the
same in all frames.

Yes, but that is aether for you, try illustrating SR instead
like Mikko's excellect page.

My demo illustrates the second postulate of Einstein. You agree it is
absolutely stupid unless an aether exists.

I agree no such thing, Mikko's applet illustrates the
second postulate, not yours. What I do agree is that
trying to represent it as an aether-based theory is
stupid.

But it IS an aether based theory.

Nope, it is geometric with ned use for an aether.

How else could 'space' alone IMMEDIATELY
UNIFY light speed ..

Bzzzt - speed unification is part of ballistic
theory, not SR.

.. from differently moving sources?Maybe the fairies?

You tell me, speed unification is in your theory,
not in SR.

Indeed, you STILL don't know what a frame is. I clearly
said "wrt the slower car" which means the measurements
are made by instruments which are at rest WITH RESPECT
TO the slower car.

Those measurements are made wrt the frame of the slower car.

To be pedantic, we say the measurements are "in the
frame of the slower car" because the measurements are
made wrt the slower car, that is we use the slower car
to define the origin of the coordinate system and the
numbers are expressed in that system.

George, that is not the problem.

No, just being pedantis as I said in the vain hope
that you will learn the terminology and stop making
mistakes based on a lack of understanding.

Are you trying to make out that the relative movement of the cars cannot
be
assessed by the third ground observer?

No, it is perfectly valid to do that but it is the
difference of the velocities in the road frame, not
the velocity in the slower-car frame.

I didn't say it was.

Yes, you keep saying "wrt the source".

To convert
from road-frame numbers to slower-car-frame numbers,
you use the Lorentz Transforms.

They don't exist in reality.

Of course they do Henry, look in any relevant maths
textbook and you will find them printed in its pages,
they exist all over the world in numerous copies.

Velocity differences are the same when measured in all frames.

Sorry, your (erroneous) religious beliefs are not
relevant.

Do you really believe that it is incorrect for a pedestrian to say
"As I see
it, the separation between the two cars is increasing by 10 kms/hr".

No, and that would also be the correct number,

Ha! George has finally seen the light. Now will you agree that the lab
observer
sees the rays of the sagnac ring to be moving at c+/-v wrt the source?

No, he sees the difference of the lab-frame velocities
to be c+/-v and calculates that the inertial-source-frame
velocity of the light is c using the Lorentz Transforms.

If he was a braindead relativist he would use Einstein's circularly
derived
velocity addition formula if anything.

What he sees is a difference in velocities in the
lab frame, not the velocity in the source frame.
Learn the difference conveyed by the words.

but it
would be incorrect for him to say that the speed of the
faster car is 10 km/hr with respect to the slower car
unless he is assuming the Galilean Transforms which
would be invalid in this context since you asked about
the "standard SR explanation".

Yes we know that. That's where you got the 9.9999999999998...which of
course is
bull**** anyway.

It is what is measured was measured in reality back at the
end of the 19th century and which eventually led to SR. That
is why everyone uses the formula and unless you can modify
ballistic theory to say the same, your theory loses.

It has never been measured.
The apparent absence of an aether led to SR. It merely made the aether
redundant by replacing it with an unproven postulate.

It was proven by Sagnac in 1913, he specifically measured
the difference in speed of light from a source when at
rest and when moving and found the speed was unaffected.
That is _precisely_ what the postulate states, nothing
else.

George

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 13:27:20 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 10:39:23 +0100, "George Dishman"

a) because "the source" isn't a frame, it is a physical
entity, not a mathematical ccordinate system

b) because the "the source" is accelerating while "an
inertial .. frame" is NOT accelerating so speeds are
DIFFERENT using the two definitions.

Absolute crap. You are using the source at 'instant of emission'. That
is
just
as inertial as is 'its frame at that instant'.

Wrong again, at that instant the source has non-zero
acceleration, it is NOT inertial and the two definitions
are NOT the same.

