[I don't follow such toxic threads as this, but happened to see this.]

On 11/23/21 6:24 PM, RichD wrote:
> Here's a quote from one of them:
> "... the GPS indicate that light travels faster West than East on the surface
> of the rotating Earth."

That actually happens to be true. But such "measurements" don't
"invalidate" SR, because SR predicts precisely that, for such a
mixed-frame "measurement".

> That paper is titled:
> "Faster west than east: The GPS invalidates Special Relativity"

That is most definitely NOT true.

The reason is very simple: SR implies that the vacuum speed of light is
c in every inertial frame. But this is using the GPS time coordinate OF
THE ECI FRAME, while it is measuring distance ON THE SURFACE OF THE
ROTATING EARTH -- two different "frames" are involved. Such a distance
divided by such a time is NOT a measurement of any speed, it is just a
mixed-frame ratio signifying nothing.

[On a more subtle level, the GPS does indeed invalidate
SR, because GR is needed to model it. The GPS is fully
consistent with GR.]

Lake displays his personal ignorance by quoting such papers. RichD
displays his by uncritically copying such nonsense.

Tom Roberts

On 11/23/2021 12:46 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 November 2021 at 16:25:32 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 11/22/2021 3:03 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 19:24:56 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 11/22/2021 8:53 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 14:25:22 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 11:46:29 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 19 November 2021 at 16:46:14 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 19 November 2021 at 14:24:21 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> [-]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by your insane religion GPS clocks keep measuring
>>>>>>>>>>>>> t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that t /= t' has been known for a long time.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So was the fact that Earth is flat. And many others.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Atomic clocks made direct demonstrations possible,
>>>>>>>>>>>> first by flying them around the world on a 747,
>>>>>>>>>>>> nowadays universally by comparing GPS clocks
>>>>>>>>>>>> with atomic clocks in their base stations.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. They indicate t';=t, with the precision of
>>>>>>>>>>> an acceptable error.
>>>>>>>>>> Nowadays even table-top experiments show that they don't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then - put your nowadays experiments straight into your dumb,
>>>>>>>>> fanatic ass, where they belong. The clocks of GPS indicate/measure
>>>>>>>>> t'=t, with the precision of an acceptable error, and anyone
>>>>>>>>> can check it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But clocks are getting more 'serious' all the time.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nowadays the best ones, for example strontium lattice clocks,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Your opinion doesn't matter, GPS has demonstrated
>>>>>>>>>>> your dilating junk to be worthless when it came to real,
>>>>>>>>>>> serious measurements. Common sense was warning
>>>>>>>>>>> your insane guru. It was warning all of you.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Build two identical clocks
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Since when, and why such an idiotic requirement?
>>>>>>>>>>> No, I will build some non-identical clocks instead.
>>>>>>>>>> If you ignore real experimental data
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
>>>>>>>>> moronic religion non-identical GPS clocks keep
>>>>>>>>> measuring t'=t, just like all serious (and non-identical)
>>>>>>>>> clocks always did. But, of course, as you ignore
>>>>>>>>> real experimental data that prove you are wrong
>>>>>>>>> there is no point in continuing an argument.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> These are good times for you,
>>>>>>>> the number of things you must be in denial on
>>>>>>>> is growing all the time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I was only your strawman... I'm not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> GPS made accounting for it a practical necessity
>>>>>>>> to make the system work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure. Common sense was warning your idiot guru,
>>>>>>> to work the clocks must be synchronized. "Synchronized"
>>>>>>> means - if one indicates t, and another t' - t must be
>>>>>>> equal to t'.
>>>>>>> Well, E. wasn't the first idiot fighting the common
>>>>>>> sense. It always ends the same way. So, the clocks
>>>>>>> keep being synchronized and measuring t'=t, while
>>>>>>> your mad bunch is enchanting the reality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, it might have slipped your attention that Einstein gave a sample
>>>>>> procedure how to synchronize clocks that are a) at rest relative to each
>>>>>> other, and b) at the same gravitational potential.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, it might have (and have) slipped your attention that
>>>>> a) at rest relative to each other, and b) at the same
>>>>> gravitational potential - are ridiculous requirements
>>>>> never fulfilled in the real world, and thus the Holy
>>>>> Procedure is pretty unusable.
>>>> Sounds like two clocks on a table would do.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And in fact, the only way to make two clocks stay synchronized
>>>>>> outside those constraints is to make at least one of them a nonstandard
>>>>>> clock.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not quite; rather - it's to make them according to the
>>>>> standards of common sense and the sane people,
>>>>> instead according to those of yours.
>>>> Whose common sense?
>>>
>>> Common, stupid Mike. Nothing you could possible
>>> comprehend, being one of those having none.
>> Whose common sense?
>
> Common, stupid Mike.

So who is this "Common" person, janitor? Is "Common" his/her first or
last name? What is this person's last/first name? How did "Common" get
to be the model for Common Sense? Maybe "common" in "common sense"
doesn't mean "not scarce" but the expression really should be "Common's
sense"?

I'll ask, why do you think Common's sense should dictate anything about
synchronizing clocks? Is Common a watchmaker or something?

On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 05:08:02 UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote:
> [I don't follow such toxic threads as this, but happened to see this.]
> On 11/23/21 6:24 PM, RichD wrote:
> > Here's a quote from one of them:
> > "... the GPS indicate that light travels faster West than East on the surface
> > of the rotating Earth."
> That actually happens to be true. But such "measurements" don't
> "invalidate" SR, because SR predicts precisely that, for such a
> mixed-frame "measurement".

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by
your moronic religion GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did. Your screams
"We're FORCED!!!" simply didn't work.

