OWLS is not equal to c
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What keeps electrons spinning around their nucleus?
Next: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
From: Jeff Root on 4 Aug 2005 17:05 Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root: > On 31 Jul 2005 19:18:01 -0700, "Jeff Root" <j...(a)freemars.org> wrote: > >> On July 24, 2005, Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>> A constant orbit duration is a good enough time standard for >>> my experiment. I accept that is may change over many years. >>> That is beside the point. It is much more stable than any man >>> made clocks and it can be used by all observers. >> >> Orbit periods actually change fairly rapidly and unpredictably, >> even at the altitude of GPS satellites (20,200 km). >> >> The constantly-changing directions and distances to the Moon >> and Sun relative to a satellite orbiting Earth can change the >> period of a satellite in a roughly 12-hour orbit by more than >> a second from one orbit to the next. >> >> The uneven distribution of mass in the Earth can also change >> the period of a satellite by more than a second per orbit. >> >> Solar light pressure, which is constant while a satellite is in >> sunlight, and solar wind pressure, which varies greatly from one >> part of an orbit to another and with the changing level of solar >> activity, can also change the period by more than a second per >> orbit. >> >> In contrast, cesium and rubidium atomic clocks are accurate to >> better than one part in 10^15, or less than 0.0000000001 second >> variation in 12 hours. >> >> The period of an orbit can be a useful standard in a thought >> experiment, but in real experiments, atomic clocks provide a >> time standard which is more than ten billion times as stable. > > The orbit in my experiment is a perfect one. You don't have an experiment. In an experiment, various things are measured. You aren't measuring anything. All you have done is describe what happens in a particular situation and complain that it can't happen because it doesn't make sense. Describing what you think must happen in a hypothetical situation is a "thought experiment". Although the names are very similar, thought experiments and real experiments are different kinds of things. They have little in common. The situation you described isn't hypothetical, since it has been done many times, and measurements are taken constantly. However, I'll go along with calling your narrative a thought experiment. I agree: the orbit in your thought experiment is perfect. That doesn't explain why you claimed that the duration of an orbit "is much more stable than any man made clocks". You had it backwards. > If it is impossible to ascertain the start and end points of a > real GPS orbit then, as I have already pointed out, there is no > way the GR correction has been verified to any degree of accuracy. There is no need to measure the start and end points of an orbit in order to measure GR effects. The predicted GR effects were confirmed by the first atomic clock sent into space (a hydrogen maser aboard Gravity Probe A, in 1977), which went straight up several thousand miles and came straight back down. The clock operated exactly as predicted by GR over a wide range of speeds, accelerations, and altitudes. But since the start and end points of a real GPS orbit can be ascertained to very high precision, doing it that way isn't a problem either. > So all you DHRs can put up or shut up forever. The United States Air Force put up the Navstar Global Positioning System of satellites, which provide extremely precise navigation and positioning for millions of users worldwide every day. That positioning takes into account the effects predicted by General Relativity. It wouldn't work if it didn't take those effects into account. You've put up nothing but speculation, much of which is in direct conflict with observations. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
From: Randy Poe on 4 Aug 2005 17:36 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 15:40:51 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >Real orbits are nowhere as stable as the clocks, > >that's why the GPS system constantly transmits > >updates to the satellite ephemerides. However, > >in a gedanken we can assume it is perfectly > >constant. That doesn't solve your problem though, > >the duration is still not single valued. > > Then the 'GR correction' can never have been verified Is Henri really as dense as he pretends to be? Here's how the GR correction is verified: We look at what time the GPS system says it is. Then we look at what time it really is. This process has been done. The times check out when the clock is corrected as GR says it should be. (Please don't give your usual nonsense about how there's an additional rate correction made in orbit. There is no rate correction made in orbit. Once the GR correction is made, there is no further systematic rate discrepancy.) Secondly, how does the fact that real orbits aren't stable say anything about our ability to say exactly where the satellites are to high precision? We know where they are because of the accuracy which the GR correction allows to obtain. And we know, to high accuracy, just how not-closed the orbits are. You proposed use of "orbits" as a time reference, but it's a bad time reference to validate the GR correction. It's as bad as using your wristwatch. The fact that your proposed experiment won't work doesn't mean that there's no such thing as an experiment that will work. That experiment has been done. The GR correction has been validated. - Randy