Correct. I never even hinted that they were.

Liar, you said above the source "is just as inertial as
is 'its frame at that instant'." which is not true, the
frame is inertial by definition, the source is accelerating
hence not inertial.

I said you should use the source itself instead of substituting an
irrelevant
frame.

Yes, and I pointed out that since one is inertial and
the other is not, the substitution is not equivalent.

Henry, there IS NO DIAGRAM DRAWN WRT THE SOURCE (you've
even got me shouting now Henry, what does it take to get
this basic and obvious fact into your thick skull?)

I have enver siad there was George.

Yes you did Henry, you keep saying that a diagram
show speeds "wrt the source".

There doesn't have to be one.

No there doesn't, but you said "fig 3" showed
speed "wrt the source". It doesn't, it shows
speeds in the lab frame.

George, the pedestrian calculates that one car moves at 50, the other at
60 wrt
the road and at 10 wrt each other.

Correct.

The measurements are made in the ground
frame and the reading apply there too.

Yes, that is the difference in velocitiesin that
frame, we agree on that.

YOUR figure of 9.99999999998 is that which SR (wrongly)

Correctly, by experiment.

predicts if either
driver does the measuring.

Correct, which is what "wrt the source" means.

That does in no way alter the fact that the rays are shown to move at
c+/-v, as
viewed in the lab frame.

The diagram clearly shows the rays moving at c+/-v wrt the source

Henry, there IS NO DIAGRAM DRAWN WRT THE SOURCE.

...irrelevant

If there is no diagram then it cannot show anything,
can it?

The diagram shows the rays moving at c+/-v wrt the source.

No, it shows the difference in speeds as c+/-v wrt
the _lab_, not the source.

Come on George, stop acting dumb.

Henry, you are the one being dumb, the diagram is in
the lab frame, not the source frame.

You spent many months illustrating how rays
moving at c wrt the source behave.

Maybe you should try, you might learn something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect

..even wikipedia shows the red and blue dots moving at c+-v wrt the
source. fig 3.

Now you want to refer to a different page:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
It clearly shows the two rays moving at c+/-v wrt the source.

Nope, it shows the "start" and "end" at different
locations so it is not drawn "wrt the source", it
is drawn in the non-rotating frame and specifically
states "the sum of the speeds of the wave front and
the receiver at the "end" point is c-v". It does
that because the speed of the light is c while the
target moves at v = wR. c-v is not the speed of the
light, it is the DIFFERENCE between the two speeds,
a simple algebraic operation.

Let's put it another way George. ...

Let's not bother with any more silly word games,
you have your answer above and you know perfectly
well it is entirely as predicted by SR.

Where is your match of the velocity curve of L Car
and the associated radius and luminosity curves?

George

On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 20:29:57 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:03:40 -0700, George Dishman

wrote:

George, the main criterion is that the orbiting clocks are all in synch
with
each other...and that is achieved by regular monitoring and including
any
discrepancies in each clock's signal..

.. at the level of less than 5ns per day compared to
a GR correction of around 40us as I said.

the figures are 7 and 38.....so without the velocity contribution, the GR
correction is way out.

The GR calculation for the satellites moving
at altitude gives +38us/day. You can split
that into two components by calculating the
rate if the satellite were at that height but
not moving which comes out at about +45us/day,
and then the effect of the motion which is
-7us/day, which of course is just the SR value
since SR is a subset of GR.

The point remains, the facts confirm GR to about
one part in 10,000.

Haha!
George, the velocity component is not a real physical change . Yet you claim it
IS. The GR correction is at least 20% out ..not that I accept the actual error
has ever been measured accurately.


No they don't, ballistic theory would produce
significant errors in locations. Consider two
satellites, one rising over the horizon to the
north and the other about to set in the south.
Both have a north-to-south velocity component
so the user's location would be displaced south
if light travelled ballistically.

Nah. .. too small to worry about.

