Let's Examine Dave and See If He Has Any Valid Points

Many Internet forums have carried discussion of the Electric Universe hypothesis. Much of that discussion has added more confusion than clarity, due to common misunderstandings of the electrical principles. Here we invite participants to discuss their experiences and to summarise questions that have yet to be answered.
User avatar
Brigit
Posts: 1107
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:37 pm

Re: Let's Examine Dave and See If He Has Any Valid Points

Unread post by Brigit » Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:46 pm

Does GPS validate GR and SR?

In the video presentation above, Ron Hatch mentioned that he was submitting a paper entitled "Gravitational Clocks and Apparent Relativity."

I got curious if it was published and here it is:

Author: Hatch, Ronald R.
Source: Physics Essays, Volume 26, Number 2, June 2013, pp. 159-173(15)
Publisher: Physics Essays Publication
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4006/0836-1398-26.2.159
  • Abstract
    As was shown in a prior paper [R. R. Hatch, Phys. Essays 23, 540 (2010)], the conservation of momentum together with the increase of inertial mass with velocity requires that the orbit of a spacecraft around the earth be contracted in the along-velocity direction of the earth's orbit around the sun. This length contraction effect combined with the effects of speed upon the clock rate results in an apparent Lorentz transformation between the earth's frame and the solar barycentric frame. However, the conservation of energy requires that some additional forces be present which were not addressed in that paper. In the current paper, the forces are included in the analysis. Gravitomagnetic (referred to herein as kinetic) forces are developed which are consistent with both energy and momentum conservation. It is shown that these forces are consistent with a length contracted orbit, which because of anisotropic light velocity appears as a circular orbit whose orbital frequency is decreased just as the frequency of electromagnetic radiation is decreased with the velocity of emitting atoms. The kinetic force effects are considered in two orthogonal planes, in the plane normal to the earth's orbital velocity and in a plane containing earth's orbital velocity. The application to an arbitrary orbital plane is simply the sine/cosine combination of the two planes.

    Keywords: General Relativity; Gravitational Force; Gravitomagnetic Force; Kinetic Force; Lorentz Transformation; Selleri Transformation; Special Relativity
https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ ... 2/art00001

Document Type: Research Article


Video description:
  • "Perhaps you've already heard that GPS, by the very fact that it WORKS, confirms Einstein's relativity; also that Black Holes must be real. But these are little more than popular fictions, according to the distinguished GPS expert Ron Hatch. Here Ron describes GPS data that refute fundamental tenets of both the Special and General Relativity theories. The same experimental data, he notes, suggests an absolute frame with only an appearance of relativity.

    Ron has worked with satellite navigation and positioning for 50 years, having demonstrated the Navy's TRANSIT System at the 1962 Seattle World's Fair. He is well known for innovations in high-accuracy applications of the GPS system including the development of the "Hatch Filter" which is used in most GPS receivers. He has obtained over two dozen patents related to GPS positioning and is currently a member of the U.S National PNT (Positioning Navigation and Timing) Advisory Board. He is employed in advanced engineering at John Deere's Intelligent Systems Group."
His memory is a blessing.
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer

crawler
Posts: 740
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: Let's Examine Dave

Unread post by crawler » Wed Sep 21, 2022 11:23 pm

Brigit wrote:
Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:21 pm
Does GPS validate GR and SR?

Here is a summary of the problem by Tom van Flandern:

"In LR [Lorentzian Relativity], one reference frame (the local gravity field) is preferred; and speed cannot affect time, but only the rate of ticking of mechanical, electromagnetic, or biological clocks.

However, just as we do not assume that time has been affected when the temperature rises and causes a pendulum clock to slow down, LR says that changes in clock rates are changes in the rates of physical processes, and do not affect space or time.

So by carrying an on-board GPS clock on the spacecraft, we are offered a clear choice between models: Earth time can be what SR infers it is, or it can be what the GPS clock says it is. In the former case, SR works, but leads to heavy-duty complexities and fantastic inferences about the nature of time at remote locations. Moreover, the proof that nothing can travel faster than light in forward time stands intact. In the latter case, LR works with great simplicity and in full accord with our intuitions about the universality of the instant "now". And the speed of light is no longer a universal speed limit because time itself is never affected either by motion or by gravity.