> The reason is very simple: SR implies that the vacuum speed of light is
> c in every inertial frame. But this is using the GPS time coordinate OF
> THE ECI FRAME, while it is measuring distance ON THE SURFACE OF THE
> ROTATING EARTH -- two different "frames" are involved. Such a distance
> divided by such a time is NOT a measurement of any speed, it is just a
> mixed-frame ratio signifying nothing.

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by
your moronic religion GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did. Your screams
"We're FORCED!!!" simply didn't work.

> [On a more subtle level, the GPS does indeed invalidate
> SR, because GR is needed to model it. The GPS is fully
> consistent with GR.]

A lie, as expected from a fanatic idiot.

On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 06:32:59 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 11/23/2021 12:46 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 23 November 2021 at 16:25:32 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 11/22/2021 3:03 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 19:24:56 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 11/22/2021 8:53 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 14:25:22 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 11:46:29 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Friday, 19 November 2021 at 16:46:14 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 19 November 2021 at 14:24:21 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [-]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> by your insane religion GPS clocks keep measuring
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that t /= t' has been known for a long time.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> So was the fact that Earth is flat. And many others.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Atomic clocks made direct demonstrations possible,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> first by flying them around the world on a 747,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> nowadays universally by comparing GPS clocks
> >>>>>>>>>>>> with atomic clocks in their base stations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Sure. They indicate t';=t, with the precision of
> >>>>>>>>>>> an acceptable error.
> >>>>>>>>>> Nowadays even table-top experiments show that they don't.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Then - put your nowadays experiments straight into your dumb,
> >>>>>>>>> fanatic ass, where they belong. The clocks of GPS indicate/measure
> >>>>>>>>> t'=t, with the precision of an acceptable error, and anyone
> >>>>>>>>> can check it.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> But clocks are getting more 'serious' all the time.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nowadays the best ones, for example strontium lattice clocks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Your opinion doesn't matter, GPS has demonstrated
> >>>>>>>>>>> your dilating junk to be worthless when it came to real,
> >>>>>>>>>>> serious measurements. Common sense was warning
> >>>>>>>>>>> your insane guru. It was warning all of you.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Build two identical clocks
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Since when, and why such an idiotic requirement?
> >>>>>>>>>>> No, I will build some non-identical clocks instead.
> >>>>>>>>>> If you ignore real experimental data
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
> >>>>>>>>> moronic religion non-identical GPS clocks keep
> >>>>>>>>> measuring t'=t, just like all serious (and non-identical)
> >>>>>>>>> clocks always did. But, of course, as you ignore
> >>>>>>>>> real experimental data that prove you are wrong
> >>>>>>>>> there is no point in continuing an argument.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> These are good times for you,
> >>>>>>>> the number of things you must be in denial on
> >>>>>>>> is growing all the time.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If I was only your strawman... I'm not.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> GPS made accounting for it a practical necessity
> >>>>>>>> to make the system work.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sure. Common sense was warning your idiot guru,
> >>>>>>> to work the clocks must be synchronized. "Synchronized"
> >>>>>>> means - if one indicates t, and another t' - t must be
> >>>>>>> equal to t'.
> >>>>>>> Well, E. wasn't the first idiot fighting the common
> >>>>>>> sense. It always ends the same way. So, the clocks
> >>>>>>> keep being synchronized and measuring t'=t, while
> >>>>>>> your mad bunch is enchanting the reality.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Well, it might have slipped your attention that Einstein gave a sample
> >>>>>> procedure how to synchronize clocks that are a) at rest relative to each
> >>>>>> other, and b) at the same gravitational potential.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well, it might have (and have) slipped your attention that
> >>>>> a) at rest relative to each other, and b) at the same
> >>>>> gravitational potential - are ridiculous requirements
> >>>>> never fulfilled in the real world, and thus the Holy
> >>>>> Procedure is pretty unusable.
> >>>> Sounds like two clocks on a table would do.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> And in fact, the only way to make two clocks stay synchronized
> >>>>>> outside those constraints is to make at least one of them a nonstandard
> >>>>>> clock.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not quite; rather - it's to make them according to the
> >>>>> standards of common sense and the sane people,
> >>>>> instead according to those of yours.
> >>>> Whose common sense?
> >>>
> >>> Common, stupid Mike. Nothing you could possible
> >>> comprehend, being one of those having none.
> >> Whose common sense?
> >
> > Common, stupid Mike.
> So who is this "Common" person, janitor? Is "Common" his/her first or
> last name?