The horizontal error would be around 85m as a
satellite rose over the horizon, falling to 55m
at 30 degrees and zero when it is at the zenith.
The errors from satellites north and south of the
receiver would both misplace the reciever north
of the true position when moving north to south
(the signal is early from the northerly sat. and
late from the one to the south) so they don't
cancel.

Satellites near the horizon are not used...and hte effect you mention is
corrected ot anyway.


Don't just hand-wave Henry, do the maths.

George




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

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 20:53:09 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:34:31 -0700, George Dishman


GPS doesn't use triangulation (i.e. multiple bearings), it
uses the time of arrival.

It uses triangulation....actually 4 signals.

"Triangulation" usually refers to constructing a
triangle using two lines of known bearing from
two known locations. GPS does not work that way,
it solves for the location at which the difference
in times of arrival of the four signals would match
the measured values.

It uses phase difference.



Trivial, the answer from ballistic theory is zero.

In other words, you don't know how to do the calculation.

Ballistic theory provides no mechanism for wavefronts
to be lost or gained therefore there is no frequency
change. What do you think needs to be calculated?

George, please calculate the fractional speed change as light falls from
26000kms to Earth. Then compare it with the GR correction.
Can't you do it?

Any real physicist will find it quite easy.

Yep, mental arithmetic.

..... you don't know how to do the calculation.

You can calculate the speed change but as you agreed
that doesn't change the frequency, only the wavelength,
so again how do you suggest calculating a frequency
change?

No George, I'm not interested in that. All I am doing is drawing your attention
to the extraordinarily strange coincidence that the "GR correction" just
happensd to be identical to the BaTh fractrional velocity increase.

Maybe fairies DO exist eh?


Yes, but that is aether for you, try illustrating SR instead
like Mikko's excellect page.

My demo illustrates the second postulate of Einstein. You agree it is
absolutely stupid unless an aether exists.

I agree no such thing, Mikko's applet illustrates the
second postulate, not yours. What I do agree is that
trying to represent it as an aether-based theory is
stupid.

But it IS an aether based theory.

Nope, it is geometric with ned use for an aether.

How else could 'space' alone IMMEDIATELY
UNIFY light speed ..

Bzzzt - speed unification is part of ballistic
theory, not SR.

.. from differently moving sources?Maybe the fairies?

You tell me, speed unification is in your theory,
not in SR.

OF course it is in SR. That's precisely what the second postulate PHYSICALLY
states. Don't you understand your own theory?

THE SPEED OF LIGHT FROM ALL RELATIVELY MOVING SOURCES IS IMMEDIATELY UNIFIED.



No, it is perfectly valid to do that but it is the
difference of the velocities in the road frame, not
the velocity in the slower-car frame.

I didn't say it was.

Yes, you keep saying "wrt the source".

To convert
from road-frame numbers to slower-car-frame numbers,
you use the Lorentz Transforms.

They don't exist in reality.

Of course they do Henry, look in any relevant maths
textbook and you will find them printed in its pages,
they exist all over the world in numerous copies.

......and they are all bull****...

Velocity differences are the same when measured in all frames.

Sorry, your (erroneous) religious beliefs are not
relevant.

Sorry George...but you have been backing a loser all your life.


No, he sees the difference of the lab-frame velocities
to be c+/-v and calculates that the inertial-source-frame
velocity of the light is c using the Lorentz Transforms.

If he was a braindead relativist he would use Einstein's circularly
derived
velocity addition formula if anything.

What he sees is a difference in velocities in the
lab frame, not the velocity in the source frame.
Learn the difference conveyed by the words.

I'm not talking about the velocity in the source frame George. ...never was. As
far as I'm concerned there is no difference anyway...your theory claims there
is.


It is what is measured was measured in reality back at the
end of the 19th century and which eventually led to SR. That
is why everyone uses the formula and unless you can modify
ballistic theory to say the same, your theory loses.