Aside from these practical difficulties with the use of SR in the GPS, Einstein's special relativity is also under challenge in a more serious way from the "speed of gravity" issue, because the proven existence of anything propagating faster than light in forward time (as all experiments indicate is the case for gravity) would falsify SR outright [6, 7]. So it is entirely possible that reality is Lorentzian, not Einsteinian, with respect to the relativity of motion. In that case, physics may have no speed limit when the driving forces are gravitational or electrodynamic rather than electromagnetic in nature. And that may be the most important thing that the GPS has helped us to appreciate."

ref: http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/episte ... -vanfl.htm

Here is an additional exploration of the claims that GPS validates Einstein's GR and SR:
RON HATCH: Relativity in the Light of GPS | EU 2013
Apr 6, 2013 ch: ThunderboltsProject
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGZ1GU_HDwY
Dur. 38 min

Note: there is diversity within the Electric Universe and Plasma Universe: for example, crawler does not see a need for even Lorentzian calculations in GPS, and Michael Mozina does not see any conflict between Plasma Cosmology and Einstein's GR.
Yes i don’t see that GPS needs any kind of time or ticking theory (such as STR or GTR) – GPS needs daily or hourly simple arithmetic corrections – however i can see the worth of having an element of prediction in those predictions, ie praps based on what was found yesterday, or based on what was found on this day last year (in an empirical way), without much need for hifalutin theory.
However, i think that some theory would help -- aetherwind theory.

I apologise for not answering the OP of this thread (ie re Dave & his youtube). And i apologise for not spending more time trying to understand that there Hatch stuff & Van Flandern stuff (i will have a closer look later). But it appears that Hatch & Van Flandern do not mention the aetherwind.

I feel sure that for super accuracy the GPS needs an allowance for the aetherwind.
This aetherwind should include the background aetherwind blowing through the solar system (500 km/s, south to north, approx 20 deg off Earth's axis, RA 4:30), & the aetherwind blowing into the Earth (11.2 km/s) & into the Sun (42 km/s at Earth's orbit).
Plus we have the (pseudo aetherwind) effect of Earth's spin (up to 1.4 km/s) & Earth's orbit (30 km/s).

Hence signals to & from satellites have a headwind & tailwind & sidewind, that must be added to the speed of light.
Hatch & Van Flandern don’t mention that.

And the speed of light through the aether (c ) is affected by the nearness of mass (ie c becomes c') -- & here it is ok to introduce Einstein's GTR equation which (i think) says that the nearness of mass equates to the escape velocity (ie we need to use Ve for VV/cc in the equation for gamma)(which in effect gives us c').
I think that Hatch & Van Flandern mention this stuff.

Hence the GPS signals propagate at c'+Va or c'-Va etc (where Va is the vel of the aetherwind)(& Va & c' both vary with time of day & elevation & direction etc).
But surely they (the Army etc)(& Hatch & Van Flandern) know this -- & surely they keep it a secret (ie the aether & aetherwind are a secret).
They know that STR is krapp (that’s no secret) -- & GTR is mostly krapp (that’s no secret).
But silly Prof Dave duznt know -- & he swallows all of that silly Einsteinian skoolkid stuff.

I should also mention that the Va aetherwind effects largely cancel out, ie they mostly negate, ie they can be ignored, almost -- & its the almost that i am talking about.
The aetherwind has a Doppler effect too. Mightbe they can use the Doppler effects to keep track of the aetherwind in real time. This stuff hurts my brain.
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
The present Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end – for the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return – it never left.

User avatar
Brigit
Posts: 1107
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:37 pm

Let's Examine "Dave" and See If He Has Any Valid Points

Unread post by Brigit » Mon Sep 26, 2022 11:51 pm

You questioned Einstein ! ! subtopic: aether calcs on GPS
  • crawler says »
    Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:23 pm
    "I feel sure that for super accuracy the GPS needs an allowance for the aetherwind.
    This aetherwind should include the background aetherwind blowing through the solar system (500 km/s, south to north, approx 20 deg off Earth's axis, RA 4:30), & the aetherwind blowing into the Earth (11.2 km/s) & into the Sun (42 km/s at Earth's orbit).
    Plus we have the (pseudo aetherwind) effect of Earth's spin (up to 1.4 km/s) & Earth's orbit (30 km/s).