There was never any doubt you're too dumb to understand
how a society works, but I thought English is your native
language, stupid Mike.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 November 2021 at 16:25:32 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 11/22/2021 3:03 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 19:24:56 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 11/22/2021 8:53 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 14:25:22 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 11:46:29 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 19 November 2021 at 16:46:14 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 19 November 2021 at 14:24:21 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> [-]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by your insane religion GPS clocks keep measuring
>>>>>>>>>>>>> t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that t /= t' has been known for a long time.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So was the fact that Earth is flat. And many others.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Atomic clocks made direct demonstrations possible,
>>>>>>>>>>>> first by flying them around the world on a 747,
>>>>>>>>>>>> nowadays universally by comparing GPS clocks
>>>>>>>>>>>> with atomic clocks in their base stations.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. They indicate t';=t, with the precision of
>>>>>>>>>>> an acceptable error.
>>>>>>>>>> Nowadays even table-top experiments show that they don't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then - put your nowadays experiments straight into your dumb,
>>>>>>>>> fanatic ass, where they belong. The clocks of GPS indicate/measure
>>>>>>>>> t'=t, with the precision of an acceptable error, and anyone
>>>>>>>>> can check it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But clocks are getting more 'serious' all the time.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nowadays the best ones, for example strontium lattice clocks,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Your opinion doesn't matter, GPS has demonstrated
>>>>>>>>>>> your dilating junk to be worthless when it came to real,
>>>>>>>>>>> serious measurements. Common sense was warning
>>>>>>>>>>> your insane guru. It was warning all of you.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Build two identical clocks
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Since when, and why such an idiotic requirement?
>>>>>>>>>>> No, I will build some non-identical clocks instead.
>>>>>>>>>> If you ignore real experimental data
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
>>>>>>>>> moronic religion non-identical GPS clocks keep
>>>>>>>>> measuring t'=t, just like all serious (and non-identical)
>>>>>>>>> clocks always did. But, of course, as you ignore
>>>>>>>>> real experimental data that prove you are wrong
>>>>>>>>> there is no point in continuing an argument.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> These are good times for you,
>>>>>>>> the number of things you must be in denial on
>>>>>>>> is growing all the time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I was only your strawman... I'm not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> GPS made accounting for it a practical necessity
>>>>>>>> to make the system work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure. Common sense was warning your idiot guru,
>>>>>>> to work the clocks must be synchronized. "Synchronized"
>>>>>>> means - if one indicates t, and another t' - t must be
>>>>>>> equal to t'.
>>>>>>> Well, E. wasn't the first idiot fighting the common
>>>>>>> sense. It always ends the same way. So, the clocks
>>>>>>> keep being synchronized and measuring t'=t, while
>>>>>>> your mad bunch is enchanting the reality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, it might have slipped your attention that Einstein gave a sample
>>>>>> procedure how to synchronize clocks that are a) at rest relative to each
>>>>>> other, and b) at the same gravitational potential.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, it might have (and have) slipped your attention that
>>>>> a) at rest relative to each other, and b) at the same
>>>>> gravitational potential - are ridiculous requirements
>>>>> never fulfilled in the real world, and thus the Holy
>>>>> Procedure is pretty unusable.
>>>> Sounds like two clocks on a table would do.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And in fact, the only way to make two clocks stay synchronized
>>>>>> outside those constraints is to make at least one of them a nonstandard
>>>>>> clock.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not quite; rather - it's to make them according to the
>>>>> standards of common sense and the sane people,
>>>>> instead according to those of yours.
>>>> Whose common sense?
>>>
>>> Common, stupid Mike. Nothing you could possible
>>> comprehend, being one of those having none.
>> Whose common sense?
>
> Common, stupid Mike. Nothing you could possible
> comprehend, being one of those having none.
>

Wozniak would prefer to think that the way he thinks is the way most people
think. That way it helps defuse the observation by his therapists that he’s
not alright upstairs.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 10:08:02 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
> [I don't follow such toxic threads as this, but happened to see this.]
> On 11/23/21 6:24 PM, RichD wrote:
> > Here's a quote from one of them:
> > "... the GPS indicate that light travels faster West than East on the surface
> > of the rotating Earth."
> That actually happens to be true. But such "measurements" don't
> "invalidate" SR, because SR predicts precisely that, for such a
> mixed-frame "measurement".
> > That paper is titled:
> > "Faster west than east: The GPS invalidates Special Relativity"
> That is most definitely NOT true.
>
> The reason is very simple: SR implies that the vacuum speed of light is
> c in every inertial frame. But this is using the GPS time coordinate OF
> THE ECI FRAME, while it is measuring distance ON THE SURFACE OF THE
> ROTATING EARTH -- two different "frames" are involved. Such a distance
> divided by such a time is NOT a measurement of any speed, it is just a
> mixed-frame ratio signifying nothing.
>
> [On a more subtle level, the GPS does indeed invalidate
> SR, because GR is needed to model it. The GPS is fully
> consistent with GR.]
>
> Lake displays his personal ignorance by quoting such papers. RichD
> displays his by uncritically copying such nonsense.
>
> Tom Roberts

Actually, what I quoted is valid. The quote is:
"The results reported here obtained using the GPS indicate that light travels
faster West than East on the surface of the rotating Earth. Using the CCIR
clock synchronization algorithm light speed was found to be c-v eastward
and c+v westward in the frame of the rotating Earth."

The author thinks that "invalidates" Special Relativity because he thinks
Einstein's Second Postulate is the one found in most text books, not
the Second Postulate Einstein actually wrote. The author explains:

"The one-way speed of light on the surface of the rotating Earth
is determined using modern GPS technology. One method employs the
GPS clock synchronization algorithm while the other is based on
light speed isotropy in the Earth Centered Inertial frame that is
critical to GPS operation. Using these two approaches it is easily
shown that light travels faster West than East relative to the
surface of the Earth. This finding directly contradicts Einstein's
principle of light speed constancy and thereby invalidates the
Lorentz Transformations and Special Relativity Theory for which the
principle is a fundamental requirement."

In sum, he's saying the GPS invalidates Einstein's Special Relativity
AS DESCRIBED IN MOST TEXT BOOKS and confirms Einstein's
Special Relativity as EINSTEIN actually defined it.

