Smooth Operator writes:
Myself writes:
The ECEF is the frame of reference used to determine x, y, z positioning. In fact, ECEF relies on taking into effect relativistic time-dilation in order for the satellites to determine precise positioning data as shown here
That is not mentioned anywhere.
Maybe this will help:
Relativity in Rotating Frames: Relativistic Physics in Rotating Reference Frames edited by Dr, Guido Rizzi, Professor of Physics and Dr. Matteo Luca Ruggiero at Politecnico di Torino (Polytechnic University of Turin), Italy with contributing articles from 23 Professors of Physics from around the world.
Read it. It extensively describes both the theory of relativity and the Sagnac effect in detail in relation to synchronization of GPS satellites and other phenomena. Relativity and the Sagnac effect ARE NOT mutually exclusive concepts. If so show me how.
SO writes:
This is what I got from your first link. I didn't bother to check the other ones because this first one already proves me right.
And you wonder why people tell you that you are full of shit. I have provided with scientific peer reviewed articles by subject matter experts in the physics fields and you choose to ignore them. This shows your lack of credibility and gullibility to accept any crap from non-scientific sources you find on the internet.
SO writes:
They are uing the Sagnac effect, and not relativistic effects. And SR can not account for the Sagnac effect.
Ditto. They are not mutually exclusive concepts. This is like saying that because Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation does not mention Galileo's free fall experiment w/ gravity than all of Newton's laws are bogus.
Go get an education at a real college and stop believing every conspiracy theory that comes off the internet.
SO writes:
The Sagnac effect has nothing to do with dime dilation. Yet SR still can't account for it.
I don't know what dime dilation is (is that putting dimes on a railroad track to strech them)? Oh, you mean time dilation? Well, isn't that your whole argument that the Sagnac effect is causing time dilation-like effect that must be taken into account to synchronize the GPS clocks as opposed to Einstein's theories of relativity? If not what the heck are you talking about?
Physicists around the world and engineers of the GPS satellite system take into account both the GR/SR (gravitational induced time dilation) and the Sagnac effect (errors in synchronization caused by rotating frames of reference in this case the Earth) to synchronize the clocks on these satellites to determine accurate positions. If you have a problem with this, go tell the US Navy, US Air Force and the Satellite Engineering Research Corporation, which helped develop the original GPS and follow-on applications, that they are wrong (I would love to be a fly on the wall why I see them laugh you out of the facility). Here is a PP presentation by Dr. Robert Nelson, PhD in Physics, writer of several textbooks on satellite communications and director of the Satellite Engineering Research Corporation in Bethesda, MD for you (pictures, charts and short bullets might be easier for you to swallow):
Practical Relativistic Timing Effects in GPS and Galileo
SO writes:
You are wrong. It's is clear to me, you've never even heard of the Sagnac effect. Because that is exactly what it does. It gives you non-isotropic light speed.
Um, you did not read the article in its entirity did you? How about this (I will highlight):
Reflections on Relativity writes:
Of course, any attempt to show that the Sagnac effect implies non-isotropic light-speed with respect to some system of inertial coordinates is doomed from the start, because the simple and correct quantitative description of an arbitrary Sagnac device given above is based on isotropic light speed with respect to one particular system of inertial coordinates, and all inertial systems of coordinates are related by Lorentz transformations, which are defined as the transformations that preserve light speed. Hence it's clear that no description of a Sagnac device in terms of any system of inertial coordinates can possibly yield non-isotropic light speed, nor can any such description yield physically observable results different from those derived above (which are known to agree with experiment).
Having accepted that the observable effects predicted by special relativity for a Sagnac device are correct and entail no logical inconsistency, the dedicated opponents of special relativity sometimes resort to claims that there is nevertheless an inconsistency in the relativistic interpretation of what's really happening locally around the device in certain extreme circumstances.
The fundamental fallacy underlying such claims is the idea that the beams of light are travelling the same, or at least congruent, inertial paths through space and time as they proceed from the source to the detector. If this were true, their inertial speeds would indeed need to differ in order for their arrival times at the detector to differ. However, the two pulses do not traverse congruent paths from emission to detector (assuming the device is absolutely rotating). The co-rotating beam is travelling slightly farther than the counter-rotating beam in the inertial sense, because the detector is moving away from the former and toward the latter while they are in transit. Naturally the ratio of optical path lengths is the same with respect to any fixed system of inertial coordinates.
The author clearly illustrates the logical fallacy in stating that the Sagnac affect implies anisotropic light speeds. You in your stubborn tenacity just choose to ignore it.
Ok, a non-peer reviewed article by a former physics professor who was opposed by the entire physics community on his views on relativity. You will always have an oddball out of the bunch that will oppose the status-quo. Not to say that he was not a good scientist but sometimes even scientists can be wrong on his research/findings.
Again, tell the designers and current developers of the GPS system that they should not be taking the time-dilation effects of relativity into effect to synchronize there satellites.
SO writes:
Myself writes:
To dispute General and Special Relativity is to go against the likes of Stephen Hawking, Einstein and the rest.
They are meaningless nobodies.
Ok, either you are being facetious, you are an internet troll just trying to get attention or you are an idiot
SO writes:
Myself writes:
Umm... no. Those are just your false interpretations.
SR has been proven not just by direct observation and experimentation but by application and not just by GPS but by other scientific applications such as the Gravity Probe A satellite launched in 1976 and the Hafele-Keating experiment, which used atomic clocks in circumnavigating aircraft to test general relativity and special relativity together
LOL, whatever bub. If you can’t provide any evidence of your own to counter my evidence, than I am writing you off as an ignorant, gullible idiot. I tried being nice but evidently this is lost on you. Have a nice life and have fun with your delusions.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
™ Version 4.2
