Henri Wilson wrote:
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.

I find it amazing an almost unbelievable that you
still have no clue whatsoever of how the GPS works.

You have been discussing the GPS for years!!

Answer me this:
Which phase differences are you referring to?

Paul

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
: 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

The g^2 will OBVIOUSLY be unmeasureable different from 1
for any practical Sagnac experiment, but any practical Sagnac
device (not "experiment", we use them as gyroscopes) does
show a measurable difference or we would not be using it.
Therefore you are OBVIOUSLY a ****head.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm

Another Sagnac device:
Einstein's experiment where he made lightning strike both ends of a train
simultaneously and the bloke in the middle of the train says the flashes
are not simultaneous.
That's a linear Sagnac device.
All the real Sagnac device does is wrap the train around in a circle
to ensure the two flashes really are simultaneous because they come
from a single source.
Therefore you are OBVIOUSLY a ****head.

On Thu, 9 Aug 2007 09:34:43 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


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

wrote:


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.

never tested. Nobody really cares...


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 Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:52:05 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

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! :-)

THe so called 'GR correction' just happens to be exactly equal to the
fractional increase in speed as light falls from the clock to Earth.

WHAT A STRANGE COINCIDENCE.

Paul



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 Thu, 9 Aug 2007 09:28:47 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


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

"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.

Thankyou George.


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.

Identical George.



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.

You don't even know how to do the calculation so how would you know....


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_.

.....SR says the speed is the same in any one particular frame irrespective of
source speed. That means properties of space determine light speed. YOU say
Maxwell's equation explains this. That's OK only if a medium exists.
I say there is no evidence that differently moving observers measure the same
values for the two constants.
I also say that below the WDT Maxwell's equation does not apply and is
meaningless. Measurements of P and P are just those of the apparatus itself.


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".

That's right. I said "wrt the source AS VIEWED IN THE LAB FRAME".

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.

My tilted arrow theory explains Sagnac.



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 Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:52:28 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
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.

I find it amazing an almost unbelievable that you
still have no clue whatsoever of how the GPS works.

You have been discussing the GPS for years!!

Answer me this:
Which phase differences are you referring to?

George has assured me that the clock rates are changed after launch.
George has also assured me that phase differences are used.

I will transfer your request to George.

Paul



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 Thu, 9 Aug 2007 09:37:53 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


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

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.

So what?

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.

No need for the frame George. I saw through your diversionary tactic.

The rays are clearly shown moving at c+/-v wrt the source.

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 Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:26:33 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

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.

Why then it is assumed to move at c+v wrt the source?

- 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.

I don't care.
The fact that SR requires that the rays move at c+/-v wrt the source AS VIEWED
IN THE LAB FRAME fully support my variable star program and its methods.

If I were you, (which thankfully I'm not) I would start burning all my
astronomy books right now.

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

Paul



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 Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:50:41 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
: 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

The g^2 will OBVIOUSLY be unmeasureable different from 1
for any practical Sagnac experiment, but any practical Sagnac
device (not "experiment", we use them as gyroscopes) does
show a measurable difference or we would not be using it.
Therefore you are OBVIOUSLY a ****head.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm

Another Sagnac device:
Einstein's experiment where he made lightning strike both ends of a train
simultaneously and the bloke in the middle of the train says the flashes
are not simultaneous.
That's a linear Sagnac device.
All the real Sagnac device does is wrap the train around in a circle
to ensure the two flashes really are simultaneous because they come
from a single source.
Therefore you are OBVIOUSLY a ****head.

Don't abuse them A, these people are thick skinned religious fanatics who will
refuse to recognize truth no matter how obvious it is.




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 Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:52:05 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

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! :-)

THe so called 'GR correction' just happens to be exactly equal to the
fractional increase in speed as light falls from the clock to Earth.

WHAT A STRANGE COINCIDENCE.

Remarkable, unless of course GR is correct.

George