It has never been measured.
The apparent absence of an aether led to SR. It merely made the aether
redundant by replacing it with an unproven postulate.

It was proven by Sagnac in 1913, he specifically measured
the difference in speed of light from a source when at
rest and when moving and found the speed was unaffected.
That is _precisely_ what the postulate states, nothing
else.

That kind of experiment was impssible in 1913


George




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

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 21:02:13 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .

Absolute crap. You are using the source at 'instant of emission'. That
is
just
as inertial as is 'its frame at that instant'.

Wrong again, at that instant the source has non-zero
acceleration, it is NOT inertial and the two definitions
are NOT the same.

Correct. I never even hinted that they were.

Liar, you said above the source "is just as inertial as
is 'its frame at that instant'." which is not true, the
frame is inertial by definition, the source is accelerating
hence not inertial.

At any particular INSTANT the accelerating source has one and only one
velocity. In the SR sagnac diagram, light is shown to be moving at c relative
to the ring and c+ that velocity relative to the source.

Sagnac proves SR wrong.

I said you should use the source itself instead of substituting an
irrelevant
frame.

Yes, and I pointed out that since one is inertial and
the other is not, the substitution is not equivalent.

The 'frame' you want to use is completely irrelevant.
You only introduced it to try to appear intelligent.


No there doesn't, but you said "fig 3" showed
speed "wrt the source". It doesn't, it shows
speeds in the lab frame.

George, the pedestrian calculates that one car moves at 50, the other at
60 wrt
the road and at 10 wrt each other.

Correct.

The measurements are made in the ground
frame and the reading apply there too.

Yes, that is the difference in velocitiesin that
frame, we agree on that.

the same applies to the sagnac ring.

YOUR figure of 9.99999999998 is that which SR (wrongly)

Correctly, by experiment.

What bloody experiment might that be George?

predicts if either
driver does the measuring.

Correct, which is what "wrt the source" means.

No it isn't...and it matters not anyway.
The BaTh theory of variable stars is based solely on the first statement above,
with which you agree.



If there is no diagram then it cannot show anything,
can it?

The diagram shows the rays moving at c+/-v wrt the source.

No, it shows the difference in speeds as c+/-v wrt
the _lab_, not the source.

Come on George, stop acting dumb.

Henry, you are the one being dumb, the diagram is in
the lab frame, not the source frame.

I know it's the lab fram George, I have told you that all along.
That's all that matters.


George




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

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 20:53:09 +0100, "George Dishman"

wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:34:31 -0700, George Dishman


GPS doesn't use triangulation (i.e. multiple bearings), it
uses the time of arrival.

It uses triangulation....actually 4 signals.

"Triangulation" usually refers to constructing a
triangle using two lines of known bearing from
two known locations. GPS does not work that way,
it solves for the location at which the difference
in times of arrival of the four signals would match
the measured values.

It uses phase difference.

All receivers use time difference initially. More
advanced receivers then use phase to measure the
time difference to a fraction of a cycle.

Trivial, the answer from ballistic theory is zero.

In other words, you don't know how to do the calculation.

Ballistic theory provides no mechanism for wavefronts
to be lost or gained therefore there is no frequency
change. What do you think needs to be calculated?

George, please calculate the fractional speed change as light falls from
26000kms to Earth. Then compare it with the GR correction.
Can't you do it?

Apples and pears Henry, compare the ballistic frequency
change to the GR frequency change. They are different.

Any real physicist will find it quite easy.

Yep, mental arithmetic.

..... you don't know how to do the calculation.

You can calculate the speed change but as you agreed
that doesn't change the frequency, only the wavelength,
so again how do you suggest calculating a frequency
change?

No George, I'm not interested in that.

Fair enough.

All I am doing is drawing your attention
to the extraordinarily strange coincidence that the "GR correction" just
happensd to be identical to the BaTh fractrional velocity increase.

Your statement is factually untrue, they are not the same.

Maybe fairies DO exist eh?

