Skeptic134

You are claiming to know something that is in reality unknowable and you are making the claims in the complete absence of evidence, which is a dangerous behavior and detriment to humanity.

photon propeller, I'm not sure I follow the point you are trying to make; is it that religion(s) is a source of detriment to humanity? Or are you saying we all need to believe in the "right" god?

Are you referring to Einstein's pseudotensor? Curious for your explanation.

Being able to admit mistakes is much more admirable than trying to convince yourself and/or others you've never made one. It is/was a mistake to suggest that atomic clocks onboard a satellite and on earth could not be used to measure and calculate the effects of relativity on time and thus correct for it the same way that the Hafele-Keating experiment used atomic clocks on earth and in an airplane to perform said measurements. Agreed, and I was under the impression xyzt was defending the consistency of GR and GPS up until that assertion.

Science is a tool only, it doesn't need to be reined in as it has no motives of its own. Promoting and fostering good science on the other hand is very important but we don't need religion to do that.

I think it is a combination of environment and genetic predisposition. Indoctrination at a young age is very strong but I think that some people’s personality makes it a little easier to fight off the indoctrination whereas others never can. It’s anecdotal but I was raised very religious but eventually was able to start thinking on my own and determine for myself what made sense; my two siblings remain religious as does my entire family.

All of the above posts of yours (and there are more this is just a sample) insist that it is impossible to have satellites in orbit with clocks and clocks on earth and to calculate the TD factor due GR as Le Repteux was suggesting could be done. This is wrong. If that were true than the Hafele-Keating experiment too would have been impossible. No one said the Hafele-Keating experiment had anything to do with GPS... I pointed out that the only difference in that experiment used to measure TD effects and what Le Repteux was postulating was that the clocks were on satellites instead of in an airplane. Yes, I believe we are all in agreement that GPS is consistent with relativity. We should also all be in agreement that TD effects of GR can be measured not only by an experiment such as the Hafele-Keating but also if the clocks were on satellites.

The following link to Neil Ashby's 2003 paper on Relativity in GPS: http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/download/lrr-2003-1Color.pdf Of note: "Also, experimental tests of relativity can be performed with GPS, although generally speaking these are not at a level of precision any better than previously existing tests." - page 6 "At the time of launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977), which contained the first Cesium atomic clock to be placed in orbit, it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require a relativistic correction, but there was uncertainty as to its magnitude as well as its sign. Indeed, there were some who doubted that relativistic effects were truths that would need to be incorporated [5]! A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite clock system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit was that predicted by general relativity, then the synthesizer could be turned on, bringing the clock to the coordinate rate necessary for operation. Also of note is the Hafele–Keating experiment which as far as I can tell is only different from what Le Repteux was originally describbing by the clock being onboard a satellite vs an airplane. Suffices to say deriving time corrections to account for relavistic effects is clearly possible and one of the ways relativity has been validated.

Facts are repeatable observations... (empiricism) So again, science is based on observations and the mathematical and quantitative derivations thereof. Unless mistaken, you appear to be suggesting that GR is different than other scientific theories in that without foreknowledge it cannot be derived or discovered making it a catch-22 of sorts?

That is what science is... It isn't based on authoritative decree... And GR isn't a catch-22 in which without first knowing GR you cannot discover GR...

After reading the thread I’m a little confused at some of the responses to Le Repteux. I don’t think he was attempting to say relativity wasn’t consistent with GPS. Aside from Bart, I don’t think anyone was trying to assert inconsistency in the two. What I gathered was he was asking whether you could derive a correcting factor via empiricism that would account for the effects gravity has on time and thus clocks on earth and in orbit. I’m not sure how the answer to that question could possibly be no considering that is part of what you do in science, find mathematical and quantitative explanations for our observations of reality.

Hey all, I’m joining these forums in hopes of being immersed in new ideas and to learn. I have an M.S. in Computer Engineering and work as a software engineer which I find mostly fulfilling. Lately however, I’ve been missing the atmosphere of academia and the stimulation from being surrounded by new ideas, possibilities and people with similar passion. I’ve been in my industry for 10 years and sometimes the mindsets of practicality and bottom line are too prevalent and hinder creativity and wonderment. Anyway, outside of computer science and AI I have always enjoyed physics and philosophy and really most fields of science. I have always had a wide range of interests and hope to stumble across some interesting new ideas here. Thanks

I think it is an interesting idea that the organization of the matter and energy responsible for my consciousness could potentially occur again but I believe the reality is that my consciousness is not just my atoms but also my experiences. Basically, my consciousness changes over time because my experiences mold and form my neural pathways. Even if mathematically the probability exists for matter and energy to form identically to match some snapshot of my “former” consciousness in the next moment it would no longer be a snapshot but a new consciousness. This reminds me a little of something I’ve thought about before, a finite number of potential “original” humans. At some point “we’ve had that human all ready”, of course the numbers I’m sure are incredibly huge. Death I imagine is just like prior to birth.