Theory of relativity - Conservapedia

"Claims that relativity was used to develop the Global Positioning System (GPS) are false. A 1996 article explains:

"The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein's general theory of relativity would seem to require - transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter - less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth."[17][18]
This article, which was published in 1996, goes on to propose relativistic corrections that might be used to design more accurate GPS systems. Clocks on board GPS satellites require adjustments to their clock frequencies if they are to be synchronized with those on the surface of the Earth.

Tom Van Flandern, an astronomer hired to work on GPS in the late 1990s, concluded that "[t]he GPS programmers don't need relativity." He was quoted as saying that the GPS programmers "have basically blown off Einstein."[19] Asynchronization can be easily addressed through communications between the satellites and ground stations, so it is unclear why any theory would be needed for GPS."

So because one article says that it is false, means that it is false? An article made by one outcast?


Here are articles refuting it. The article above is WRONG because we KNOW that the clocks on satellites run slower relative to us. The article is dead wrong anyways because relativity was used by engineers to develop GPS.

GPS and Relativity

Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion.

What the Global Positioning System Tells Us About Relativity

Gravity Probe B Finally Pays Off - Science News

Despite this setback, in 2007 the Gravity Probe B team confirmed one prediction of general relativity. According to Einstein, the Earth’s gravity warps spacetime like a bowling ball on a trampoline. This geodetic effect was measured with an error of about 1 percent (SN: 4/28/07, p. 270).


We have many experiments CONFIRMING Einstein's equations. Data from experiments ALWAYS triumphs a scientific article.

Thats funny, all I see is scientific articles in your links. You only have to scratch the surface to see plethora of holes and short comings in Einsteins theories.

documentation beats conversation

You're right!

Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift Experiments

Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift
Experiments: A Fresh Look

If the "theory" of General relativity gives a rock solid explanation on what gravity is, why is it that conventional science cannot manipulate it or artificially create its effects?

Maybe the theory / explanation is wanting in some areas.

Cheers,

Steve

gravity isn't force - it is the potential for force to exist on a mass' resistance

This one single image predicts every single phenomena relating to relativity, but with a foundation rooted in the aether:



1. Mass displaces aether and aether rebounds back to where it was displaced from pushing on any mass in the direction of the center of mass causing the effect of gravity.

2. The aether is more dense towards the mass that displaced it than further away.

3. The image also depicts inertia as a mass moves through space, the ambient aether relative to the mass is compressed giving a push on it causing inertia - the more the mass accelerates - the more the inertia. Energy is not an intrinsic property of the mass, it is from external potential being imparted onto the mass.

4. Time is not a dimension. It is simply the movement of mass through aether at a certain density over a certain period. The more dense the aether the slower the movement and slower the time. The less dense the aether the faster the movement and faster the time.

Therefore, my model predicts the following:

"1. Light/photons which has no mass will bend due to gravity. Evidence of this is light bending around stars, black holes, and light wavelength changes." - quoted by Replaced

As the light wave "moves" towards a mass (Earth), the aether is not pushing on the mass - the entire medium of propagation is compressed in the direction of the mass shifting the entire path of the light - therefore light moving towards a large mass will enter denser aether in its trajectory that has shifted towards the mass and the light will then move at a different trajectory.

"4. The faster an object is traveling, the more mass increases and it approaches infinite mass as it nears the speed of light. " - quoted by Replaced

As indicated in my definition of inertia, my model predicts that as a mass accelerates, it is encountering more aether per unit of "default" time (not relative time) and is therefore causing a relative increase in the density of the aether in relation to the side of the mass that is faced in the direction of movement. The aether is imparting a push on the mass of the object with more and more resistance. The mass stays the absolute same while the weight of the object increases as it is no different than being on the surface of a planet that is growing in mass causing more displacement of aether that is pushing back harder giving an increase in weight (more gravity). Mass is the amount of matter the object has and that doesn't change as it goes faster but the resistance to movement increases - same as gravity for a stationary object.

Gravity is the objects passive experience to the moving downward push of the aether.

Inertia is the objects active experience to the ambient aether it is moving through.

"7. Atomic clocks put on airplanes were slightly slower than atomic clocks on the ground." quoted by Replaced

According to my model, it predicts that the faster an object goes, it encounters more aether per unit of time meaning there is an increase in the relative density the object experiences with the aether. Therefore, since the motion of the mass is resisted more the faster it goes, TIME, only a measurement of the mass' ability to move through the aether will be slower. Therefore, a clock on an airplane going hundreds of miles an hour around around the world will be predicted to be slower than a clock standing on the ground.

