International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   The Theory of Relativity will begin to fall apart in 2016/2017 - Part III (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=330864)

CORed 20th September 2019 08:55 AM

I've been lurking on this thread, not posting because people who understand Special Relativity better than I do have been doing a better job than I could of refuting SDG's errors. I have a pretty solid understanding of classical (Newtonian) physics. It's been quite awhile since I really studied Special Relativity. When I did, I felt I had a decent understanding. I could follow the math, and realized that it all derives quite straightforwardly from the postulate that the speed of light is constant to all observers. I will say that, when it comes to General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics, I don't understand the math, which means I really don't understand them at all. I'm pretty familiar with the dumbed down explanations for people who don't understand the math, but I certainly don't feel qualified to get into any serious arguments about either of those topics.

As somebody else posted earlier regarding special relativity, the math isn't too complex, but the concepts are counterintuitive. It turns out, that when you are dealing with relative velocities of a significant fraction of c, that distance, time and mass are not, as we tend to assume, constant properties, but are frame dependent. As far as I can tell, SDG has decided, in his mind, that this simply cannot be right, and uses those incorrect assumptions to find "contradictions" in SR. Of course, SR (and General Relativity, for that matter) have been remarkably robust. Over a century of experiment has not found any data that unequivocally conflicts with either of them. It seems that SDG, in his arrogance, simply cannot accept that the problem is with his assumptions, not with Special Relativity.

Of course, for most of our day-to-day activities, and even for things like landing on the moon or going to Mars, our intuitive, or Newtonian physics assumptions work. Until you start reaching some pretty high relative velocities, the weird part of Special Relativity is so small as to be insignificant, so we can muddle along assuming that time, distance and mass are constants. But, if you want an really accurate GPS, you have start taking that stuff into account.

halleyscomet 20th September 2019 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bjarne (Post 12827075)
All points to a completely misunderstood theory of relativity.

I'd say that's a fair assessment of your understanding of the principals involved.

And really, Planet X and the Pioneer anomalies? You're STILL bringing up those debunked canards even AFTER all the discussions you've participated in here? That's sad. Low energy. I'd hoped you could do better Bjarne. I don't expect you to learn anything about the science you misunderstand, but you could at least evolve your ARGUMENTS based on feedback from the forum.

Pixel42 20th September 2019 01:51 PM

I have no difficulty believing that our understanding of physics is going to improve in the next 120 years, I just don't believe that the sort of ignorant crackpots who start threads like these are going to make a contribution.

halleyscomet 20th September 2019 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pixel42 (Post 12827282)
I have no difficulty believing that our understanding of physics is going to improve in the next 120 years, I just don't believe that the sort of ignorant crackpots who start threads like these are going to make a contribution.



^That right there is the thread winning quote.

Robin 20th September 2019 07:41 PM

I can kind of see where SDG is going wrong. The time component of the LT at x=0 is always the product of the time and the Lorentz factor whichever way you go.

So I can imagine someone seeing this and thinking it is inconsistent.

But of course the x component will not map to x'=0 except when t or v = 0. So the reciprocal transformation would use this value for x and would transform fine back to the original.

Bjarne 20th September 2019 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by halleyscomet (Post 12827120)
I'd say that's a fair assessment of your understanding of the principals involved.

And really, Planet X and the Pioneer anomalies? You're STILL bringing up those debunked canards even AFTER all the discussions you've participated in here? That's sad. Low energy. I'd hoped you could do better Bjarne. I don't expect you to learn anything about the science you misunderstand, but you could at least evolve your ARGUMENTS based on feedback from the forum.

Even the perihelion anomaly of Mercury as well as the cause of gravity is misunderstood brain death BS.

One of the most important keyword of relativity is the total amount of energy, and how the whole concept of energy, which include what you normally understand as mass + kinetic energy + gravitational position energy, - all contribute to one and the same process, which can be described either in a simple word “total mass” or in an advanced word “nuclear interaction”.