From: Henri Wilson on 4 Aug 2005 20:21 On 4 Aug 2005 14:36:29 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 15:40:51 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >Real orbits are nowhere as stable as the clocks, >> >that's why the GPS system constantly transmits >> >updates to the satellite ephemerides. However, >> >in a gedanken we can assume it is perfectly >> >constant. That doesn't solve your problem though, >> >the duration is still not single valued. >> >> Then the 'GR correction' can never have been verified > >Is Henri really as dense as he pretends to be? > >Here's how the GR correction is verified: We look at what >time the GPS system says it is. Then we look at what time >it really is. This process has been done. The times check >out when the clock is corrected as GR says it should be. > >(Please don't give your usual nonsense about how there's >an additional rate correction made in orbit. There is >no rate correction made in orbit. Once the GR correction >is made, there is no further systematic rate discrepancy.) > >Secondly, how does the fact that real orbits aren't >stable say anything about our ability to say exactly >where the satellites are to high precision? We know >where they are because of the accuracy which the GR >correction allows to obtain. And we know, to high accuracy, >just how not-closed the orbits are. > >You proposed use of "orbits" as a time reference, but >it's a bad time reference to validate the GR correction. It's >as bad as using your wristwatch. The fact that your >proposed experiment won't work doesn't mean that >there's no such thing as an experiment that will >work. That experiment has been done. The GR correction >has been validated. Don't try to wriggle out Randy.. > > - Randy HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 4 Aug 2005 23:00 In sci.physics, Randy Poe <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> wrote on 4 Aug 2005 14:36:29 -0700 <1123191388.993094.7930(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>: > > Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 15:40:51 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >Real orbits are nowhere as stable as the clocks, >> >that's why the GPS system constantly transmits >> >updates to the satellite ephemerides. However, >> >in a gedanken we can assume it is perfectly >> >constant. That doesn't solve your problem though, >> >the duration is still not single valued. >> >> Then the 'GR correction' can never have been verified > > Is Henri really as dense as he pretends to be? I can't say. I don't know if he's pretending or not... :-) All I know is what he's posted here -- and some of the posts aren't exactly the most illuminating. http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html You'll also want to check out http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/MoonLanding/MoonLanding.html which conclusively proves that the Moon landing was spoofed ... erm, I mean, faked. :-) > > Here's how the GR correction is verified: We look at what > time the GPS system says it is. Then we look at what time > it really is. This process has been done. The times check > out when the clock is corrected as GR says it should be. That doesn't quite work. Henri is correct in that the clocks are easily steered in order to maintain consistency. (Where he is incorrect has to do with the amount of steering. It's far less than 38 µsec/day. However, apart from NST-2, which is AFAIK long since dead, nobody's bothered to check an uncorrected clock against Earthtime. We just assume GR. :-) ) > > (Please don't give your usual nonsense about how there's > an additional rate correction made in orbit. There is > no rate correction made in orbit. Once the GR correction > is made, there is no further systematic rate discrepancy.) I'm not entirely sure of that, though it's probably far less systematic (and smaller) than the SR/GR correction. However, the satellites presumably have a period in their orbit, in that they'll pass over the same mountain after N orbits. (What N is, I for one don't know. It may depend on the satellite.) Of course that's why there's clocksteering. > > Secondly, how does the fact that real orbits aren't > stable say anything about our ability to say exactly > where the satellites are to high precision? We know > where they are because of the accuracy which the GR > correction allows to obtain. And we know, to high accuracy, > just how not-closed the orbits are. > > You proposed use of "orbits" as a time reference, but > it's a bad time reference to validate the GR correction. It doesn't matter all that much. An orbit on the satellite will have a different time than the same orbit as observed on the ground, even if the orbit were perfectly circular and equatorial, and all other effects from light propagation and Earth rotation are compensated for. > It's > as bad as using your wristwatch. The fact that your > proposed experiment won't work doesn't mean that > there's no such thing as an experiment that will > work. That experiment has been done. The GR correction > has been validated. > > - Randy > -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: Jonathan Silverlight on 5 Aug 2005 11:52
In message <1123244370.008039.104540(a)g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Jeff Root <jeff5(a)freemars.org> writes >Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root: >> >> The clocks physically change due to all kinds of reasns when being >> sent into orbit. > >More speculation, and contrary to the actual facts. > I notice Henri doesn't give any references for his ideas, but he should consider that in a very real sense the delicate mechanisms aren't the clocks, rather the properties of single atoms inside them. Similarly, relativity uses the decay time of muons and the rotation of pulsars to measure things where man-made clocks can't go. |