Ed

El miércoles, 24 de noviembre de 2021 a las 12:25:48 UTC-3, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 10:08:02 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
> > [I don't follow such toxic threads as this, but happened to see this.]
> > On 11/23/21 6:24 PM, RichD wrote:
> > > Here's a quote from one of them:
> > > "... the GPS indicate that light travels faster West than East on the surface
> > > of the rotating Earth."
> > That actually happens to be true. But such "measurements" don't
> > "invalidate" SR, because SR predicts precisely that, for such a
> > mixed-frame "measurement".
> > > That paper is titled:
> > > "Faster west than east: The GPS invalidates Special Relativity"
> > That is most definitely NOT true.
> >
> > The reason is very simple: SR implies that the vacuum speed of light is
> > c in every inertial frame. But this is using the GPS time coordinate OF
> > THE ECI FRAME, while it is measuring distance ON THE SURFACE OF THE
> > ROTATING EARTH -- two different "frames" are involved. Such a distance
> > divided by such a time is NOT a measurement of any speed, it is just a
> > mixed-frame ratio signifying nothing.
> >
> > [On a more subtle level, the GPS does indeed invalidate
> > SR, because GR is needed to model it. The GPS is fully
> > consistent with GR.]
> >
> > Lake displays his personal ignorance by quoting such papers. RichD
> > displays his by uncritically copying such nonsense.
> >
> > Tom Roberts
> Actually, what I quoted is valid. The quote is:
> "The results reported here obtained using the GPS indicate that light travels
> faster West than East on the surface of the rotating Earth. Using the CCIR
> clock synchronization algorithm light speed was found to be c-v eastward
> and c+v westward in the frame of the rotating Earth."
>
> The author thinks that "invalidates" Special Relativity because he thinks
> Einstein's Second Postulate is the one found in most text books, not
> the Second Postulate Einstein actually wrote. The author explains:
>
> "The one-way speed of light on the surface of the rotating Earth
> is determined using modern GPS technology. One method employs the
> GPS clock synchronization algorithm while the other is based on
> light speed isotropy in the Earth Centered Inertial frame that is
> critical to GPS operation. Using these two approaches it is easily
> shown that light travels faster West than East relative to the
> surface of the Earth. This finding directly contradicts Einstein's
> principle of light speed constancy and thereby invalidates the
> Lorentz Transformations and Special Relativity Theory for which the
> principle is a fundamental requirement."
>
> In sum, he's saying the GPS invalidates Einstein's Special Relativity
> AS DESCRIBED IN MOST TEXT BOOKS and confirms Einstein's
> Special Relativity as EINSTEIN actually defined it.
>
> Ed

Tom correctly wrote "On a more subtle level, the GPS does indeed invalidate
SR, because GR is needed to model it. The GPS is fully consistent with GR".

As always you do not read what it is written....... General Relativity is the model that correctly models the GPS system.

Read the excelent presentation of Paul Andersen at https://paulba.no/pdf/GPS_clock_rate.pdf

On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 7:25:48 AM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:

> In sum, he's saying the GPS invalidates Einstein's Special Relativity
> AS DESCRIBED IN MOST TEXT BOOKS and confirms Einstein's
> Special Relativity as EINSTEIN actually defined it.
>
Ed,

You need to come to terms with the fact that you are an imbecile. You were born this way, your only consolation is that you will die this way. In the process, you are advertising your cretinism to the www

On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 10:06:09 AM UTC-6, Paparios wrote:
> El miércoles, 24 de noviembre de 2021 a las 12:25:48 UTC-3, escribió:
> > On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 10:08:02 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > [I don't follow such toxic threads as this, but happened to see this.]
> > > On 11/23/21 6:24 PM, RichD wrote:
> > > > Here's a quote from one of them:
> > > > "... the GPS indicate that light travels faster West than East on the surface
> > > > of the rotating Earth."
> > > That actually happens to be true. But such "measurements" don't
> > > "invalidate" SR, because SR predicts precisely that, for such a
> > > mixed-frame "measurement".
> > > > That paper is titled:
> > > > "Faster west than east: The GPS invalidates Special Relativity"
> > > That is most definitely NOT true.
> > >
> > > The reason is very simple: SR implies that the vacuum speed of light is
> > > c in every inertial frame. But this is using the GPS time coordinate OF
> > > THE ECI FRAME, while it is measuring distance ON THE SURFACE OF THE
> > > ROTATING EARTH -- two different "frames" are involved. Such a distance
> > > divided by such a time is NOT a measurement of any speed, it is just a
> > > mixed-frame ratio signifying nothing.
> > >
> > > [On a more subtle level, the GPS does indeed invalidate
> > > SR, because GR is needed to model it. The GPS is fully
> > > consistent with GR.]
> > >
> > > Lake displays his personal ignorance by quoting such papers. RichD
> > > displays his by uncritically copying such nonsense.
> > >
> > > Tom Roberts
> > Actually, what I quoted is valid. The quote is:
> > "The results reported here obtained using the GPS indicate that light travels
> > faster West than East on the surface of the rotating Earth. Using the CCIR
> > clock synchronization algorithm light speed was found to be c-v eastward
> > and c+v westward in the frame of the rotating Earth."
> >
> > The author thinks that "invalidates" Special Relativity because he thinks
> > Einstein's Second Postulate is the one found in most text books, not
> > the Second Postulate Einstein actually wrote. The author explains:
> >
> > "The one-way speed of light on the surface of the rotating Earth
> > is determined using modern GPS technology. One method employs the
> > GPS clock synchronization algorithm while the other is based on
> > light speed isotropy in the Earth Centered Inertial frame that is
> > critical to GPS operation. Using these two approaches it is easily
> > shown that light travels faster West than East relative to the
> > surface of the Earth. This finding directly contradicts Einstein's
> > principle of light speed constancy and thereby invalidates the
> > Lorentz Transformations and Special Relativity Theory for which the
> > principle is a fundamental requirement."
> >
> > In sum, he's saying the GPS invalidates Einstein's Special Relativity
> > AS DESCRIBED IN MOST TEXT BOOKS and confirms Einstein's
> > Special Relativity as EINSTEIN actually defined it.
> >
> > Ed
> Tom correctly wrote "On a more subtle level, the GPS does indeed invalidate
> SR, because GR is needed to model it. The GPS is fully consistent with GR".
> As always you do not read what it is written....... General Relativity is the model that correctly models the GPS system.

In reality, BOTH GR and SR are required to model a GPS system. It's
altitude makes GR a factor, and its speed makes SR a factor.

I only mentioned SR because the argument was only about SR as it is described in
most college physics textbooks versus how Einstein described it.