Nuclear interaction is a process where the elastic nature of space is intensive involved.
It is the elastic nature of space that is responsible for reality (including time) to either contract or expand.
This will affect reality as a whole.
It happens due to change of tension in space.
That tension is also responsible for supernova explosion as well as so called dark energy.

If the energy level of an objects is increasing, for example due to true speed, the tension of space (the connection between mass and space in and near that object) is also increased, - which can be recognized as RR – Relativistic Resistance against motion and slower ticking clocks.
You can say the deeper an object is involved in the elastic nature of space, the more will the universe prevent such object to move (or decelerate), - as well prevent clocks to tick.

If you bring a stone to higher or lower altitude above the surface of the Earth, you are also manipulering with the energy level of the stone.
Energy cannot be a word, such as "potential" . Energy (potential) is also in this case involved of a nuclear interaction process. Potentiel energy is also "mass".

The short story of reality / energy is; - how much elastic space, - an object, - a star, - or a universe absorbs /contract.

Einstein train is really derailed BS, it have NOTHING with true relativity to do.

Get over that brainwash as soon you can

phunk 22nd September 2019 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bjarne (Post 12827875)
Lets see if both the GR and SR influence of clocks onboard ISS is tested or ONLY GR.

Every single GPS satellite has to take into account both SR and GR in order to function properly.

MRC_Hans 22nd September 2019 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bjarne (Post 12827875)
If the SR influence not is possible to distinguish in the data, / or to be measured in a test of relativity, - what Can i do?

You can, obviously, do nothing.

Quote:

Lets see if both the GR and SR influence of clocks onboard ISS is tested or ONLY GR.
Do you even know what you are talking about?

Quote:

You never respected what I wrote, and you never will, this nothing but a load of BS
Yes, you are right. That is what your writings are.

Hans

halleyscomet 22nd September 2019 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phunk (Post 12828733)
Every single GPS satellite has to take into account both SR and GR in order to function properly.



This has been explained to him before. He responded by creating a conspiracy theory claiming the data is being manually corrected daily. There was a prolonged discussion about how to access the data and how even daily adjustments wouldn’t make GPS work if Relativity was BS. He stuck to his guns on his freshly stillborn conspiracy theory.

Reality Check 22nd September 2019 04:11 PM

An insane and deluded rant about SR which he claims to be modifying
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bjarne (Post 12826513)
SR is one big load of BS...

23 September 2019 Bjarne: An insane and deluded rant about SR which he claims to be modifying and GR :jaw-dropp.

I listed the many mistakes about SR that SDG has made because SDG seems ignorant about SR.

There are maybe thousands of textbooks on SR and GR that show we know the "truth behind SR and GR" very well. That truth is the 2 postulates of SR and the 1 postulate of GR.

Deluded gibberish is never the truth behind SR and GR.

A deluded "This is what the Lorentz transformation is about" lie. The Lorentz transformation is about how to transform between 2 inertial frames of reference in SR.

An ignorant "Lorentz transformation was known before the theory of relativity" lie. The Lorentz transformation was published shortly after Einstein's 1905 SR paper. Several physicists including Lorentz had equations that were almost the transformation. Einstein and Poincaré derived the full transformation. Poincaré named it after Lorentz. Both submitted papers. Einstein's paper was published first so he gets the credit for the first published derivation.

A deluded "The theory of relativity only tried to explain these transformations" lie. The Lorentz transformation was derived from SR. SR is more than just the Lorentz transformation, e.g. E=mc^2 :eye-poppi!

Cites his dueled paper described in 20 September 2019 Bjarne: Utter gibberish about 2031 when he predicted "2016/2017" for SR falling apart and it has not happened yet :jaw-dropp!

Reality Check 22nd September 2019 04:18 PM

A rather insane rant about east and west
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bjarne (Post 12826197)
East and west can be instant directions, the Sun is rising in east, - this also the very first kindergarten lesson, and take these student 0,000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000012424 second to understand.

