"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Thu, 9 Aug 2007 09:37:53 +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.

So what?

So when you said it was "just as inertial" you
were wrong and when you claimed that you "never
even hinted that they were", you were lying.

George

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:32:15 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"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.

If it is correct it is for entirely the wrong reason.

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 Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:35:55 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 9 Aug 2007 09:37:53 +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.

So what?

So when you said it was "just as inertial" you
were wrong and when you claimed that you "never
even hinted that they were", you were lying.

George, at the INSTANT of emission the source acceleration is irrelevant.
It has a velocity ...and the rays are drawn as moving at c+/-v wrt it.

Don't keep denying it George.

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 Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:32:15 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"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.

If it is correct it is for entirely the wrong reason.

Science only deals with "correct" and "falsified",
leave the reasons to the philosophers.

George

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:35:55 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 9 Aug 2007 09:37:53 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
m...
...
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.

So what?

So when you said it was "just as inertial" you
were wrong and when you claimed that you "never
even hinted that they were", you were lying.

George, at the INSTANT of emission the source acceleration is irrelevant.

Nope, it is always relevant when determining whether
something is inertial or not. You were simply wrong
and lied to try to cover it up rather than admit a
trivial mistake.

George

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 11:39:14 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:32:15 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"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.

If it is correct it is for entirely the wrong reason.

Science only deals with "correct" and "falsified",
leave the reasons to the philosophers.

George, it is possible to mathematically describe the moon's motion around the
sun using Earth centrism. Does that mean the maths is correct for the right or
wrong reason?

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 Sat, 11 Aug 2007 11:40:46 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:35:55 +0100, "George Dishman"

So when you said it was "just as inertial" you
were wrong and when you claimed that you "never
even hinted that they were", you were lying.

George, at the INSTANT of emission the source acceleration is irrelevant.

Nope, it is always relevant when determining whether
something is inertial or not. You were simply wrong
and lied to try to cover it up rather than admit a
trivial mistake.

George, the SR sagnac diagram clearly shows the rays 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.

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

That is a lie, I told you the frequency correction
is built into the clocks and is not changed after
manufacture.

George has also assured me that phase differences are used.

That is almost right, some more expensive receivers
use the phase of the carrier signal to improve the
resolution of the time measurement of pseudo-ranges.

I will transfer your request to George.

Done.

George

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

No problem always happy to provide factual information.

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.

No Henry, zero is not identical to non-zero,
you are wrong.

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....

There is no calculation to do, ballistic theory
does not change frequencies, it changes speed
and hence wavelength.

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.

Correct. Funny how you know what the postulate is
when it suits you. From that and a few other basics,
it follows that it has the same speed in _all_
inertial frames _simultaneously_.

That means properties of space determine light speed.

Yes, the Riemann geonetry of spacetime determines that
behaviour.

YOU say
Maxwell's equation explains this.

No, It say they tell you the same thing, they don't
provide an explanation. The geometry gives that.

That's OK only if a medium exists.

No, the ME say nothing on the subject either way,
only that the speed is a function of two "fundamental
constants". The equations don't explain how their
values arise.

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 you say is irrelevant until you provide experimental
data to refute the conventional view.

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".

"wrt the source" means "AS VIEWED IN THE SOURCE FRAME" so
you are saying "AS VIEWED IN THE SOURCE FRAME 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.

Rubbish, it does not even _attempt_ to address the
problem of time of arrival.

George

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

Tested continuously every day, the clocks are
kept within nanoseconds of the right time and
no drift of 38us per day is seen as should be
the case in ballistic theory.

Nobody really cares...

Every user of a sat nav cares, you just want to
bury your head as usual.

George