Ed

Ed Lake wrote:
....
> In reality, BOTH GR and SR are required to model a GPS system. It's
> altitude makes GR a factor, and its speed makes SR a factor.

Nope. GR accounts for BOTH.

On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 8:48:59 AM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:

> In reality, BOTH GR and SR are required to model a GPS system. It's
> altitude makes GR a factor, and its speed makes SR a factor.
>

This is the naive explanation. In reality, GR accounts for both effects, the solution falls out of the Schwarzschild solution to the EFEs.

> I only mentioned SR because the argument was only about SR as it is described in
> most college physics textbooks versus how Einstein described it.
>
> Ed

You are an idiot, textbooks agree with Einstein's description.

On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 15:49:50 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 23 November 2021 at 16:25:32 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 11/22/2021 3:03 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 19:24:56 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 11/22/2021 8:53 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 14:25:22 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 11:46:29 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Friday, 19 November 2021 at 16:46:14 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 19 November 2021 at 14:24:21 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [-]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> by your insane religion GPS clocks keep measuring
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that t /= t' has been known for a long time.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> So was the fact that Earth is flat. And many others.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Atomic clocks made direct demonstrations possible,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> first by flying them around the world on a 747,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> nowadays universally by comparing GPS clocks
> >>>>>>>>>>>> with atomic clocks in their base stations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Sure. They indicate t';=t, with the precision of
> >>>>>>>>>>> an acceptable error.
> >>>>>>>>>> Nowadays even table-top experiments show that they don't.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Then - put your nowadays experiments straight into your dumb,
> >>>>>>>>> fanatic ass, where they belong. The clocks of GPS indicate/measure
> >>>>>>>>> t'=t, with the precision of an acceptable error, and anyone
> >>>>>>>>> can check it.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> But clocks are getting more 'serious' all the time.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nowadays the best ones, for example strontium lattice clocks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Your opinion doesn't matter, GPS has demonstrated
> >>>>>>>>>>> your dilating junk to be worthless when it came to real,
> >>>>>>>>>>> serious measurements. Common sense was warning
> >>>>>>>>>>> your insane guru. It was warning all of you.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Build two identical clocks
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Since when, and why such an idiotic requirement?
> >>>>>>>>>>> No, I will build some non-identical clocks instead.
> >>>>>>>>>> If you ignore real experimental data
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
> >>>>>>>>> moronic religion non-identical GPS clocks keep
> >>>>>>>>> measuring t'=t, just like all serious (and non-identical)
> >>>>>>>>> clocks always did. But, of course, as you ignore
> >>>>>>>>> real experimental data that prove you are wrong
> >>>>>>>>> there is no point in continuing an argument.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> These are good times for you,
> >>>>>>>> the number of things you must be in denial on
> >>>>>>>> is growing all the time.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If I was only your strawman... I'm not.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> GPS made accounting for it a practical necessity
> >>>>>>>> to make the system work.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sure. Common sense was warning your idiot guru,
> >>>>>>> to work the clocks must be synchronized. "Synchronized"
> >>>>>>> means - if one indicates t, and another t' - t must be
> >>>>>>> equal to t'.
> >>>>>>> Well, E. wasn't the first idiot fighting the common
> >>>>>>> sense. It always ends the same way. So, the clocks
> >>>>>>> keep being synchronized and measuring t'=t, while
> >>>>>>> your mad bunch is enchanting the reality.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Well, it might have slipped your attention that Einstein gave a sample
> >>>>>> procedure how to synchronize clocks that are a) at rest relative to each
> >>>>>> other, and b) at the same gravitational potential.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well, it might have (and have) slipped your attention that
> >>>>> a) at rest relative to each other, and b) at the same
> >>>>> gravitational potential - are ridiculous requirements
> >>>>> never fulfilled in the real world, and thus the Holy
> >>>>> Procedure is pretty unusable.
> >>>> Sounds like two clocks on a table would do.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> And in fact, the only way to make two clocks stay synchronized
> >>>>>> outside those constraints is to make at least one of them a nonstandard
> >>>>>> clock.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not quite; rather - it's to make them according to the
> >>>>> standards of common sense and the sane people,
> >>>>> instead according to those of yours.
> >>>> Whose common sense?
> >>>
> >>> Common, stupid Mike. Nothing you could possible
> >>> comprehend, being one of those having none.
> >> Whose common sense?
> >
> > Common, stupid Mike. Nothing you could possible
> > comprehend, being one of those having none.
> >
> Wozniak would prefer to think that the way he thinks is the way most people
> think.

Your idiot gurus, on the other hand, prefer to think the way
they announce us to be FORCED to is the way most people
obey.

On 11/24/2021 10:25 AM, Ed Lake wrote:

>
> In sum, he's saying the GPS invalidates Einstein's Special Relativity
> AS DESCRIBED IN MOST TEXT BOOKS and confirms Einstein's
> Special Relativity as EINSTEIN actually defined it.
>
You mean to write:

> In sum, he's saying the GPS invalidates Einstein's Special Relativity
> AS DESCRIBED BY EINSTEIN HIMSELF and confirms Einstein's
> Special Relativity as ED LAKE actually tried to redefine it.

(but of course, the GPS is a GR effect, not SR)

On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 17:06:09 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:

> Tom correctly wrote "On a more subtle level, the GPS does indeed invalidate
> SR, because GR is needed to model it. The GPS is fully consistent with GR".

But in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
moronic religion GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just
like all serious clocks always did.

On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 11:04:07 AM UTC-6, Python wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> ...
> > In reality, BOTH GR and SR are required to model a GPS system. It's
> > altitude makes GR a factor, and its speed makes SR a factor.
> Nope. GR accounts for BOTH.

Read this: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

I quote:

"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 [2]."