    Hence signals to & from satellites have a headwind & tailwind & sidewind, that must be added to the speed of light.
    Hatch & Van Flandern don’t mention that."
Very interesting comment. I think if you follow the vanFlandern link (on the previous page) you will find the references to aether.

The earlier scientists such as James Clerk Maxwell and HA Lorentz assumed its existence in their equations. The Electric Universe continues in that tradition in classical Physics.

As I understand it, the Electric Universe discussion is based on a motionless aether, but i don't really know for sure.
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer

User avatar
Brigit
Posts: 1107
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:37 pm

Let's Examine "Dave" and See If He Has Any Valid Points

Unread post by Brigit » Tue Sep 27, 2022 12:21 am

Now I understand this is a rant by a youtuber, and nobody wants to deal with it. But let's finish up and get on with more important things.

I chose to begin by examining Dave's central point, and we looked at a direct quote from the video. Again, here is the main argument:
  • "Completely contrary to ignoring stars and planets, it is specifically observations of stars and planets that have firmly corroborated relativity countless times.
  • 26:04 The first was the famous observation with Eddington of a star’s apparent position bending around the sun during a solar eclipse. Then there was the flawless alignment with the perihelion precession of Mercury. The observation of gravitational lensing all over the universe. Modeling the paths of stars near galactic center as they rapidly orbit a supermassive black hole. All things having to do with stars and planets. And that doesn’t even include GPS, which literally would not work without mathematically adjusting the rates of clocks onboard satellites to account for relativistic effects.
  • When people like Wal whine about how empty and scriptural relativity is, they publicly admit to knowing less than an undergraduate freshman about the topic."
When we talk about the motions of these bodies and satellites in orbit, no one is denying that the Mercury's orbit is off by a slight but maddening degree, or that GPS requires adjustments, or that the motions of stars and molecular clouds around Sagittarius A reveal powerful effects coming from the center of our galaxy. Those data are all based on observations and measurements (& more or less computer modeling).

I think the part that "Dave" is missing is that different scientists may interpret the same data differently.
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer

jacmac
Posts: 844
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:36 pm

Re: Let's Examine Dave and See If He Has Any Valid Points

Unread post by jacmac » Tue Sep 27, 2022 2:01 am

When I read about Relativity it makes my brain hurt.
when I hear about gravity bending space or spacetime I think it is nonsense.
So, when all that, and all the rest, is championed by "Prof" Dave, or anyone else, I just look elsewhere to place my time and effort.
The fundamental problem with all these crazy theories (big bang, dark matter, dark energy, black holes, redshift =distance, etc)
is that they are all based on the unspoken foundational assumption: IN SPACE GRAVITY DOES EVERYTHING.

When it is found that the rotation speed of spiral galaxies is not consistent with theory based on gravity
there is no attempt to stop and think, or say, GEE WHAT OTHER FORCE MIGHT BE AT WORK HERE ?

When NASA tells us that the universe is 99.9% plasma
and plasma is not gas because of charged particles,
and one property of electrons or protons is their electromagnetic charge
that is a force at least 36 orders of magnitude greater than gravity,
there is STILL no attempt to stop and think, or say, GEE THAT OTHER FORCE JUST MIGHT BE ELECTROMAGNETISM.

So, for me, I'll try to place a comment here and there that reminds a random reader
that not everyone believes their nonsense, that there is electricity in space, and people are going to have to deal with it...eventually.

As for Prof Dave, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Jack

User avatar
nick c
Posts: 2783
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:12 am

Re: Let's Examine Dave and See If He Has Any Valid Points

Unread post by nick c » Tue Sep 27, 2022 2:52 pm

Prof. Dave:
And that doesn’t even include GPS, which literally would not work without mathematically adjusting the rates of clocks onboard satellites to account for relativistic effects.
I sometimes wonder if mainstream statements like this are made from ignorance or are intentionally deceptive.

The margin of error for GPS is many times greater than the relativity adjustment. And there is no accumulation of error over time.

