xyzt

This is because the cranks always insist that there are "contradictions". They misconstrue their basic misunderstandings as "contradictions". By "we" you must mean "yourself". Mainstream scientists do not ascribe to your views, I listed hundreds of experiments that disprove your claims. What you "think" is irrelevant, what mainstream science demonstrates, is relevant. Even if it contradicts what you "think".

False Patently false.

Good, Continue to waste your time. I am through trying to educate you. Nope, mainstream science shows that you are wrong, you too can continue wasting your time. I am through trying to educate you as well.

You fail basics physics : there is no Doppler effect if the source and the receiver are co-moving. Since there is no relative motion, there is no Doppler effect.

The "contradictions" are your basic misunderstandings. So, in order to "find out why", you need to look at yourself. You aren't "proposing solutions", you are just exposing your level of misunderstanding. Not in the frame of the train, the source and the receiver are moving as one. So, contrary to your misconceptions, no Doppler. There is still no Doppler effect because there is no relative motion between the source and the receiver in ANY frame. There is also no absolute simultaneity, as explained by the simple application of SR. Sure but you two aren't going to be the ones exploring the theories. You need to learn the theories first, before you launch your exploration. Both of you have demonstrated that you haven't learned.

Of course you agree. The fact that you two agree doesn't make either of yoy right, it makes both of you equally wrong. Relativity is a non-contradictory theory. Only cranks who misinterpret relativity claim that they have found "contradictions". Promoting your own fringe theories does not constitute a valid argument. Interestingly enough: -there is no Doppler effect for the observer on the train -there is no Doppler effect for the observer on the platform The reason is that: -the observer on the train is co-moving with the light source , therefore, no Doppler -the observer on the platform is a little more complicated, there is a cancellation of the Doppler effects due to the waves being reflected, so the receding effect is cancelled by the opposite effect : Trailing mirror [math]f_{platform}=f_{src}\sqrt{\frac{1-\beta}{1+\beta}}\sqrt{\frac{1+\beta}{1-\beta}}=f_{src}[/math] Leading mirror is the opposite [math]f_{platform}=f_{src}\sqrt{\frac{1+\beta}{1-\beta}}\sqrt{\frac{1-\beta}{1+\beta}}=f_{src}[/math] Err, mainstream physics relies on experiment for validation. Neither of you seem to grasp the fact that "mind experiments" are worth naught in physics. Besides, as I have just shown, your "contradictions" in mind experiments are just your basic misunderstandings. Seriously?

You aren't right, you are badly and profoundly wrong. Doesn't seem to stop you from posting the same errors over and over.

See here. One cannot attach a frame of reference to photons, SR forbids it and robinpike knows that already.

None, this has been explained to you in another thread.

So, you made a whole bunch of false statements and you come back with "I mis-spoke". I already did. Here it is again. The Lorentz transforms tie the time [math]t'[/math] of the observer on the platform to the time [math]t[/math] of the observer on the train: [math]t'=\gamma(t-vx/c^2)[/math] where v is the relative speed train-platform. Form the above, the temporal separation between two events ransforms as : [math]dt'=\gamma(dt-vdx/c^2)[/math] The events (the light flashes) have a [math]dt=0[/math] temporal separation in the frame of the train. They also have a spatial separation [/math]dx=L[/math], where L is the length of the train car, so, in the frame of the patform: [math]dt'=\gamma(0-vL/c^2)=-\gamma vL/c^2[/math] So, [math]dt' \ne 0[/math] This is wrong, the units are incorrect. What you wanted to write is: [math]\frac{V x_1-V x_2 }{c^2} =t_2 - t_1[/math] If you want "absolute simultaneity", this can only happen when [math]x_1=x_2[/math], i.e. the events must be also co-located. One can never have "absolute simultaneity" for spatially separated events.

This is the only one that shows up. Pretty crappy, by today's standards. Either way, you could be less rude. Or you could show how the formulas of the HK paper relate to the formulas explaining the functionality of the GPS I posted earlier in this thread.