I wouldn't be surprised to find you believed in them.

Yes, but that is aether for you, try illustrating SR instead
like Mikko's excellect page.

My demo illustrates the second postulate of Einstein. You agree it is
absolutely stupid unless an aether exists.

I agree no such thing, Mikko's applet illustrates the
second postulate, not yours. What I do agree is that
trying to represent it as an aether-based theory is
stupid.

But it IS an aether based theory.

Nope, it is geometric with ned use for an aether.

How else could 'space' alone IMMEDIATELY
UNIFY light speed ..

Bzzzt - speed unification is part of ballistic
theory, not SR.

.. from differently moving sources?Maybe the fairies?

You tell me, speed unification is in your theory,
not in SR.

OF course it is in SR.

Nope, there is no speed unification process in SR or
any of the aether theories, nor in the original ballistic
theory. It was an ad hoc bodge added to try to rescue
Ritz's work and appears nowhere else.

That's precisely what the second postulate PHYSICALLY
states. Don't you understand your own theory?

THE SPEED OF LIGHT FROM ALL RELATIVELY MOVING SOURCES IS IMMEDIATELY
UNIFIED.

Wrong, there is no process that changes the speed.

The speed has the same value in _all_ inertial
frames _simultaneously_.

No, it is perfectly valid to do that but it is the
difference of the velocities in the road frame, not
the velocity in the slower-car frame.

I didn't say it was.

Yes, you keep saying "wrt the source".

To convert
from road-frame numbers to slower-car-frame numbers,
you use the Lorentz Transforms.

They don't exist in reality.

Of course they do Henry, look in any relevant maths
textbook and you will find them printed in its pages,
they exist all over the world in numerous copies.

.....and they are all bull****...

They are all just maths, but of course you don't do maths.

Velocity differences are the same when measured in all frames.

Sorry, your (erroneous) religious beliefs are not
relevant.

Sorry George...but you have been backing a loser all your life.

It gives accurate answers, that means it wins.

No, he sees the difference of the lab-frame velocities
to be c+/-v and calculates that the inertial-source-frame
velocity of the light is c using the Lorentz Transforms.

If he was a braindead relativist he would use Einstein's circularly
derived
velocity addition formula if anything.

What he sees is a difference in velocities in the
lab frame, not the velocity in the source frame.
Learn the difference conveyed by the words.

I'm not talking about the velocity in the source frame George. ...never
was.

Yes you are, you keep saying "wrt the source".

As
far as I'm concerned there is no difference anyway...your theory claims
there
is.

And your question was about "the standard SR explanation".

That theory accurately predicts the amount of difference
that occurs in reality which is why everyone uses it.

It is what is measured was measured in reality back at the
end of the 19th century and which eventually led to SR. That
is why everyone uses the formula and unless you can modify
ballistic theory to say the same, your theory loses.

It has never been measured.
The apparent absence of an aether led to SR. It merely made the aether
redundant by replacing it with an unproven postulate.

It was proven by Sagnac in 1913, he specifically measured
the difference in speed of light from a source when at
rest and when moving and found the speed was unaffected.
That is _precisely_ what the postulate states, nothing
else.

That kind of experiment was impssible in 1913

Nah, Sagnac had to apply some care of course, it would
be much easier today, but that's what he achieved.

George

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 20:29:57 +0100, "George Dishman"

wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:03:40 -0700, George Dishman

wrote:

George, the main criterion is that the orbiting clocks are all in
synch
with
each other...and that is achieved by regular monitoring and including
any
discrepancies in each clock's signal..

.. at the level of less than 5ns per day compared to
a GR correction of around 40us as I said.

the figures are 7 and 38.....so without the velocity contribution, the
GR
correction is way out.

The GR calculation for the satellites moving
at altitude gives +38us/day. You can split
that into two components by calculating the
rate if the satellite were at that height but
not moving which comes out at about +45us/day,
and then the effect of the motion which is
-7us/day, which of course is just the SR value
since SR is a subset of GR.