As Dr. Smid points out, the margin of error for GPS is about 2 to 3 meters while the relativity correction is about 8 millimeters. GPS works the same, regardless of any relativity adjustment.
Global Positioning System (GPS) and Relativity
The Global Positioning System (GPS) is nowadays considered as the prime example for the everyday importance of Relativity. It is claimed that without the relativistic corrections (which amount to 38 microseconds/day) the error in the determination of the position would accumulate quickly to values much larger then the observed accuracy (Ref.1 , Ref.2).
However, in reality the positions are actually not obtained by comparing the time signal received from the satellite with the receiver time, but by observing the difference between the time signals obtained from a number of different satellites (see the Wikipedia GPS article for details (note that I have linked this now to an older version of the article, as the latest version is not as clear in this respect)).
Consider for simplicity a one dimensional problem where the receiver is located somewhere on the line connecting the two transmitters. In this case the signal from transmitter 1 reaches the receiver at time
(1) t1 = t0+ x1/c

and the signal from transmitter 2 reaches the receiver at time
(2) t2 = t0+ x2/c ,

where t0 is the time the signal is being sent out (assuming both transmitter clocks are synchronized), x1 is the distance of the receiver from transmitter 1, x2 the distance of the receiver from transmitter2, and c the speed of light.
Now if one subtracts Eqs.(1) and (2) one gets
(3) x1-x2 = c. [t1-t2].

One knows therefore the position of the receiver just by comparing the time signals from the two transmitters (the receiver clock is completely irrelevant).
If one assumes now that the transmitter clocks are running fast or slow by a relative factor (1+ε), one has instead:
(4) x1-x2 = c.[(1+ε).t1 -(1+ε).t2] = c.(1+ε).(t1-t2)

which means that the position will simply be wrong by a relative factor ε, but there is obviously no accumulation as the transmitter clocks run at the same rate relatively to each other (assuming that all satellites have identical heights and speeds, i.e. identical relativistic time dilations).
Now the quoted relativistic correction of 38 microseconds/day corresponds to ε=4.4.10-10. As the satellites are at a distance of around 20000 km (=2.109 cm), the positional error due to relativity should actually only be 4.4.10-10 . 2.109 cm = 0.8 cm! This is even much less than the presently claimed accuracy of the GPS of a few meters, so the Relativity effect should actually not be relevant at all!

For a further discussion of this issue please see my discussion pages.
Note: anyone interested in the math in the above quote should refer to the link below (the forum software does not allow for subscript or superscripts in the equations)


https://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/gps.htm

crawler
Posts: 740
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: Let's Examine Dave and See If He Has Any Valid Points

Unread post by crawler » Tue Sep 27, 2022 11:03 pm

Allow me to explain my understanding of possible aetherwind effects on GPS – ignoring the effect of aetherwind on length contraction & ticking dilation (ie ignoring relativistic effects of every kind). If i assume that……..
1. The aetherwind is blowing through Earth along Earth's axis.
2. All GPS satellites have circular orbits along the Equator.
3. All receivers are along the Equator (hence all signals re (2) & (3) are in the Equatorial plane).
4. All clocks & gadgets etc were manufactured & calibrated etc on the Equator.
5. In (4) all clocks & gadgets were manufactured etc with the same north-south orientation & (6) with the same vertical orientation, & (7) all critical gadgetry having been designed with all critical components being orientated in the vertical plane.
8. In (2) all gadgetry on satellites is kept (orientated) in the Equatorial plane.
9. In (3) all gadgetry is kept (orientated) in the Equatorial plane.
Then (1) to (9) would minimise the effect of aetherwind. But, i think that (1) to (9) are not true.

10. If the aetherwind is 500 km/s then that is c/600. (11) If that c/600 is in one instance a headwind & in the other instance a tailwind then the total effect (on timings etc) can potentially be c/300.
12. We don’t suffer the full effect of (11) koz (12a) the effects of the aetherwind largely cancel, & (12b) koz we use empirical methods & empirical arithmetic to make empirical corrections.
13. But, thems corrections would be better if we use some basic aetherwind theory, eg (13a) the aetherwind duznt blow exactly along Earth's axis (etc).
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
The present Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end – for the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return – it never left.