23 September 2019 Bjarne: A rather insane rant about east and west.

East and west are not universal directions for the simple reason that they vary. Venus rotates in the opposite direction to the Earth so east and west are reversed :eye-poppi! Planets in the solar system have different axial tilts so their east and west (and north and south) are different Asteroids and comets tumble as they spin so their east and west and north and south vary.

Reality Check 22nd September 2019 04:32 PM

A deluded list of examples, e.g. "Pioneer Anomalies" no longer exist
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bjarne (Post 12827075)
Yes I am, maybe 20 years ahead.....

23 September 2019 Bjarne: A deluded list of examples, e.g. "Pioneer Anomalies" no longer exist as he knows.

Also his delusions were debunked by not giving the actual Pioneer anomalies :eye-poppi!

Deluded "brain washed so called dark matter obsession" stupidity - there are almost a dozen lines of evidence for dark matter. His delusions cannot explain any of them. Some "large orbit speed of stars" idiocy. Galaxy rotation curves for stars and gas are evidence for dark matter because the curves flatten out rather than dropping as the visible matter predicts.

"Dark energy" idiocy because his delusions are SR modifications while dark energy is cosmology , i.e. GR.

An idiotic "and at least 100 other relative large mysteries" delusion. His idiocy cannot explain anything. There is unlikely to be > 100 "mysteries".

Reality Check 22nd September 2019 04:42 PM

An irrelevant lying rant about GR
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bjarne (Post 12827560)
Even the perihelion anomaly of Mercury as well as the cause of gravity is misunderstood brain death BS. ...

23 September 2019 Bjarne: An irrelevant lying rant about GR.
His deluded ideas are about SR but one delusion seems to be that modifying "relativity" includes GR when he does not include anything from GR!

A deluded lie that GR does not explain the perihelion anomaly of Mercury as well as the cause of gravity. GR gives an accurate fit to the perihelion anomaly of Mercury. Many predictions of GR have been tested and passed from the bending of light by the Sun to gravitational waves.

A delusion that his idiotic word salad does explain the perihelion anomaly of Mercury as well as the cause of gravity.

"Nuclear interaction" gibberish. "true speed" idiocy (speed is relative).

Reality Check 22nd September 2019 04:52 PM

A delusion that SR is not tested? Or that his delusions can be tested?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bjarne (Post 12827875)
If the SR influence not is possible to distinguish in the data, / or to be measured in a test of relativity, - what Can i do? ...

23 September 2019 Bjarne : A delusion that SR is not tested? Or that his delusions can be tested?
SR has been tested for the last 114 years. GR has been tested for the last 104 years.
His problem is that he has no idea what the new ISS atomic clocks will be used for or what data they will produce. The description of Atomic Clock Ensemble in Space explicitly states tests of GR. That ignorance and no predictions for ACES = he has a problem :jaw-dropp!

Bjarne 22nd September 2019 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reality Check (Post 12828954)
[b] (C/2019 Q4 is a comet, irrelevant GR tests about his SR delusions)

And if that object suddenly begin to behave a little strange, its not a comet, not a asteroid , but a UFO
This is at least the way it goes if you should believe the World most renowned, University..
And still you will say you cannot see that you are dealing with a brain death paradigm ?

Harvard prof doesn't back down from claims that alien spacecraft may be zipping past Jupiter orbit
https://www.foxnews.com/science/harv...-jupiter-orbit

Bjarne 23rd September 2019 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phunk (Post 12828733)
Every single GPS satellite has to take into account both SR and GR in order to function properly.

