@metal-brain saidApparently you cannot read plain English.
In other words, no. GPS does not prove relativity correct, time dilation does.
I just clearly explained how GPS DOES prove relativity correct.
More specifically, I explained how GPS DOES prove relativity correct because GPS has to take into account time dilation, which it wouldn't have to if relativity was wrong.
If you cannot read and understand that, that's your problem, not mine.
Or perhaps you didn't bother to read it? Or maybe you did but are just pretending to be so stupid as to not understand? If either, you are just trolling. If neither, you are just stupid. Which?
22 Dec 19
@humy saidI think you've got the counterfactual wrong. It's not a question of whether the theory of General Relativity accurately describes nature, but whether we need to know about it to operate GPS systems. With caveats about frequency offsets which I mentioned above, I think one could develop the navigation system and introduce the corrections on an empirical basis. The problem is we would not know how it worked and it is a safety critical system so it would not be ubiquitous in aircraft navigation, although see [1].
Your question makes no sense because of your use of the word "reliant".
If relativity was (hypothetically) false then all that would mean is that the GPS sat clocks would have been designed to have the SAME 'tick' rate as the GPS-receiver clocks on Earth and then they would just fine with that SAME 'tick' rate therefore, at least in that narrow sense, GPS is NOT "reliant" on r ...[text shortened]... non-moron would expect if relativity was false, thus showing (PROVING, in fact) relativity correct.
So, suppose Einstein hadn't thought of special relativity, never mind the general theory. He's still get the Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect, but there would only have been three and not four papers in 1905. We would have a sort of aether theory of length contractions and the Lorentz transforms would be known. They'd probably produce some sort of theory where the aether is compressed by gravity and that causes the time dilation effect.
I think that a correct statement is something along the lines of: "General Relativity correctly predicts the difference in rate of clocks aboard GPS satellites. The correction is not explained by the Newtonian theory.". The interesting point here is that GR is not the only game in town. Can something like MOND [2] predict the clock rate shift? If so GPS can't really be seen as verifying GR, it is only not refuted by it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navigation_paradox
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics
DeepThought;
-Arr but metalbrain wasn't proposing one of those specific alternative theories to explain the apparent time dilation but instead suggested that the sat clocks THEMSELVES are faulty and giving a FALSE time by being effected by extremes of temperature and pressure of space and thus he was suggesting no such time dilation exists!
But, as I pointed out to him, those sat clocks are ATOMIC clocks and atomic clocks would not be measurably effected by extremes of temperature and pressures of space external to them thus the time dilation exists; Only for him to moronically deny this fact.
Even if one of those alternative theories to relativity were hypothetically eventually proven correct (EXTREMELY unlikely I think. Which is why I say relativity is proven), he would merely switch from denying relativity to denying the alternative theory because the alternative would still predict time dilation and he will still insist that time dilation might not exist with his silly 'temperatures and pressures effecting atomic clocks' theory.
@humy saidFrom the link below:
DeepThought;
-Arr but metalbrain wasn't proposing one of those specific alternative theories to explain the apparent time dilation but instead suggested that the sat clocks THEMSELVES are faulty and giving a FALSE time by being effected by extremes of temperature and pressure of space and thus he was suggesting no such time dilation exists!
But, as I pointed out to him, those ...[text shortened]... dilation might not exist with his silly 'temperatures and pressures effecting atomic clocks' theory.
"The accuracy of an atomic clock depends on two factors: the first is temperature of the sample atoms—colder atoms move much more slowly, allowing longer probe times, the second is the frequency and intrinsic linewidth of the electronic or hyperfine transition. Higher frequencies and narrow lines increase the precision. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock
I am merely exploring the possibilities. I never claimed I was certain relativity is wrong, just that the notion is not as absurd as some think. Critics of relativity have their reasons to be skeptical. I don't think they should be dismissed out of hand. Einstein is famous for an equation Poincare came up with first. He used Lorentz's math. It is the same. His accomplishments are overrated.
Many of the things Einstein predicted is also predicted by classical physics. Gravity bending light and the Doppler effect of light for example. The only difference is relativity is supposed to affect those to a greater degree. His ideas are not really as original as has been portrayed. That has become evident.
@metal-brain saidYet again, apparently you cannot read. Reminder of what I ACTUALLY said in my last post;
From the link below:
"The accuracy of an atomic clock depends on two factors: the first is temperature of the sample atoms—colder atoms move much more slowly, allowing longer probe times, the second is the frequency and intrinsic linewidth of the electronic or hyperfine transition. Higher frequencies and narrow lines increase the precision. "
"sat clocks are ATOMIC clocks and atomic clocks would not be measurably effected by extremes of temperature and pressures of space external to them "
So I never claimed they were not effect but rather they are not "measurably" effected, by that I meant not effected enough to have practical significance of the outcome, and I also said "external" there because the temperature of space outside the satellite is irrelevant because the clock on the inside has heat insulation around it and temperature control thus the sat's clock will be unaffected by the temperature of space. And before you moronically and brainlessly shout LIAR yet again, here is my source of info;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_thermal_control
"...Thermal control is also necessary to keep specific components (such as optical sensors, atomic clocks, etc.) within a specified temperature stability requirement, to ensure that they perform as efficiently as possible. ...
... Satellite Thermal Control ..."
http://www.cjss.ac.cn/EN/10.11728/cjss2019.03.381
"...Temperature Control and Its Validation for Atomic Clock Cabin on Navigation Satellite "
Thus the atomic sat's clocks are given temperature control and thus the apparent time dilation effect cannot be explained by extremes of tempetature of space effecting the atomic clocks to create some kind of 'illusion' of a time dilation effect. Thus the current working GPS setup (indirectly) proves there is a time dilation effect.
