06 Dec 19
@humy saidThe computers in satellites do not calculate using relativity equations. What is taken into account is the different time. WE already have an approximate time difference estimate from experience. Satellites don't use relativity equations. That is a myth.
No, you haven't. And I have proved the contrary, and here is just one out of many NONE-wiki links that does this:
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
"....
the clock ticks from the GPS satellites must be known to an accuracy of 20-30 nanoseconds. However, because the satellites are constantly moving relative to observers on the Earth, effects pr ...[text shortened]... when in fact they don't, this proves your are wrong and all we science-experts are right about this.
http://alternativephysics.org/book/GPSmythology.htm
06 Dec 19
@shavixmir saidTrolling isn't proof.
There’s 52 pages of proof in this thread for you.
End of.
06 Dec 19
8 edits
@metal-brain saidI wondered where the hell you got that BS idea from!
The computers in satellites do not calculate using relativity equations. What is taken into account is the different time. WE already have an approximate time difference estimate from experience. Satellites don't use relativity equations. That is a myth.
http://alternativephysics.org/book/GPSmythology.htm
Your link is a pseudoscientific one that hasn't gone through peer preview and can be easily debunked just by looking up the pretty basic facts which your link has repeatedly got wrong!
For example, Your link says
"...This argument appears quite solid. So what are we overlooking?
What we are overlooking is the phrase ‘time at the receiver’. Problem is, GPS receivers contain no atomic clock because there’s no room to fit one in. Plus it would be very expensive even if possible.
That ‘time at the receiver’ must instead be determined from the satellites’ clocks...."
This above is false! Not only do GPS receivers generally do NOT need atomic clocks (unless the greater accuracy is specifically required), but most if not all those that don't have them have quartz crystal clocks instead that ARE used by the GPS receivers;
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog862/node/1716
"....GPS receivers are usually equipped with quartz crystal clocks, which are relatively inexpensive and compact. They have low power requirements and long life spans
...
It really isn't necessary for a GPS receiver clock to be wonderful, because we are solving for time. There are four unknowns (x, y, z, and time) and, therefore, four observations to make the solution.
Still we can't get along without an oscillator in the receiver. It is necessary for producing the replica code, for example. The replica code needs to match the incoming signals from the satellites. So, obviously, a receiver clock is necessary, but it doesn't need to be anything like an atomic standard.
..."
The whole argument of that link's essay is based not only on that false premise but some others that I can list and then debunk each in turn.
The author of that assay obviously didn't know the first thing about how GPS works and instead just made crap up to try and debunk relativity; you can easily find THOUSANDS of loons and morons trying to do just that all over the net (an extremely common problem) and they are all completely wrong and can be easily proven wrong without a single exception.
The computers in satellites do not calculate using relativity equations.Actually, they don't need to! At least not DIRECTLY! That's because they merely have to have their clocks 'tick' at the different required speed according to the application of the relativity equations (that was calculated by people on the surface of the Earth as opposed to calculated by the sat itself), that is all. So that need for that different 'tick' rate of their clocks still helps to prove relativity and without those sats DIRECTLY calculating using relativity equations.
Satellites don't use relativity equations.Not DIRECTLY if that's what you mean. But they INdirectly take into account relativity via being designed with clocks 'ticking' at the different required speed. -That's NOT a myth.
Well?
07 Dec 19
@humy saidYou are on the wrong forum. I will not allow you to pollute this thread with your digressions. Post it on the correct forum.
I wondered where the hell you got that BS idea from!
Your link is a pseudoscientific one that hasn't gone through peer preview and can be easily debunked just by looking up the pretty basic facts which your link has repeatedly got wrong!
For example, Your link says
[i]"...This argument appears quite solid. So what are we overlooking?
What we are overlooking is the phras ...[text shortened]... a being designed with clocks 'ticking' at the different required speed. -That's NOT a myth.
Well?
@metal-brain saidIn other words, you have lost the argument by us proving your assertions wrong and are just trolling.
You are on the wrong forum. I will not allow you to pollute this thread with your digressions. Post it on the correct forum.
This thread is about sea level rise. I have a thread about relativity and I proved humy wrong there. Anybody is perfectly capable of posting stuff about GR to attempt to prove me wrong. I will not respond to something that can easily be posted on another thread that is perfect for it.