I thought we was finish discussing that irrelevant question, :

A lot of factors affect a satellite:
  1. Space weather
  2. Artic Ice variation
  3. Baltic Sea mass variation
  4. Tidal variation
  5. Planet , Sun Moon perturbation
  6. Sun & Moon tidal variation
  7. Atmospheric collision
And a lot more fare about my head.
Many are variants, and therefore impossible to predict.
Furthermore read this copy Paste

Spacecraft Anomalies
Whether the NASA MMOD programs focus on protecting the space environment or the spacecraft, monitoring, reporting, and analysis of satellite anomalies are of vital importance.
Particulate-induced anomalies could provide valuable validation of environment characterization of objects within critical size ranges (5 mm to 10 cm for debris and 10–11 g for meteoroids) and velocities (7 km/s for debris, up to 72 km/s for meteoroids if in bound solar orbit), as well as a better understanding of operational effects owing to particulate impacts.

Satellite anomalies are mission-degrading or mission-terminating events affecting on-orbit operational spacecraft.
However, it is not normal procedure to provide information on these anomalies to the public or even to other offices within the same organization, for to a variety of reasons: limited staff for reporting and analysis, concerns about system reputation, desire to protect proprietary information, uncertainty in the meaning or cause of the events, national security, and so on.
Depending on their severity, a program operations philosophy, and an available staff, anomalies are recorded and analyzed to some degree.
Individual operational satellite programs, such as Iridium, Defense Meteorological Satellites Program, and others, use such information as a means to (1) assess system performance, (2) determine potential changes in operations, or (3) diagnose the cause of an event.

There is no standard nomenclature for describing system symptoms associated with anomalies or how they are recorded, shared, resolved, or stored.
There is no standard approach to prioritizing steps in a process for addressing an anomaly, including recording, resolution, and/or determination of cause.
Many system operators are much more concerned about getting their satellite back into operation than about determining the cause of a failure. Repeat failures often get examined much more rigorously.

Typically, the following causes of anomalies are considered: routine failures of parts, electrostatic discharge, single-event upset, command error, particulate impact, and unknown.

Unfortunately, there is no standard resolution process to determine the cause of an anomaly. The process of determining a cause is unreliable, and the degree of confidence applied to any one cause is minimal.
“Unknown” is attributed to the vast majority of anomaly cases, since it is so difficult to determine exactly what happens in space without dedicated instrumentation to provide insights from on-orbit encounters that adversely affect satellite operations.
There may be times when an “unknown” is erroneously attributed to a meteoroid or orbital debris event. Or there may other times when additional data indicates a high probability that the failure was caused by an MMOD event (see Box 10.1).
From a flight safety perspective (i.e., protecting the spacecraft), determining the cause of anomalies in space is important to better assess how the system will continue to function and how future systems might perform.


Read more
https://www.nap.edu/read/13244/chapter/12#75

Bjarne 23rd September 2019 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reality Check (Post 12828963)
[b]
There are maybe thousands of textbooks on SR and GR

Even test of the lost Galileo satellites has limit to a test GR
You KNOW it..
Why not test SR
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

steenkh 23rd September 2019 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bjarne (Post 12829195)
I thought we was finish discussing that irrelevant question, :

A lot of factors affect a satellite:
  1. Space weather
  2. Artic Ice variation
  3. Baltic Sea mass variation
  4. Tidal variation
  5. Planet , Sun Moon perturbation
  6. Sun & Moon tidal variation
  7. Atmospheric collision
And a lot more fare about my head.
Many are variants, and therefore impossible to predict.

Yes, there are a lot of factors influencing the precise location of satellites, but it is quite irrelevant for this discussion: SR must be taken into account, or the positioning will not work at all.
Quote:

Furthermore read this copy Paste
Rather not; it is irrelevant.

halleyscomet 23rd September 2019 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bjarne (Post 12829201)
Why not test SR

I think you would find a rich source of inspiration and affirmation if you looked up the pro-Hydrino posts on this forum and elsewhere on the Internet. It's right up your alley.