The clock on the ground is slower because although it is in more dense aether than there is at 30,000 feet, the movement of the plane at much higher speed causes the relationship of the object to the density of the aether to increase above the density of the object on the ground.

Therefore, the clock on the ground ticks faster than the one in the plane since the plane experiences more aetheric density as it is moving compared to the clock on the ground.

"10. Global positioning satellites (GPS) would be off by more than 10KM per day if Einstein's time dilation equations weren't implemented in calculating the time. So without Einstein you wouldn't be able to have GPS in cars because time runs differently in satellites at precisely Einstein's predictions. " quoted by Replaced

The same form of equations can be used for almost everything I have said except for the fact that my model would be using them in the proper context - and based on the same formulas that describe what my model predicts, it would have permitted perfect engineering of GPS systems even if Einstein were never born.

"12. Furthermore, "aether" does not exist. What does exist are virtual particles such as electrons and positrons spontaneously coming in and out of existence everywhere. The amount of enemy needed to separate these particles would be more than the amount of useable energy. " quoted by Replaced

Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift Experiments

There are enough references there to stick 10 final nails in the coffin of aether deniers.

A battery sitting on the counter top in open circuit condition is constantly polarizing the "virtual photons" or bipolar aether without expending any work. All the "virtual particles" or aether needs is a dipole or any separation of potential differences and you have usable potential from right out of space.

"Gravity is not a force. You can't extract anything from something that doesn't exist. Gravity is no more than the effect of the curvature of the space-time continuum." quoted by Replaced

You say there is gravity, yet you say it is something that doesn't exist. You say gravity is the effect of curved space but you and Einstein never even define what space is in order for it to be "curved".

"We have many experiments CONFIRMING Einstein's equations. Data from experiments ALWAYS triumphs a scientific article." quoted by Replaced

Experiments that you quote are CONFIRMING Aaron's little ol' aetheric gravity model. This is indisputable that my model predicts all of those outcomes!

The only thing you can try to dispute is if there is aether or not and I gave you the references to experiments that validate the aether. If you are not willing to objectively look at that experiment and the others in those references, you are proving yourself to be not willing to walk your talk in regards to posturing yourself as a scientist. In other words, you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is.

Now, I really don't want to be argumentative with you - I'm just responding in this thread with what I believe to be fairly straightforward examples of why those experiments you quote in no way, shape or form dispute the existence of the aether - and that is evidenced by the fact that my aetheric model predicts the SAME outcomes!

Space is a volume of aether - nothing more and nothing less.

And that space as defined by x-y-z dimensions is RELATIVE to an absolute frame of reference! In higher density aether, xyz is SMALLER than lower density aether of xyz in relation to each other! The density of the aether will define how much space there is.

My model defines space and predicts what happens in various experiments while what you quote of "curved space" and the "EFFECTS" of time dilation are just that - postulations based on effects, without ever knowing how to properly define space with aether or the cause.

I show you the cause while what you quote of Einstein is limited to the effects - which is analogous to describing the whole elephant while being blindfolded and just grabbing one of its limbs.

Gravity being a force? That isn't claimed by itself.

Gravity being a dynamic fluid of aether moving towards the direction of the mass that displaced it like a ball that displaces water in a tub, will impart a push on an object. When the object in gravity falls, there is no force since relative to the gravitational moving potential, the object is standing still - again - relative to gravity. Only when the object is resisted by the ground or anything else that resists its movement will the gravitational potential impart an active push of the mass of the object, which will be resisted and this dissipates potential and is work.

The gravity isn't a force by itself and to argue against that is a false argument against something that was never claimed. Gravitational potential available to a falling object that has it's movement resisted will experience a force during the resistance which is caused the gravitational push against the object. At that point, you can say that there is force.

Ok, let me sum it up.

You think that the effects of time dilation, increased mass with acceleration, and some other effects of general relativity exist but based on aether and not based on the speed of light.



So if general relativity is correct then the above chart will show that the effects of relativity are small until you go about 30% the speed of light. If aether is correct, then we would see a straight line instead of a curved one since the speed of light shouldn't be the cosmic speed limit.

There isn't much evidence to show a difference as we can only accelerate particles at near light speed and nothing in our solar system is traveling near the speed of light. But with the evidence we do have, every particle either stays below the speed of light or above it, but never crossing the speed of light. Also the amount of time dilation experienced by the flying planes and the GPS satellites shows that time dilation is not linear, it follows Einstein's equations.