Sea level rise is mostly from natural causes. Sea level rise has been happening since the end of the little ice age before the industrial revolution. GW clearly started because of natural causes. This is merely a continuation of that natural trend.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
From the link below:
"Finally, in extending the work of HW04 to cover the whole century, it is found that the high decadal rates of change in global mean sea level observed during the last 20 years of the record were not particularly unusual in the longer term context."
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2006GL028492
@metal-brain saidThis is a vast misinterpretation of the past 53 pages. Here's what I've learned.
This thread is about sea level rise. I have a thread about relativity and I proved humy wrong there. Anybody is perfectly capable of posting stuff about GR to attempt to prove me wrong. I will not respond to something that can easily be posted on another thread that is perfect for it.
Sea level rise is mostly from natural causes. Sea level rise has been happening since ...[text shortened]... the longer term context."
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2006GL028492
1) Sea level data is very complex and dynamic. It's not the same everywhere in the world, it's subject to changes in barometric pressure, tides, lunar distance, the movement of tectonic plates (below and above sea level), volcanic activity etc. In short, it's not great as a direct readout for understanding how humans are affecting climate.
2) As an extension of Holgate (your reference), Hay et al. showed using floating buoys that sea level is not only increasing but accelerated 3-fold during the last century. Satellite data confirms this. Rate of ice cap loss confirms this. Common sense also confirms this.
3) Even the skeptic admits that humans are contributing to this acceleration. The degree is debatable, but it must be related to human impact on temperature which is greater than zero. Obviously this is indirect due to the man-made increases in temperature (heat islands, land use and greenhouse gas emissions among the forcings.
4) Had sea level been rising at this rate (1-3mm/year) for 2,000 years, it would be 2-6 meters higher. It clearly hasn't based on the height of the ancient Roman fish pens, which have demonstrated that ALL of the sea level rise in the past 2,000 years have happened in the last 100.
5) The particular contribution of man to this process will never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.
6) We understand the causes and they continue to churn unabated. Coastal areas, insurance companies, and home owners should act accordingly.
08 Dec 19
@wildgrass said"As an extension of Holgate (your reference), Hay et al. showed using floating buoys that sea level is not only increasing but accelerated 3-fold during the last century."
This is a vast misinterpretation of the past 53 pages. Here's what I've learned.
1) Sea level data is very complex and dynamic. It's not the same everywhere in the world, it's subject to changes in barometric pressure, tides, lunar distance, the movement of tectonic plates (below and above sea level), volcanic activity etc. In short, it's not great as a direct readout fo ...[text shortened]... tinue to churn unabated. Coastal areas, insurance companies, and home owners should act accordingly.
Not true. That sounds like more cherry picking of one of the accelerations that are cyclical and comparing it to decelerations. You cannot compare a 17 year acceleration to anything else but another acceleration to determine that. Anything else is deliberate misleading.
08 Dec 19
@metal-brain saidWhat about that quote isn't true?
"As an extension of Holgate (your reference), Hay et al. showed using floating buoys that sea level is not only increasing but accelerated 3-fold during the last century."
Not true. That sounds like more cherry picking of one of the accelerations that are cyclical and comparing it to decelerations. You cannot compare a 17 year acceleration to anything else but another acceleration to determine that. Anything else is deliberate misleading.
09 Dec 19
@wildgrass saidSounds like more cherry picking of one of the accelerations that are cyclical and comparing it to decelerations. You cannot compare a 17 year acceleration to anything else but another acceleration to determine that. Anything else is deliberately misleading.
What about that quote isn't true?
09 Dec 19
@metal-brain saidSo it's true but you don't like it?
Sounds like more cherry picking of one of the accelerations that are cyclical and comparing it to decelerations. You cannot compare a 17 year acceleration to anything else but another acceleration to determine that. Anything else is deliberately misleading.
09 Dec 19
@wildgrass saidIt isn't true. Show me your source and the exact quote. I'll show you why it is wrong.
So it's true but you don't like it?
09 Dec 19
1 edit
@metal-brain saidWhen you say something from peer reviewed research isn't true you should explain why. As is, it seems you are guessing that the comparisons are cherry picked. My statement was a summation from the Hay et al. paper that's been posted here nearly a dozen times, and it is accurate. Holgate's analysis was interesting but it was older data and limited in scope. Lead us in the right direction. Why declare something untruthful without a rationale or knowledge of the subject matter?
It isn't true. Show me your source and the exact quote. I'll show you why it is wrong.