User avatar
Brigit
Posts: 1107
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:37 pm

Let's Examine "Dave" and See If He Has Any Valid Points

Unread post by Brigit » Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:42 am

crawler says »
Sep 27, 2022 4:03 pm
"Allow me to explain my understanding of possible aetherwind effects on GPS – ignoring the effect of aetherwind on length contraction & ticking dilation (ie ignoring relativistic effects of every kind). If i assume that……..
1. The aetherwind is blowing through Earth along Earth's axis.
2. All GPS satellites have circular orbits along the Equator...."


I see. The aetherwind, as some call it, could be a motionless aether. The solar system moves through it at some speed.

I just get put off by elaborate currents at some point.

The aether simply supports the em waves in the Electric Universe model, and I understand this because all perception is fitted to a medium.

Think of the N2 in our atmosphere, how beautifully it brings light, in color and clarity, to our eyes and sound to our ears.
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer

crawler
Posts: 740
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: Let's Examine "Dave" and See If He Has Any Valid Points

Unread post by crawler » Fri Sep 30, 2022 4:52 am

Brigit wrote:
Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:42 am
crawler says »
Sep 27, 2022 4:03 pm
"Allow me to explain my understanding of possible aetherwind effects on GPS – ignoring the effect of aetherwind on length contraction & ticking dilation (ie ignoring relativistic effects of every kind). If i assume that……..
1. The aetherwind is blowing through Earth along Earth's axis.
2. All GPS satellites have circular orbits along the Equator...."


I see. The aetherwind, as some call it, could be a motionless aether. The solar system moves through it at some speed.

I just get put off by elaborate currents at some point.

The aether simply supports the em waves in the Electric Universe model, and I understand this because all perception is fitted to a medium.

Think of the N2 in our atmosphere, how beautifully it brings light, in color and clarity, to our eyes and sound to our ears.
I seem to remember that the EU aether (or was it just Don Scott's) is neutrino based – which i suppose involves a mobile aether -- & i suppose involves currents.
MMXs don’t find aether – they find aetherwind – which then implys an aether.
And Demjanov did indeed design & do the best ever MMX, in 1968-72, which found (measured) aetherwind.
And Demjanov's 140 km/s to 480 km/s range (a 340 kmps daily change) in the horizontal component of the aetherwind proved that there was a (say 400 km/s) background aetherwind, ie aetherwind is not wholly a pseudo-aetherwind created solely to Earth's spin (1.4 km/s) & orbit (30 km/s).
The aetherwind currents must affect GPS signals.
And change in current (ie acceleration of aetherwind) gives us gravity.
And on the other hand a change in an object's velocity (ie an acceleration of pseudo-aetherwind) gives us inertia.
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
The present Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end – for the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return – it never left.

User avatar
nick c
Posts: 2783
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:12 am

Re: Let's Examine Dave and See If He Has Any Valid Points

Unread post by nick c » Fri Sep 30, 2022 1:10 pm

crawler wrote:I seem to remember that the EU aether (or was it just Don Scott's) is neutrino based
No, Wal Thornhill has put up the idea that the aether may be a "plenum of neutrinos". I don't recall any reference to the aether from Scott.

User avatar
Brigit
Posts: 1107
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:37 pm

Re: Let's Examine Dave and See If He Has Any Valid Points

Unread post by Brigit » Sun Oct 02, 2022 6:33 pm

nick c says » "No, Wal Thornhill has put up the idea that the aether may be a "plenum of neutrinos". I don't recall any reference to the aether from Scott."

I can't quite remember Prof. Scott ever speaking about a medium of aether in space either, nick c.

I looked in Don Scott's new book, The Interconnected Cosmos, and the term does not appear in the index. But I do think he favors classical physics, and certainly on the subject of gravity is a long-time critic of Einstein's GR and of Black Holes and of dark matter. He shows that the powerful energetic events we see from active galaxies, such as bipolar jets shown below, are not caused by black holes, but are fully explainable using Alfven's model of Birkeland currents flowing through galaxies. No dark matter is needed to explain the rotational curves of these galaxies either, because the rotation is imparted by the electric current.