The final nail in the coffin for your aether theory is that we are all traveling through space, right? Earth goes around the sun at 67,000 mph and our solar system should be traveling around our galaxy at 490,000mph. Then time dilation should slow down or speed up depending on which direction is taken. In fact, time dilation wouldn't show up with objects rotating around the earth like satellites since you would go slower in time and faster when you go around the earth and that would balance itself out. Faster moving objects from our point of reference have time go slower for them REGARDLESS of what direction or path the object is moving in. Gravitational red shift from stars appears from ALL directions, not one. This wouldn't happen unless you believed that the Earth was very close to the center of the universe with aether.

A GPS satellite moves at only 4km/s. 1km/s = 2237mph. So only 8,948 mph for a GPS satellite, yet the Earth goes around the sun at 67,000mph. Why would there be time dilation present in a GPS satillite? Time would go faster as the GPS goes around the Earth but that would be offset by time going slower when the GPS goes around the second half of the Earth.

linear vs non-linear

rquote=replaced;173191]If aether is correct, then we would see a straight line instead of a curved one since the speed of light shouldn't be the cosmic speed limit.[/quote]

Aether's effect on mass must be ("we would see a straight line") linear? Where do you get this stuff from? Whether it is or isn't isn't relevant to the fact that you simply made that up out of thin air. And you ignore everything else I posted, conveniently.

I never said it was linear and that cannot be deduced by anything I said. I simply explained a relationship between higher and lower densities with masses and increase or decrease of speed to demonstrate that in concept, the aetheric model I suggest predicts the same outcome of those experiments.

Also, most importantly, you fail to address or acknowledge the experiments in this reference and the other references to other experiments showing the aether exists. Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift Experiments Why is that?

If you don't have time, you have to admit you don't have time to be objective, which would require you to stop denying the aether until you have actually explored the evidence that gives credit to it.

But if you're not going to review it because you simply think it is bogus - that kind of response speaks for itself as to your true agenda.

On Gravity,

The mass and size of an object seems to be in direct proportion to its
influence on other objects, speaking on a planetary scale of course.

The gravitational influence of the Moon has various effects on tide and
possibly weather, and without it the Earth would likely have a slightly
different shape.

This connection things have to effect eachother is some kind of invisible
energy due to the work it performs, and calling it a force of nature would be
altogether true.

Should the phenomenon known as Gravity mean something else?
Its perhaps a matter of opinion.

Like Pluto, how its official status is no longer that of a planet.
How they've failed to change my opinion on the matter is staggering.
Its inception as a planet ought to be revered as timeless.

Fussing over things can be a part of human nature I guess.

quantum gravity

Check out Nassim Haramein on quantum gravity.

Nassim Haramein Quantum Gravity Unification wwwyoutubecomalienscientist - YouTube

Ambiant magnetism exist everywhere.
Presence of mass compress that ambiant magnetism.
We call that compression gravity.

@Replaced
Unfortunately this is a mute point because Einstein himself said that if it is ever proven that anything can exceed the speed of light then General Relativity is dead. As we know this has been proven of neutrino's and Quantum Entanglement so I'm not really sure why your still flogging a dead horse. String and wave theory explain every failure of general relativity and as you may know Einstein and friends could never reconcile quantum entanglement because even Einstein knew and stated as much that it was impossible in his view.
Science evolves and to me it makes little sense to try and saddle a horse which has already proven to be dead.
Regards
AC

@Allcanadian,

I think you are wasting your time trying to convince "replaced". There are some people that will still insist the earth is flat no matter how overwhelming the evidence is they are wrong.

Carroll

Maybe so with "Replaced", but i must say the topic and the reply's has help me quit a bit, in further understanding some OU...

I no OU is real but i'm still learning about the "why OU is real"?

I found both of his threads here very helpful.
Many thanks to you guys who took time to reply to "Replaced" i especially enjoyed Aarons insight in both threads.
This one and http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...not-exist.html

@ replaced.

I understand you feel strongly about general relativity and such but to me it sounds like you are just likemany other people in our history who have held on to old concepts and completely and utterly ignore new ideas, theories etc. An example of this would the people who said heavier than air machines couldn't possibly fly, the earth is flat etc. In my honest opinion that isn't the way a scientist or just people in general should think. Science is about "understanding" the moment we stop trying to understand how our world works we will never progress as a species, technologically or otherwise. It's obvious that general relativity can't explain everything and there are loop holes in the theory itself. It's obvious that its either incomplete or just plain wrong. Accounting for most of the way things work doesn't make it correct. It would have to account for "everything" and it doesn't.


You are entitled to you opinion as that is every persons right, however your mind isn't open to New things which is very apparent by your posts both this thread and others. No offense but what you are doing is similar to many religious groups subjugation of so called non-believers..

@Aaron I applaud your patience with replaced.. lol