"A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day. "

"The combination of these two relativistic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! This sounds small, but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond accuracy, and 38 microseconds is 38,000 nanoseconds. If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! The whole system would be utterly worthless for navigation in a very short time. "

Ed

Ed Lake wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 11:04:07 AM UTC-6, Python wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>> ...
>>> In reality, BOTH GR and SR are required to model a GPS system. It's
>>> altitude makes GR a factor, and its speed makes SR a factor.
>> Nope. GR accounts for BOTH.
>
> Read this: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
>
> I quote:
>
> "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 [2]."
>
> "A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day."
>
> "The combination of these two relativistic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! This sounds small, but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond accuracy, and 38 microseconds is 38,000 nanoseconds. If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! The whole system would be utterly worthless for navigation in a very short time."

This is a common (and harmless) mistake to call the kinetic effect
"The SR effect" (which is right) and the gravitational effect "the GR
effect" (which is wrong). GR is a superset of SR, if you use GR to do
the math you can notice 2 factors involved: the kinetic one is predicted
by SR in absence of gravitational field. GR account for both "the SR
effect" and the "gravitational effect".

I know that you do not have enough math abilities to do the math, but
if you apply GR equations in a situation where no significant
gravitational field is involved you'll end up with the so-called
"SR effect".

It's really quite an harmless lack of rigor, except when it comes to
cranks trying to make their mind about what Relativity is about.

mind about

On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 2:06:12 PM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> How many times do I need to EXPLAIN to you that RADAR guns do NOT
> measure distances?

I didn't say they measure distances, I said that they measure the rate of change of distance.

> LIDAR guns measure distances. RADAR guns measure differences
> in electromagnetic FREQUENCIES as a result of RATE-OF-TIME differences
> between the gun and the target.

To be accurate, LIDAR guns measure differences in time intervals and radar measures differences in frequencies, but the time intervals are just the reciprocals of the frequencies. So they are essentially doing the same thing.. If someone was shooting a machine gun, you could measure bullets per second (frequency) or seconds per bullet (time interval). It's the same thing.. Surely an analyst can understand this.

Also, the difference in frequencies is proportional to v/c, whereas the differences in the “rates of time” due to relativistic time dilation are proportional to half the *square* of v/c. Those are vastly different, the latter not even detectable by a radar gun, so that cannot be the explanation.

Both LIDAR and radar speed guns determine the rate of change of the distance using the Doppler effect. To do this, the device emits consecutive pulses (LIDAR) or wavecrests (radar) separated by time interval dt, which is the inverse frequency f=2pi/dt, and the reflections arrive back at the gun separated by the time interval dT (which is the inverse of the frequency F=2pi/dT). Both devices compute the rate of change of the distance using the Doppler formula, either with the periods dt and dT or, equivalently, with the frequencies f and F. The rate of change of distance is v/c = (1-dt/dT)/(1+dt/dT) in LIDAR and v/c = (1-F/f)/(1+F/f) in radar. These are equivalent calculations of the Doppler effect, yielding the rate of change of distance. The devices can also compute distances, but that is not needed.

On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 2:08:51 PM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 2:06:12 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> > How many times do I need to EXPLAIN to you that RADAR guns do NOT
> > measure distances?
>
> I didn't say they measure distances, I said that they measure the rate of change of distance.
>
> > LIDAR guns measure distances. RADAR guns measure differences
> > in electromagnetic FREQUENCIES as a result of RATE-OF-TIME differences
> > between the gun and the target.
>
> To be accurate, LIDAR guns measure differences in time intervals and radar measures differences in frequencies, but the time intervals are just the reciprocals of the frequencies. So they are essentially doing the same thing. If someone was shooting a machine gun, you could measure bullets per second (frequency) or seconds per bullet (time interval). It's the same thing. Surely an analyst can understand this.

That is not only inaccurate, it is totally FALSE. A LIDAR gun measures the DISTANCE to
a target by computing how long it took for a photon to travel to the target AND return
while traveling 186,000 miles per second, the speed of light.

A fraction of a second later, the LIDAR gun does the same thing again. Then it compares
the distance measured the first time to the distance measured the second time, and
knowing the time between emitting photons, the gun can compute how fast the target
must have been moving in order to produce the change in distances.

A RADAR gun works totally differently. It can emit ONE photon that oscillates
35,0000,0000,000 times per second to a target. The target is moving at 70 mph,
which means its seconds are longer. It receives the photon as if the photon was
oscillating 35,000,007,292 times per second. An atom in the target then emits a
photon oscillating at that new rate back to the radar gun. The gun compares the
oscillation rate of the photon it emitted to the oscillation rate of the photon it got
back and uses the percentage that 7,292 is of 35,000,000,000*2 to compute the
same percentage of 670,616,629 miles per hour, the speed of light. The answer
is 70 mph. That is what the gun displays.

>
> Also, the difference in frequencies is proportional to v/c, whereas the differences in the “rates of time” due to relativistic time dilation are proportional to half the *square* of v/c. Those are vastly different, the latter not even detectable by a radar gun, so that cannot be the explanation.
>
> Both LIDAR and radar speed guns determine the rate of change of the distance using the Doppler effect. To do this, the device emits consecutive pulses (LIDAR) or wavecrests (radar) separated by time interval dt, which is the inverse frequency f=2pi/dt, and the reflections arrive back at the gun separated by the time interval dT (which is the inverse of the frequency F=2pi/dT). Both devices compute the rate of change of the distance using the Doppler formula, either with the periods dt and dT or, equivalently, with the frequencies f and F. The rate of change of distance is v/c = (1-dt/dT)/(1+dt/dT) in LIDAR and v/c = (1-F/f)/(1+F/f) in radar. These are equivalent calculations of the Doppler effect, yielding the rate of change of distance. The devices can also compute distances, but that is not needed.