1. The HK does NOT use the same equations as the GPS because there are NO equations in the HK paper. 2. In ADDITION , the HK paper is not very well written. Actually, it is very poorly written, the authors play very fast and loose with both the terminology AND the theory. This is one of the (many) reasons the paper has been criticized over time (the other reason, unrelated to our discussion is that the controls over the experiment were very poor). This is what happens when experimentalists dabble into theoretical physics. Well, maybe you could collaborate on a paper that shows how you could adjust the satellite clock timing based on "empirical data". Who knows, I might get to referee it.

HK is about total elapsed proper time. Time dilation is a totally different effect than total elapsed proper time. The only relationship between HK and GPS is that they are both explained by GR and that they confirm two DIFFERENT predictions of GR. No one denies that. On the contrary, I explained how it is done in reality, not in some fantasy world. 1. HK doesn't correct anything. 2. HK and GPS are based on two different effects 3. The measurements of total elapsed proper time done in HK are not and cannot be used in any form or fashion for the frequency corrections applied to GPS. Since you appear to think differently, let's cut to the chase, show how you would perform the correction. I will point out the errors in your approach, just as I did it for Le Repteux.

This is a non-sequitur. As I pointed out, there is no connection between HK and GPS. So, if you agree that there is no connection between the two, your invoking HK in order to prop up Le Repeaux ideas is a non-starter. GPS has nothing to do with "TD". The GPS functionality relies on frequency (not time) adjustment based on a complex interplay of gravitational and kinematic effects. I

....using the predictions of GR. The scientists let the system work without the correction , so , in one hour the receivers were missing by a block. So, the scientists turned the corrections on and the system started to work correctly. Thereafter, the frequency synthesizer was removed (in order to save cost) and the clocks aboard the satellites were preset to a lower frequency such as to compensate the speedup once they are in orbit. I showed that many posts ago. Hafele-Keating has nothing in common with GPS with the exception that the experimenters flew atomic clocks (on counterpropagating planes). HK is about total elapsed proper time, GPS is about frequencies. Yes, GPS is a spectacular validation of GR.

No, what gives you this idea? I am only saying that the so-called "internet skeptics" have never contributed anything to the advancement of physics. Contribution requires knowledge of existent science.

Correct, it is based on hard FACT. Something that the "skeptics" do not have.

Well, you will have to read the answers in order to understand why it is not possible to do it "via empiricism".

Good.

It really doesn't matter what it "means to you". It matters what it means to mainstream scientists in charge of building and maintaining GPS. The adjustments are to counter the effects of temperature, altitude variation, clock drift, etc., i.e. the small DEVIATIONS from the prescribed frequency. The corrections, contrary to your insistence, cannot and will not replace the process of SETTING the frequency at launch. Because, without knowing GR , you do NOT know what value to set the frequency.

This doesn't do you or anybody else any good, as explained. The fact that IN REAL LIFE, the GPS receiver "down here" and the GPS transmitter "up there" end up ticking at the same frequency (courtesy of GR) should have given you the clue, long ago.

I saw it very precisely. This is what allowed me to point out the repeated error in your reasoning: you are not synchronizing the satellite clock with the Earth-bound clock.

But what is needed is driving to zero [math]f_{receiver}-f_{transmitter}[/math]. You need to make the proper frequencies the same in order to have proper time pass at the same rate in both transmitter and receiver. The reason for that is that both devices integrate the proper time [math]\tau[/math] in order to get their respective coordinate times [math]t[/math]. (see the Ashby monograph). GPS works off coordinate time [math]t[/math] and coordinate time is obtained via : [math]t=\int{\sqrt{1-(v/c)^2}d\tau}[/math].

You are "driving to zero" [math]f_{receiver}-f_{observed}[/math]. What you want is to drive to zero [math]f_{receiver}-f_{transmitter}[/math]. But you do not know [math]f_{transmitter}[/math]. You can only infer it, with the help of GR.

1. The orbit is not circlar 2. You cannot "eliminate" the Doppler effect since there is relative motion between the transmitter and receiver 3. As explained earlier, what you observe is not the frequency of the clock on the satellite but the value SHIFTED by the difference in speed and in gravitational potential. So, if you insist on trying to adjust the frequency WITHOUT the help of GR, as you have been trying throughout this thread, you CAN'T.