Reality Check 23rd September 2019 01:38 PM

Ignorant fantasy about comet C/2019 Q4 (Borisov)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bjarne (Post 12829191)
And ...

24 September 2019 Bjarne: And an ignorant fantasy about comet C/2019 Q4 (Borisov)
C/2019 Q4 (Borisov) is a comet. A fantasy of /2019 Q4 (Borisov) behaving strangely will change the fact that it is a comet. Especially not a delusion of a UFO since we have identified it :p!

Reality Check 23rd September 2019 01:49 PM

A "World most renowned, University" delusion and "brain death paradigm" stupidity
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bjarne (Post 12829191)
And if that object suddenly begin to behave a little strange, its not a comet, not a asteroid , but a UFO
This is at least the way it goes if you should believe the World most renowned, University..
And still you will say you cannot see that you are dealing with a brain death paradigm ?

24 September 2019 Bjarne: A "World most renowned, University" delusion and "brain death paradigm" stupidity.
A delusions that a famous university discovered C/2019 Q4 (Borisov) and found it to be a comet. Amateur astronomer Gennadiy Borisov discovered C/2019 Q4 (Borisov) and saw the "object was diffuse and that it was not an asteroid, but a comet". Anyone in the world with a good enough telescope can see that this comet is a comet.

There is no paradigm in the simple fact of detecting a comet :jaw-dropp. That is people looking thru telescopes and seeing an object with a coma and tail (the definition of a comet).

Reality Check 23rd September 2019 01:59 PM

Idiotic citation of a scientist's opinion
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bjarne (Post 12829191)
Harvard prof...

24 September 2019 Bjarne: Idiotic citation of a scientist's opinion as if that makes his fantasies less deluded.
A paper by Avi Loeb and other authors that mentioned that if 'Oumuamua was artificial then it was consistent with an abandoned light sail. Other astronomers pointed out that this was wild speculation.
Fox news (:eek:) reported on February 5 (2019?) that Avi Loeb was still holding onto this speculation. That is his right as a person and scientist.

Reality Check 23rd September 2019 02:09 PM

A long post irrelevant to GPS satellites and SR/GR with a lie
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bjarne (Post 12829195)
I thought we was finish discussing that irrelevant question, :..

24 September 2019 Bjarne: A long post irrelevant to GPS satellites and SR/GR starts with a lie.
GPS satellites work because they account for GR and SR has to be accounted for in GPS receivers. This is an easily understood demonstration that SR and GR are correct.
It is a lie that a well known test of SR and GR is not relevant to his delusional ideas on SR and GR. He needs to show why GPS satellites work when his ideas suggest that they cannot.

There are factors that affect satellites which astronomers know about and are irrelevant to GPS satellites and their versification of SR and GR.

A bit of "NASA paranoia" pops up again with irrelevant highlighting of rational reasons that satellite anomalies may not be reported to the public and that reporting anomalies was not standardized whenever the document was written.

Reality Check 23rd September 2019 02:22 PM

An abysmally ignorant "Why not test SR" question
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bjarne (Post 12829201)
...Why not test SR

24 September 2019 Bjarne: An abysmally ignorant "Why not test SR" question.
SR has been tested extensively for 114 years and that testing continues :eye-poppi! The LHC only works because SR is accounted for. GPS only works accurately because receivers use SR. There is no need to use expensive satellites to test SR.
Satellites are in orbit and so are an excellent test bed for testing GR.

P.S. No rational scientist will waste their time doing a test of SR just because a random Internet physics crank thinks one is needed. If there was an actual test of SR supported by physics that needed to be done on the ISS then it would be done.

Bjarne 23rd September 2019 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steenkh (Post 12829253)
Yes, there are a lot of factors influencing the precise location of satellites, but it is quite irrelevant for this discussion: SR must be taken into account, or the positioning will not work at all.
.

PLENTY of factors must be taken into account, and nobody know what is what

abaddon 23rd September 2019 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bjarne (Post 12830049)
PLENTY of factors must be taken into account, and nobody know what is what

Projection. Just because you don't does not mean nobody else can either.