That is called "obfuscation," which is defined as "the action of making something
obscure, unclear, or unintelligible" - as in "when confronted with sharp questions
he resorts to obfuscation."

Ed

On 11/24/2021 12:27 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 15:49:50 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 23 November 2021 at 16:25:32 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:

>>>> Whose common sense?
>>>
>>> Common, stupid Mike. Nothing you could possible
>>> comprehend, being one of those having none.
>>>
>> Wozniak would prefer to think that the way he thinks is the way most people
>> think.
>
> Your idiot gurus, on the other hand, prefer to think the way
> they announce us to be FORCED to is the way most people
> obey.
>
Maciej, you are a kꙩꙩk, so your "common sense" is not how regular people
think. Which was my point of asking "whose common sense"?

On 11/24/2021 12:29 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 11:04:07 AM UTC-6, Python wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>> ...
>>> In reality, BOTH GR and SR are required to model a GPS system. It's
>>> altitude makes GR a factor, and its speed makes SR a factor.
>> Nope. GR accounts for BOTH.
>
> Read this: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
>
> I quote:
>
> "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 [2]."
>
> "A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day."
>
> "The combination of these two relativistic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! This sounds small, but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond accuracy, and 38 microseconds is 38,000 nanoseconds. If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! The whole system would be utterly worthless for navigation in a very short time."

That method is an approximation of the GR solution which is valid for
(relatively) weak gravity and (relatively) slow speeds. It is an
approximation the same way Newtonian mechanics is an excellent
approximation for speeds of cars on highways.

That approximation is equivalent to this: The "SR" portion is the time
dilation caused by the motion of the satellite with no gravitational
potential. The "GR" portion is what would be measured if the satellite
was hovering STATIONARY over the earth at the altitude of the GPS
orbits. The two numbers can then be added as in what you quote. A real
GR solution would have one (complicated!) equation for the whole thing.

That method won't work for a satellite closely orbiting a neutron star,
with powerful gravity and a high orbital speed.

On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 12:56:35 PM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> A LIDAR gun measures the DISTANCE to a target by computing how
> long it took for a photon to travel to the target AND return…
> A fraction of a second later, the LIDAR gun does the same thing again. Then it compares
> the distance measured the first time to the distance measured the second time, and
> knowing the time between emitting photons, the gun can compute how fast the target
> must have been moving in order to produce the change in distances.

Right, but the crucial quantity is what you call “a fraction of a second later”. We need to know what that time interval is, in order to compute the speed. That fraction of a second is the time interval between successive transmissions, which is the reciprocal of the frequency of pulse transmissions. Also, the gun measures the return times, finding that the consecutive pulses return a “fraction of a second” apart, but the fraction of a second between those two returning pulses is not exactly the same as the “fraction of a second” between transmissions. That's the key fact that enables us to infer the rate of change of distance to the target.

Mind you, we’re not talking about the round-trip time - that drops out of the calculation. We’re talking about the fraction of a second between consecutive transmissions, and the fraction of a second between consecutive receptions. When you carry out the calculation you just described, you find that the round-trip time drops out, and all that really matters is the time interval between consecutive transmissions and the time interval between consecutive receptions. Those are the reciprocals of the frequencies of transmission and reception.

Letting t denote the interval between consecutive transmissions, and T denote the interval between consecutive receptions, the LIDAR gun computes the rate of change of distance to the target using the Doppler formula v = c(T-t)/(T+t). So the LIDAR gun is actually just doing the same thing as a radar gun, albeit in a slightly disguised way.

> A RADAR gun works totally differently. It can emit ONE photon that oscillates…

Nope, a radar gun works essentially the same way. The Doppler effect doesn’t work for intrinsic oscillations of a single entity (like spinning bullets or imaginary "oscillating photons"), it only works for spatially and temporally sequential entities (photons or pulses or bullets or wavecrests...). Also, remember that the difference in frequencies is proportional to v/c, whereas the differences in the “rates of time” due to relativistic time dilation are proportional to half the *square* of v/c.. Those are vastly different, the latter not even detectable by a radar gun, so that is not involved at all.

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 10:08:02 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
>> [I don't follow such toxic threads as this, but happened to see this.]
>> On 11/23/21 6:24 PM, RichD wrote:
>>> Here's a quote from one of them:
>>> "... the GPS indicate that light travels faster West than East on the surface
>>> of the rotating Earth."
>> That actually happens to be true. But such "measurements" don't
>> "invalidate" SR, because SR predicts precisely that, for such a
>> mixed-frame "measurement".
>>> That paper is titled:
>>> "Faster west than east: The GPS invalidates Special Relativity"
>> That is most definitely NOT true.
>>
>> The reason is very simple: SR implies that the vacuum speed of light is
>> c in every inertial frame. But this is using the GPS time coordinate OF
>> THE ECI FRAME, while it is measuring distance ON THE SURFACE OF THE
>> ROTATING EARTH -- two different "frames" are involved. Such a distance
>> divided by such a time is NOT a measurement of any speed, it is just a
>> mixed-frame ratio signifying nothing.
>>
>> [On a more subtle level, the GPS does indeed invalidate
>> SR, because GR is needed to model it. The GPS is fully
>> consistent with GR.]
>>
>> Lake displays his personal ignorance by quoting such papers. RichD
>> displays his by uncritically copying such nonsense.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> Actually, what I quoted is valid. The quote is:
> "The results reported here obtained using the GPS indicate that light travels
> faster West than East on the surface of the rotating Earth. Using the CCIR
> clock synchronization algorithm light speed was found to be c-v eastward
> and c+v westward in the frame of the rotating Earth."
>
> The author thinks that "invalidates" Special Relativity because he thinks
> Einstein's Second Postulate is the one found in most text books, not
> the Second Postulate Einstein actually wrote. The author explains:
>
> "The one-way speed of light on the surface of the rotating Earth
> is determined using modern GPS technology. One method employs the
> GPS clock synchronization algorithm while the other is based on
> light speed isotropy in the Earth Centered Inertial frame that is
> critical to GPS operation. Using these two approaches it is easily
> shown that light travels faster West than East relative to the
> surface of the Earth. This finding directly contradicts Einstein's
> principle of light speed constancy and thereby invalidates the
> Lorentz Transformations and Special Relativity Theory for which the
> principle is a fundamental requirement."
>
> In sum, he's saying the GPS invalidates Einstein's Special Relativity
> AS DESCRIBED IN MOST TEXT BOOKS and confirms Einstein's
> Special Relativity as EINSTEIN actually defined it.
>
> Ed
>

