6 edits
@metal-brain
You can argue the toss over semantics over what I said or meant but, bottom line, I proved your implied 'theory' wrong.
Your 'theory' you implied was that temperatures of space could effect the GPS sat clocks so to create an illusion of time dilation when the was no time dilation thus relativity could be false because there might not be time dilation because of that.
I then proved that 'theory' wrong with the links I showed you that showed that show GPS sat clocks aren't exposed to temperatures of space because they come with a temperature control thus they are kept at the same temperature and independent of that of the temperature of space.
That means GPS sat clock tick rates still indirectly prove time dilation exists and thus your 'theory' must be false.
Which part of that above, if any, do you disagree with and why?
Now I have shown you those links, do you STILL think and insist that time dilation might credibly not exist and if so why?
Do you claim that the infomation presented in those links are false and, if so, exactly which part of it and why?
Here are those links yet again;
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 "
@humy saidThat is not what you first said. Changing your story does not make you right.
"didn't" which part?
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?
That is three times you reminded me that you changed your story because you were wrong. Do you deny this?
@humy said"That means GPS sat clock tick rates still indirectly prove time dilation exists and thus your 'theory' must be false."
@metal-brain
You can argue the toss over semantics over what I said or meant but, bottom line, I proved your implied 'theory' wrong.
Your 'theory' you implied was that temperatures of space could effect the GPS sat clocks so to create an illusion of time dilation when the was no time dilation thus relativity could be false because there might not be time dilation because of ...[text shortened]... .03.381
"...Temperature Control and Its Validation for Atomic Clock Cabin on Navigation Satellite "
No, time dilation proves relativity. GPS proves nothing.
You are also falsely claiming I proposed a theory that I didn't. I am merely entertaining the possibility. GPS doesn't need relativity to work. It self adjusts for time dilation.
Admit GPS doesn't need relativity to work.
@humy said"Meanwhile, the experimental proof of relativity becomes ever more mountainous and if it was wrong then nuclear power wouldn't work and GPS sats, given their clock tick rates are designed to take into account relativity, would give incorrect signals causing planes to crush etc etc."
Yet another loon shouting out the usual hateful anti-science propaganda BS who thinks or at least pretends he can prove relativity wrong but fails to.
He says;
"But relativists are extremely good at (or more correctly, extremely vulnerable to) misinterpreting experimental data and claiming every observation as highly supportive of their stupid religion of relativity ..."
...[text shortened]... unt relativity, would give incorrect signals causing planes to crush etc etc.
So what about it?
Your above statement is clearly false. GPS does not need relativity equations to keep planes from crushing. You proved yourself wrong.
@metal-brain saidSo what? Everything I said is at least in the main basically correct at least in terms of what I meant by my quotes. I am not aware of any significant errors I made, only the trivial one Deepthought pointed out to me.
That is not what you first said.
No, time dilation proves relativity. GPS proves nothing.We have explained to you how the need for presetting GPS clock tick rate settings to take into account time dilation according to relativity proves time dilation exists. Therefore, if, as you said, time dilation proves relativity, the need for presetting GPS clock tick rates to take into account relativity also proves relativity.
You are also falsely claiming I proposed a theory that I didn't. I am merely entertaining the possibility.No, I define that claimed 'possibility' you entertain AS your 'theory', which you just admitted making above with your " I am merely entertaining the possibility" quote. Thus no lie there. Unless you now say you never "entertaining the possibility"?
GPS doesn't need relativity to work.Correct, at least in the narrow sense if there hypothetically was no time dilation existing then GPS wouldn't be set to take into account the time dilation because it would work fine without it if hypothetically no time dilation existed. That's what I repeatedly said but apparently you cannot read.
It self adjusts for time dilation.How can there be a creditable possibility of no time dilation existing (your 'theory' ) if the GPS sats "self adjusts for time dilation"? What it it 'adjusting' to if time dilation doesn't exist? You make no sense.
"Meanwhile, the experimental proof of relativity becomes ever more mountainous and if it was wrong then nuclear power wouldn't work and GPS sats, given their clock tick rates are designed to take into account relativity, would give incorrect signals causing planes to crush etc etc."In what sense "not need relativity equations to keep planes from crushing"?
Your above statement is clearly false. GPS does not need relativity equations to keep planes from crushing.
If the GPS clock tick rates were not preset to take into account time dilation according to the relevant relativity time dilation equations then GPS clocks will be wrong thus, if that was then moronically ignored, that could well send some plains crushing to the ground! Do you deny that?
OK, that's go thought this one step at a time;
1, Do you deny the GPS clock tick rates ARE preset to take into account time dilation according to the relevant relativity time dilation equations?
If no;
2, Do you deny that the GPS clock tick rates NEED TO be preset to take into account time dilation according to the relevant relativity time dilation equations else they will give the wrong time and cause GPS to fail?
If no;
3, Do you deny that the NEED FOR GPS clock tick rates to be preset to take into account time dilation according to the relevant relativity time dilation equations proves time dilation exists?
If you don't answer the above 3 simple questions, we all know why; It is because you know you are wrong.
@humy saidGPS doesn't need relativity to work and you agree. That is all I was waiting for. You proved yourself wrong.
So what? Everything I said is at least in the main basically correct at least in terms of what I meant by my quotes. I am not aware of any significant errors I made, only the trivial one Deepthought pointed out to me.No, time dilation proves relativity. GPS proves nothing.We have explained to you how the need for presetting GPS clock tick rate settings to ta ...[text shortened]... ou don't answer the above 3 simple questions, we all know why; It is because you know you are wrong.
