Existence

Hi NoNukes, It says:" A clock at rest in a lower gravitational potential runs slower relative to coordinate time than if it were at rest in a higher potential."It does not say:Time in a lower gravitational potential runs slower relative to coordinate time than if it were at rest in a higher potential.That specifically says the 'clock' runs slower in a lower gravitational potential."Clocks on GPS satellites run faster than clocks at rest on the earth’s surface."That specifically says the 'clock runs faster on GPS satellites than on earth.It does not say:Time on GPS satellites run faster than time on earth.Slice it dice it anyway you want you can't change what it says, just because it don't fit your world view.Back in the 50's we had wind up clocks that had an adjustment on the back where you could control the tick rate. You could put the lever to the 'f' side and it would tick faster or you could put it to the 's' side and it would tick slower.You could do anything you wanted to the clock but you could not make time speed up or slow down.You still can't.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hey! I'm an idiot engineer that nobody ever heard of!!!At any rate, this Ruyong Wang is apparently something of a crank's hero.

Just to help a bit, that's from "2.3 Relevant Relativity" section of the paper.

Well, you are perfectly placed, indeed it is your perogative, to come up with as much pseudo-relativistic bullshit as you like

Hi cavediver, Why not address the issues rather than show what a jackass you are?Shouldn't that be way beneth someone with the education and experience you claim to have?While I am at it maybe you could tell me how stupid Ronald R. Hatch is, who co-founded NavCom Technology, Inc. Which is now owned by John Deer.Mr Hatch owns 12 patents in the GPS field and wrote many of the programs that are used daily. He is responsible for the Hatch filter which is in constant use in the GPS system.His only problem I reckon is that he does not belong to the religion that the elitist here belongs to. You know the one where Einstein is God that is omnicious.Mr Hatch's is co-author of the article you refer to when you say he is:"clueless about Special Relativity,"God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

You left out the Lorentz transform for each inertial frame. It's called relativity. You know, that thing we have been telling you about in this thread. Your clock ticks at a slower rate when you travel at 0.5c compared to your wife's inertial frame. This is because light HAS TO BE the same speed for all inertial frames. This means that our clocks tick at different rates and our rulers change length in order for light to be the same speed for all observers. A constant speed of light is more than a good idea. It is the law.

Hi cavediver, Yes.Now show where the math is wrong and why I should include it.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

That's right ICANT. The article (or at least this portion) is completely silent about the issue of time in the satellite frame. It only describes observed clock rates as observed from the ground because that is what is of interest. None of the discussion contradicts GR in any way. GR simply says that the difference in observed clock rates is due to time dilation. We had those clocks in the 70s too.Nobody is claiming that moving the lever towards 'f' would speed up time. Rather the reverse. Time speeding up speeds up clocks and every other process. So you say. But the article does not demonstrate what you claim merely by being silent about time effects. Plus you are well aware that it is easy to find references that do describe the effect on time as well as the effect on clocks. A reference that does not mention the time effects does not refute GR. What would be support for your theory is a discussion denying that gravity affects clocks by affecting time.I believe someone has pointed out the article does mention time dilation. What do you make of that?Edited by NoNukes, : Add time dilation

Evidence please. Please show that the duration of events is the same for all inertial frames.

Your math is wrong because differences in velocities cause a difference in the passage of time by any measure. We have shown you the equations to use in order to include this observed reality in your calculations. So why don't you include it?

We have, multiple times. We have pointed you to the equations that you need to use in order to measure the passage of time in each frame of reference. You refuse to use them. I even gave you a reference to a real world experiment where these equations were used to accurately predict the time dilation on two planes and an Earth based clock. The equations work, and time dilation is a real observation. So why do you continue to leave them out of your equations? Stubborness?

Ooh, is that an accusation that I have lied, ICANT? Really?And to be honest, very little is way beneath me. That's why I'm sat here running my business wearing my Roger Waters t-shirt So? He's a great GPS engineer, but knows fuck-all about relativity. That probably sums up 99.9999% of great GPS engineers.What makes him stupid is thinking he has sufficient clue as to put his name to rubbish like that paper.But you like revelling in ignorance, ICANT, so you go one believing this bunch of non-physicists have over-turned the entirety of modern physics to the extent that no-one has ever heard of them

As an undergrad, I did double major in physics. I'd probably need to lie...

Edited by NoNukes, : duplicate

Well, as they say, when a physicist becomes an engineer, the average IQ of both fields shoots up