No, Ed, it means this author does not understand relativity at all, NEITHER
as discussed in textbooks nor as Einstein presented it.

Let’s get something clear. If you find someone who disagrees with textbook
presentations of relativity, that doesn’t put them in agreement with you or
with Einstein as you imagine him.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 12:56:35 PM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> A LIDAR gun measures the DISTANCE to a target by computing how
> long it took for a photon to travel to the target AND return…
> A fraction of a second later, the LIDAR gun does the same thing again. Then it compares
> the distance measured the first time to the distance measured the second time, and
> knowing the time between emitting photons, the gun can compute how fast the target
> must have been moving in order to produce the change in distances.

Right, but the crucial quantity is what you call “a fraction of a second later”. We need to know that time interval in order to compute the speed. That fraction of a second is the time interval between successive transmissions, which is the reciprocal of the frequency of pulse transmissions. Also, the gun measures the return times, finding that the consecutive pulses return a “fraction of a second” apart, but if the distance to the target is changing, the fraction of a second between those two returning pulses is not exactly the same as the “fraction of a second” between transmissions. Knowing the difference between those two intervals (which is the same as knowing the difference in frequencies) is what enables us to infer the rate of change of distance to the target..

Mind you, we’re not talking about the round-trip time -- When you carry out the calculation you described above, you find that the round-trip time and the distance drop out, and all that matters is the time interval between consecutive transmissions and the time interval between consecutive receptions. Those are the reciprocals of the frequencies of transmission and reception, so all that matters are the frequencies of transmission and reception.

To be clear, let t denote the interval between consecutive transmissions, and let T denote the interval between consecutive receptions. The LIDAR gun computes the rate of change of distance to the target using the Doppler formula v = c(T-t)/(T+t). So the LIDAR gun is actually doing the same thing as a radar gun, just in a slightly disguised way, because a radar gun uses v = c(f-F)/(f+F). These are equivalent, because f=1/t and F=1/T.

> A RADAR gun works totally differently.

No, radar and LIDAR speed guns work on the same principle, which is not to say that they use the same frequencies or duty cycles, or the same techniques for comparing intervals/frequencies, but in the sense that they are both just measuring the Doppler shift to infer the rate of change of the distance between gun and target.

> It can emit ONE photon that oscillates…

No, a single photon has a certain energy proportional to the frequency of the source, but it does not exhibit a frequency. Multiple photons are necessary for electromagnetic radiation to exhibit a frequency via the interference patterns and sequential phases. One could, in principle, make a speed gun that measures the energy of a single photon, but that would not be practical, and no actual speed guns work that way. Speed guns (LIDAR and radar) all measure time intervals/frequencies and use the Doppler effect to infer the relative speed.

Bear in mind that the Doppler effect doesn’t apply to intrinsic oscillations of a single entity (like spinning bullets or imaginary "oscillating photons"), it only works for spatially and temporally sequential entities (sequences of photons, pulses, bullets, wavecrests, etc.). Also, remember that the difference in frequencies is proportional to v/c, whereas the differences in the “rates of time” due to relativistic time dilation are proportional to half the *square* of v/c. Those are vastly different, the latter not even detectable by a radar gun, so that is not involved at all.

On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 21:59:15 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 11/24/2021 12:27 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 15:49:50 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, 23 November 2021 at 16:25:32 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> >>>> Whose common sense?
> >>>
> >>> Common, stupid Mike. Nothing you could possible
> >>> comprehend, being one of those having none.
> >>>
> >> Wozniak would prefer to think that the way he thinks is the way most people
> >> think.
> >
> > Your idiot gurus, on the other hand, prefer to think the way
> > they announce us to be FORCED to is the way most people
> > obey.
> >
> Maciej, you are a kꙩꙩk, so your "common sense" is not how regular people
> think.

Oh, really, stupid Mike? When a regular thinks "a second" -
does he usually mean "1/24/60/60 of a day" like me, or
"9,192,631,770 periods of the Cs radiation" like you
and your fellow idiots? Do regular often think
"we are FORCED to synchronize them [clocks] such that
inertia and space are isotropic"? And so on.

On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 2:56:35 PM UTC-6, det...@outlook.com wrote:

> That is not only inaccurate, it is totally FALSE. A LIDAR gun measures the DISTANCE to
> a target by computing how long it took for a photon to travel to the target AND return
> while traveling 186,000 miles per second, the speed of light.
>
> A fraction of a second later, the LIDAR gun does the same thing again. Then it compares
> the distance measured the first time to the distance measured the second time, and
> knowing the time between emitting photons, the gun can compute how fast the target
> must have been moving in order to produce the change in distances.
>
> ...The gun ... compares the
> oscillation rate of the photon it emitted to the oscillation rate of the photon it got
> back

There is no essential difference between determining speed by measuring
changes in the separation between two outgoing and incoming pulses,
versus measuring changes in the separation between outgoing and
incoming wave crests.

The instrumentation differs, but the same Doppler math applies to both.