Try again.
I never claimed I was certain relativity is wrong,Right; only that relativity could creditably be wrong based on you ignorant false premises and stupid theories such as your 'theory' of temperature of space effecting sat clocks to create the illusion of time dilation etc; which makes you just as wrong.
23 Dec 19
@humy saidThere is reasonable doubt. You previously stated atomic clocks were not affected by temps and now you admit they are. I'm glad you are learning.
Yet again, apparently you cannot read. Reminder of what I ACTUALLY said in my last post;
"sat clocks are ATOMIC clocks and atomic clocks would not be measurably effected by extremes of temperature and pressures of space external to them "
So I never claimed they were not effect but rather they are not "measurably" effected, by that I meant not effected ...[text shortened]... ace effecting sat clocks to create the illusion of time dilation etc; which makes you just as wrong.
23 Dec 19
@Metal-Brain
I know a bit about atomic clocks, that was my job on apollo, tracking and TIMING and of course temperature effects clocks but they can compensate for that quite well. Even in Apollo days the HP clocks were accurate to within one second in 2000 years and now that number goes into the billions of years.
Back in Apollo days one second in 2000 years was WAY accurate enough to switch between tracking stations, that had to be accomplished within a time window of 1/10th of a microsecond, 100 nanoseconds to keep data flow from the lander and lunar module from glitching. It might be they need now to have a transfer window of 10 nanoseconds considering the much faster data rates coming from ISS and such but even the old Hewlett packard clocks I used would be plenty accurate enough even for today's data rates. Atomic clocks at NSA now are being built the size of a kids block so in a few years atomic clocks will be present on ever smaller and smaller sats, some now the size of toasters.
@metal-brain saidNo, there isn't.
There is reasonable doubt.
You previously stated atomic clocks were not affected by temps.No, I didn't. I just said the sat clocks are not effected by the temperature in space because they have insulation around them and are temperature control. Apparently you cannot read.
and now you admit they areI didn't "admit" anything. Apparently you cannot read.
So I proved you wrong yet again.
24 Dec 19
@sonhouse saidThey can make them on a microprocessor scale:
@Metal-Brain
I know a bit about atomic clocks, that was my job on apollo, tracking and TIMING and of course temperature effects clocks but they can compensate for that quite well. Even in Apollo days the HP clocks were accurate to within one second in 2000 years and now that number goes into the billions of years.
Back in Apollo days one second in 2000 years was WAY accura ...[text shortened]... years atomic clocks will be present on ever smaller and smaller sats, some now the size of toasters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip-scale_atomic_clock
24 Dec 19
@humy saidYou said this:
No, there isn't.You previously stated atomic clocks were not affected by temps.No, I didn't. I just said the sat clocks are not effected by the temperature in space because they have insulation around them and are temperature control. Apparently you cannot read.and now you admit they areI didn't "admit" anything. Apparently you cannot read.
So I proved you wrong yet again.
"But, as I pointed out to him, those sat clocks are ATOMIC clocks and atomic clocks would not be measurably effected by extremes of temperature and pressures of space external to them thus the time dilation exists; Only for him to moronically deny this fact. "
You proved yourself wrong.
@metal-brain saidSo what?
You said this:
"But, as I pointed out to him, those sat clocks are ATOMIC clocks and atomic clocks would not be measurably effected by extremes of temperature and pressures of space external to them thus the time dilation exists; Only for him to moronically deny this fact. "
I didn't say anything to contradict that.
Are you pretending to be stupid again but this time pretend to not able to read the word "measurably"? I never said there was no effect, just not one that would explain the apparent time dilation.
OK, "measurably" wasn't the best word for it. "significantly" would be a much better word for it.
@humy said"atomic clocks would not be measurably effected by extremes of temperature"
So what?
I didn't say anything to contradict that.
Are you pretending to be stupid again but this time pretend to not able to read the word "measurably"? I never said there was no effect, just not one that would explain the apparent time dilation.
You did contradict yourself. The irony is that you used the word measurably. The whole point of atomic clocks is to "measure" time. Now that you admit it is important to regulate temps in an atomic clock you proved yourself wrong.
It is clear you were defending something with a falsehood. If you were not defending it like a religion you wouldn't have made crap up. You need to give up the notion GPS needs relativity equations to function. Even deepthought knows that. He didn't contradict me for a reason. You were not so wise.
@metal-brain saidBy that I meant not measurably effected by extremes of temperature external to them because, in the context of the GPS sats which we were talking about, they have heat insulation around them and temperature control.
"atomic clocks would not be measurably effected by extremes of temperature"
I have already clarified that TWICE to you but you still pretend to be so stupid as not to read.
Yet ANOTHER reminder:
"sat clocks are ATOMIC clocks and atomic clocks would not be measurably effected by extremes of temperature and pressures of space external to them "
Which part of the word "external" do you pretend to not understand here?
24 Dec 19
@humy saidNo you didn't.
By that I meant not measurably effected by extremes of temperature external to them because they have heat insulation around them and temperature control.
I have already clarified that TWICE to you but you still pretend to be so stupid as not to read.
You know relativity equations are not needed for GPS to work. Just admit that instead of purposely digressing.
@metal-brain said"didn't" which part?
No you didn't.
Yet ANOTHER reminder:
"sat clocks are ATOMIC clocks and atomic clocks would not be measurably effected by extremes of temperature and pressures of space external to them "
So that's now THREE times I told you. Do you deny this?