Your limitations are not universal.

Reality Check 23rd September 2019 02:56 PM

A couple of lies, one idiotic and another insane
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bjarne (Post 12830049)
PLENTY of factors must be taken into account, and nobody know what is what

24 September 2019 Bjarne : A couple of lies, one idiotic and another insane : "must be taken into account" and "nobody know what is what"
The idiotic lie is that his abysmal level of ignorance means that he has no idea if satellite anomalies affect GPS verification of SR and GR. That abysmal ignorance extends to the fact that GPS uses multiple satellite so some anomalies are definitively irrelevant, e.g. dust impacts. That abysmal ignorance may include that GPS uses satellite anomalies :eye-poppi! If an event is significant enough to affect GPS satellite orbits then it should be included in the calculations.

An insane "nobody know what is what" lie when he cited and quoted from a document listing everyone knowing what is what :jaw-dropp!
Limiting Future Collision Risk to Spacecraft: An Assessment of NASA's Meteoroid and Orbital Debris Programs (2011) Chapter 10: Spacecraft Anomalies

Robin 23rd September 2019 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bjarne (Post 12830049)
PLENTY of factors must be taken into account, and nobody know what is what

If that were true then satellite navigation would be impossible.

Bjarne 23rd September 2019 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12830083)
If that were true then satellite navigation would be impossible.

No, not at all, all kind of impact effects satellites, and hence the GPS, - if these impacts not could be "ignored", the GPS would not work.
No one can distinguish and fully account for which anomaly is caused by what, so long as the environment not is monitored.
All impacting influences must be known exactly, if you want to perform a scientific test.

Do you really think it's just for fun, - that test the theory of relativity onboard the ISS or in the Galileo system is taken place?

Data from the 2 "derailed" Galileo satellites are not good enough to test SR. Its ONLY a GR test.

The ISS is full of Equipment to support such test, for example altitude measurement devices.

If there was no reason, to test relativity, because as you say: we already know the theory is perfect, - why then test it ?

Do you know the cost for bring just 1 Kg. and scientist to the ISS ?

Bjarne 23rd September 2019 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reality Check (Post 12830066)
24 September 2019 Bjarne : A couple of lies, one idiotic and another insane : "
An insane ,,,,

I think you have used these words "insane idiotic liars" at least 10.000 times here at the forum.. And no, this is NOT a lie.

I normally never reply because it is against my moral to take a discussion to such "insane idiotic " unnecessary and inappropriate low level .. ( I just used your own "insane idiotic " words, so now complain to the moderator )….

Bjarne 23rd September 2019 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steenkh (Post 12829253)
Yes, there are a lot of factors influencing the precise location of satellites, but it is quite irrelevant for this discussion: SR must be taken into account, or the positioning will not work at all.
.

Now show me the SR influence in the Galileo 5 & 6 test results.
The first data set is available.
The SR data is not there
You can only guess what SR account for
Only GR was tested, - not SR
WHY ?
Where is the gravitational crust / altitude variation data is this test ?
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/fe...RACE/page3.php

Reality Check 23rd September 2019 09:37 PM

A delusion that impacts affect GPS when GPS uses multiple satellites, etc
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bjarne (Post 12830311)
No, not at all, all kind of impact effects satellites, and hence the GPS...

24 September 2019 Bjarne: A repeated delusion that impacts affect GPS when GPS uses multiple satellites, etc.

Bjarne 23rd September 2019 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reality Check (Post 12830347)
24 September 2019 Bjarne: A repeated delusion that impacts affect GPS when GPS uses multiple satellites, etc.

Hej Man, where is the words "insane + idiotic + lies " today ?
Do you really want a serious discussion today ?

Bjarne 23rd September 2019 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reality Check (Post 12830347)
24 September 2019 Bjarne: A repeated delusion that impacts affect GPS when GPS uses multiple satellites, etc.

