Why do you think it has to be? Your ONLY claim here that could be valid is that the math of SR doesn't give the same results that GPS does. That claim would be false though. You can claim all you want that 'SR says this' and 'SR says that', but you are only looking at simplified examples, and not actually the math. You don't actually have any complain othere than that you don't understand the SR/GR explaination of how the GPS system works.... and you never will, since you can't understand the math. Thank you for reminding everyone....
Shame you have such a limited mental capacity to not understand. But then you actually do I suspect but it would be so unlike you to ever admit error. Thanks for reminding everyone that your posts are worthless garbage. Nothing but false allegations and denial of hard fact.
Cut the crap! I simply pointed out to you that Lorentz transformation laws and those adopted by SR are not the same. Therefore, your claim that your LR and SR use the same math is wrong. The one in SR requires no aether, unlike original formula proposed by Lorentz. You just simply wrong, that all I wanted to say.
You are clearly free to say whatever you want but that also clearly doesn't make it true. You are correct and the elimination of the "Concept" of an aether was the down fall of the theory. It created a situation where in relative motion both participants assume a position of relative rest. The conflicts of that, with any possible reality, are apparent at first glance. This post is not declaring an aether but a universal background that is currently unknown and unmeasured. Perhaps you would post proof of your claim that the formula t' = t(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup> was Einstien's work. While you are at it then you might perhaps give us a plausiable explanation why Einstien would yield credit to Lorentz by referring to the formula as Lorentz Transformation in Mutatis Mutandis.
No it doesn't. No "absolute" reference frame is required by GPS. Can you cite any articles which claim that GPS requires an absolute frame? Yes it does.
1 - GPS will not work if given referance frames as between clocks. Which has been the referance frame in the bulk of discussions in these threads. 2 - You are technically correct in that they tread lightly in describing their referance frame and to not draw attention to the fact of what they are doing and why, except discussion about the frame creating synchronization to the equivelent of an "imaginary clock" at the earth's axis. But that doesn't alter the reality of the issue which is that they have selected a referance frame which does not include relative motion along the line of sight between the orbiting clock and their synchronized clocks. It is "Defacto" that GPS does not use the SR relationship of relative velocity between clocks. Deliberate omission of discussing that fact is to not upset the apple cart and to allow you and others to take advantage of the GPS success claiming it as a further proof of Relativity.
What do you mean by a "between clocks" reference frame? Regardless, you are wrong. GPS will work in any frame, though your calculations may have to compensate for the frame change. On the contrary, some of the articles we've looked at explain exactly why the particular frame is chosen. It makes things easier. That's why. No other reason. I can't decipher this sufficiently to comment. Maybe that's because the satellites communicate with the ground, not with each other. The GPS system requires about 8 different relativistic effects to be taken into account to work. This is well documented. There is no cover-up. GPS is a great example of just how well relativity works.
READERS: I am hereby terminate my participation in this thread in that other threads are addressing this same issue. My response may be found in the thread "Einstein's Mutatis Mutandis SR" which I believe is better supported and more efficient to debate. [thread=42979]Here [/thread]
Ah yes, you hit a bunch of dead ends and start lying in different threads, so you spam each thread with a message saying that you want to start over. Uh huh....
It is argued on several websites that the 38 microseconds/day contribution of Relativity would accumulate quickly to values much larger then the observed accuracy and hence render any position determination useless. However, in practice the position is not determined by comparing the satellite and receiver clock but through the difference of the time signals of several satellites. In this case there is actually no accumulation of any error in the clock rates and it is easy to show that the 38 microseconds/day would only result in a position error of 0.8 cm (see my page http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/gps.htm ). The fact that GPS works should therefore not be considered as a proof for the validity of the Theory of Relativity (which in fact can shown to be flawed for other reasons, see http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/relativity.htm ).