7 edits
@metal-brain saidHow so?
GPS doesn't need relativity to work and you agree. That is all I was waiting for. You proved yourself wrong.
I never had claimed or implied GPS "needs relativity to work" in the sense you implied. You really love your straw mans don't you! The fact you keep resorting to them shows you know you have already lost the argument.
We in contrast have proved your wrong by showing how there is no credible doubt that time dilation exists by showing how the need for GPS satellite clock presettings to take into account time dilation as predicted by relativity proves time dilation exists. So you make no point. All you have is your useless BS straw mans and BS theories.
@Metal-Brain
Regardless of how you want to spin it, call it time dilation or relativity, GPS HAS to have some means to compensate for it whether empirically by just adjusting clock rates from calculations derived from relativity or just having the programs directly in the sats, it still boils down to needing to account for time shifts due to altitude and velocity. No matter how you slice it, they have to compensate for 30,000+ nanoseconds per day or else GPS is just an expensive paperweight in orbit.
@humy saidYes you did.
How so?
I never had claimed or implied GPS "needs relativity to work" in the sense you implied. You really love your straw mans don't you! The fact you keep resorting to them shows you know you have already lost the argument.
We in contrast have proved your wrong by showing how there is no credible doubt that time dilation exists by showing how the need for GPS satellite cloc ...[text shortened]... e dilation exists. So you make no point. All you have is your useless BS straw mans and BS theories.
"given their clock tick rates are designed to take into account relativity, would give incorrect signals causing planes to crush etc etc."
Clock rates are NOT designed to take into account relativity. That is a false statement. Admit you are wrong.
@sonhouse saidGPS does NOT use relativity to compensate for time dilation. GPS compensates for time dilation without any need for relativity equations. That is a fact.
@Metal-Brain
Regardless of how you want to spin it, call it time dilation or relativity, GPS HAS to have some means to compensate for it whether empirically by just adjusting clock rates from calculations derived from relativity or just having the programs directly in the sats, it still boils down to needing to account for time shifts due to altitude and velocity. No ma ...[text shortened]... to compensate for 30,000+ nanoseconds per day or else GPS is just an expensive paperweight in orbit.
GPS does NOT need relativity to work......period.
2 edits
@metal-brain saidFirst you admitted you think
GPS does NOT use relativity to compensate for time dilation. GPS compensates for time dilation
"time dilation proves relativity" (YOUR quote)
Thus clearly saying you think if time dilation exist then relativity is true.
Now at last you have just admitted "GPS compensates for time dilation" thus at last answering one of my questions but also implying that time dilation exists else why would GPS be made to "compensate for time dilation" if no time dilation exist?
Thus you have apparently just admitted you think;
1, GPS proves time dilation exists. (From YOUR quote)
2, Time dilation proves relativity. (From YOUR quote)
If both 1 and 2 above true then that would obviously logically imply GPS proves relativity. How could that NOT be logically true? If, as you asserted, GPS proves time dilation exists then time dilation exists and then if, as you asserted, that existence of time dilation proves relativity true then relativity is true THEREFORE, but contrary to what you then asserted, GPS DOES proves relativity. This is just a matter of simple deductive logic.
And yet you contradict yourself by STILL saying GPS does NOT prove relativity!
Explain to us please how this is NOT contradicting yourself...
1 edit
@humy saidGPS does NOT need relativity to work.
First you admitted you think
"time dilation proves relativity" (YOUR quote)
Thus clearly saying you think if time dilation exist then relativity is true.
Now at last you have just admitted "GPS compensates for time dilation" thus at last answering one of my questions but also implying that time dilation exists else why would GPS be made to "compensate for time dilation" i ...[text shortened]... aying GPS does NOT prove relativity!
Explain to us please how this is NOT contradicting yourself...
1, GPS proves time dilation exists. (From YOUR quote)
That is not my quote. You fabricated the quote.
You clearly said GPS needs relativity equations to work. You were wrong. Just admit you were wrong instead of making up false quotes. Lying just makes you look petty.
1 edit
@metal-brain saidHow does that above assertion of mine, as you claim, imply GPS "NEEDS relativity to work" ? As I said countless times before and ALWAYS said, if relativity was hypothetically false then GPS would merely not be designed to take into account relativity and would still work just fine; which is what I have been saying all the time and never claimed or imply GPS "NEEDS relativity to work", which is only YOUR stupid straw man, not mine.
Yes you did.
"given their clock tick rates are designed to take into account relativity, would give incorrect signals causing planes to crush etc etc."
Clock rates are NOT designed to take into account relativity. That is a false statement. Admit you are wrong.
6 edits
@metal-brain saidBy "from" I meant clearly implies by your quote, which it clearly does.
GPS does NOT need relativity to work.
1, GPS proves time dilation exists. (From YOUR quote)
This is your quote --> "GPS compensates for time dilation" <--
Which clearly implies that time dilation exists else why would GPS be made to "compensate for time dilation" if no time dilation exists? You make no sense.
And you still haven't explained to us how this is NOT contradicting yourself -we all know why.
OK; DO you claim time dilation exists? Yes or no?
Failure to answer such a simple question shows you know you have already lost the argument and are just trolling here.
You clearly said GPS needs relativity equations to work.No, I said the exact opposite. WHERE did I ever say/imply "GPS NEEDS relativity equations to work"? And you accuse ME of lying!