The point remains, the facts confirm GR to about
one part in 10,000.

Haha!
George, the velocity component is not a real physical change . Yet you
claim it
IS. The GR correction is at least 20% out

You are falling into a common trap, GR is not a
collection of separate effects like your bodged
theory, it is a single set of equations which
on their own give the accurate answer.

..not that I accept the actual error
has ever been measured accurately.

One part in 10,000 for GPS as I said.

No they don't, ballistic theory would produce
significant errors in locations. Consider two
satellites, one rising over the horizon to the
north and the other about to set in the south.
Both have a north-to-south velocity component
so the user's location would be displaced south
if light travelled ballistically.

Nah. .. too small to worry about.

The horizontal error would be around 85m as a
satellite rose over the horizon, falling to 55m
at 30 degrees and zero when it is at the zenith.
The errors from satellites north and south of the
receiver would both misplace the reciever north
of the true position when moving north to south
(the signal is early from the northerly sat. and
late from the one to the south) so they don't
cancel.

Satellites near the horizon are not used...

That's why I gave the 30 degree value.

and hte effect you mention is
corrected ot anyway.

No Henry, nobody corrects out ballistic theory
factors. If ballistic theory were correct, each
pseudo range would have an error of some tens
of metres in a direction opposite to the direction
of motion of the satellite. The figures above are
just the horizontal component of that and even
those are far from "too small to worry about".

George

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 21:02:13 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..

Absolute crap. You are using the source at 'instant of emission'. That
is just as inertial as is 'its frame at that instant'.

Wrong again, at that instant the source has non-zero
acceleration, it is NOT inertial and the two definitions
are NOT the same.

Correct. I never even hinted that they were.

Liar, you said above the source "is just as inertial as
is 'its frame at that instant'." which is not true, the
frame is inertial by definition, the source is accelerating
hence not inertial.

At any particular INSTANT the accelerating source has one and only one
velocity. ..

And it has one and only one acceleration. That value is
not zero therefore it is not inertial. The frame _is_
inertial by definition.

The rest of your post is just repetition of the errors
I corrected in a reply to another of your posts a few
minutes ago so I'll skip the duplication.

George

Henri Wilson wrote:
At any particular INSTANT the accelerating source has one and only one
velocity. In the SR sagnac diagram, light is shown to be moving at c relative
to the ring and c+ that velocity relative to the source.

Sagnac proves SR wrong.

OK.
Let us assume that the light is moving around a ring.
(Infinite number of mirrors.)

I will not try to draw it.

- Given an inertial frame.
- Given a circle with radius r.
- Given a light source moving at the speed v around the circle.
- According to SR the speed of light is c.
- Let tf be the time the light emittet in the forward direction
uses to catch up with the source.
- Let tb be the time the light emittet in the backward direction
uses to meet the source.

So we have:
2*pi*r + tf*v = tf*c
tf = 2*pi*r/(c-v)

2*pi*r - tb*v = tb*c
tb = 2*pi*r/(c+v)

delta_t = tf - tb = 4*pi*r*v/(c^2 - v^2)

Setting w = v/r, A = pi*r^2, g = (1 - v^2/c^2)^-0.5
we get:

delta_t = (4Aw/c^2)* g^2

The g^2 will obviously be unmeasureable different from 1
for any practical Sagnac experiment.

So SR predicts delta_t = 4Aw/c^2 which is in accordance
with enumerable practical experiments.

#############################################
# Henri:
#
# Please explain how this prove SR wrong.
#
#############################################

Paul

Henri Wilson wrote:
Haha!
George, the velocity component is not a real physical change . Yet you claim it
IS. The GR correction is at least 20% out

Henri Wilson finds that GR is wrong because measurements
show the correct value to be 20% lower than a value which
is 20% higher than the GR prediction.

Wilsonian logic at its very best! :-)

Paul