Multiple or not, it make no difference.
GPS is NOT a scientific test of GR or SR

Reality Check 23rd September 2019 09:47 PM

Does understand when he lies or states idiocy that will be pointed out
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bjarne (Post 12830330)
.

24 September 2019 Bjarne: Does understand when he lies or states idiocy that will be pointed out.
For example:
It a is a lie that the Pioneer anomaly exists because the Pioneer anomaly has been explained.
It is idiotic to fanaticize about impacts making GPS satellites not work when GPS works :jaw-dropp!
The last becomes an idiotic lie when he cites a document about spacecraft impacts that does not mention GPS satellites and we add that fact that the people who designed GPS knew about spacecraft impacts :eye-poppi.

Reality Check 23rd September 2019 09:49 PM

idiotic demand that we do his work for him
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bjarne (Post 12830340)
Now show me the SR influence in the Galileo 5 & 6 test results....

24 September 2019 Bjarne: An idiotic demand that we do his work for him.

The Galileo 5 & 6 test results are obviously available because at least 1 paper has been published that analyzed that data to test GR yet again.

Reality Check 23rd September 2019 09:54 PM

An idiotic "GPS is NOT a [B]scientific [/B]test of GR or SR" lie
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bjarne (Post 12830349)
GPS is NOT a scientific test of GR or SR

24 September 2019 Bjarne: An idiotic "GPS is NOT a scientific test of GR or SR" lie.
GPS only works because GPS clocks are set to a specific and different rate than ground clocks. That is a test of the effects of GR. GPS receivers use SR to increase their accuracy. That is a test of the effects of SR.
Tests of general relativity
Tests of special relativity

If SR or GR are wrong then GPS would not work or not be as accurate.

Reality Check 23rd September 2019 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bjarne (Post 12830348)
Do you really want a serious discussion today ?

A serious discussion cannot be had with someone with a many years long track record of ignorance and delusions about the subject being discussed.
As in what you replied to: 24 September 2019 Bjarne: A repeated delusion that impacts affect GPS when GPS uses multiple satellites, etc.
Or the persistent ignorance and gibberish in this 9 year old thread: Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion. The OP includes the idiocy of citing the crank cartoonist Neal Adams! The persistent RR delusion (a denial of Newton's first law :eek:) popped up close to 10 years ago in Is Bended Space = Contracted Space ? (13th October 2009)

Bjarne 24th September 2019 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reality Check (Post 12830352)
24 September 2019 Bjarne: An idiotic demand that we do his work for him.

The Galileo 5 & 6 test results are obviously available because at least 1 paper has been published that analyzed that data to test GR yet again.

GR is not important. ONLY SR

Hej Mann, - Have someone hacked your account here, where is the words "insane + idiotic + lies " today ?

Bjarne 24th September 2019 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reality Check (Post 12830351)
24 September 2019 Bjarne: Does understand when he lies or states idiocy that will be pointed out.
For example:
It a is a lie that the Pioneer anomaly exists because the Pioneer anomaly has been explained.

It a is a lie that the Pioneer anomaly exists because the Pioneer anomaly has been explained. indoctrinated /brainwashed to innocent student..
2 NASA researcher do NOT agree .. Just a matter of FACT

Quote:

It is idiotic to fanaticize about impacts making GPS satellites not work when GPS works :jaw-dropp!
It is idiotic to fanaticize about GPS satellites - as was this a science tests setup, instead of a purely profit making arrangement in the real World, - full of satellites disruptive anomalies :jaw-dropp!

Quote:

The last becomes an idiotic lie .
Why not a "insane idiotic deluded lie"
"You" (?) forgot "insane" and "deluded"
Are you there RC?
I cannot recognize you ?
Something must be terrible wrong..
Or have a hacker written this ?
Now I am confused.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:10 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.