For example, on page 152, he discusses galaxy structures:
  • "In many galaxies the jet structure cannot be seen in visible light. So until the development of infrared and x-ray orbiting satellite telescopes, most of these features remained undiscovered. There are now many images of galaxies which show the Alfven structure.
    It is the firm conviction of this writer that the 'jet' that is positioned along the main rotational axis of the galaxy in Alfven's model is, in actuality, a Birkeland Current (a part of the Intergalactic Web) on which the galaxy was formed.

    After formation, this BC may continue to provide an electrical input to the galaxy. If the age of the galaxy is great, the BC may be vestigial -- weaker, and be in the dark mode...."



ref: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1aQ6zh_KoVQ
A homopolar motor is the simplest motor, and like filaments, jets, and electrodes, may be formed by interstellar plasmas (which tend to be bound by double layers). 99.999% of the material in the known universe is in a plasma state.
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer

User avatar
Brigit
Posts: 1107
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:37 pm

Re: Let's Examine Dave and See If He Has Any Valid Points

Unread post by Brigit » Sun Oct 02, 2022 7:30 pm

Now addressing "Dave's" central point here

https://thunderbolts.info/forum3/phpBB3 ... =814#p7849

we see that he has mainly charged Electric Universe proponent, physicist Wal Thornhill, with knowing nothing about General Relativity. He did this in a series of ad hominems, and we found a total of nine verbally abusive and false claims in less than 3 minutes.

He quotes Wal Thornhill here:
25:00 "[Quote:] 'The mission of a theoretical physicist trying to work out the nature of substance and elementary particles is to get the maths to work out correctly, and consistent with what’s gone on before.' " [W.T.:] "So we’re discussing mathematics, not physics. And of course, what’s gone on before is that mathematicians raised Einstein’s general relativity to the status of scripture, while that theory ignores the substance of stars and planets that exhibit mass and gravity. So the theory has no physical basis whatsoever. It depends instead on a warped view of reality."

The issue here is that GR "ignores the substance of the stars and planets that exhibit mass and gravity" -- in other words, what is it about the mass and gravity of planets and stars that actually warps space and time?

"Dave" then launches into a series of "proofs" of GR, which do of course "involve planets and stars."
1. Eddington's solar eclipse measurement of bending starlight, around the time of WWI
2. Mercury's orbit
3. Gravitational lensing of light by galaxies in space so that they look like they have arcs and halos
4. paths of stars near the galactic center, which is supposed to contain a black hole
5. GPS adjustments using relativistic effects

All of these are observations which the Electric Universe has discussed in terms of electrical effects, over and over through the years, along with commentary on the history of the concept of gravity from Newton to Einstein, the experiments, and the measurements. So first, Dave's argument that Wal Thornhill doesn't understand GR is a falsehood which he invented, and published on his channel.

Next, his argument that these effects are proof of GR and only of GR are fallacious, because there are other scientific interpretations of the same data. The fallacy is that the only possible interpretation is the one permitted by the experts, who are committed to proving GR. And the further fallacy is that if the experts do not acknowledge any other interpretations of these various phenomena, than there are no other interpretations.

And third, he also missed the point entirely. What within the substance of star's mass should cause a star's mass bend space and time?
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer

User avatar
Brigit
Posts: 1107
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:37 pm

Let's Examine "Dave" and See If He Has Any Valid Points

Unread post by Brigit » Sun Oct 02, 2022 8:49 pm

Now since this thread is going to be a search for any valid point "Dave" may have made, and since no one can find even one yet, we'll at least have a little fun and create a nice resource.

On GPS adjustments, we have referenced the work of several scientists in the field of astronomy and global positioning systems who show that these adjustments have nothing to do with Einstein's Relativity.

For example, nick c here: "As Dr. Smid points out, the margin of error for GPS is about 2 to 3 meters while the relativity correction is about 8 millimeters. GPS works the same, regardless of any relativity adjustment."
  • Global Positioning System (GPS) and Relativity

    "The Global Positioning System (GPS) is nowadays considered as the prime example for the everyday importance of Relativity. It is claimed that without the relativistic corrections (which amount to 38 microseconds/day) the error in the determination of the position would accumulate quickly to values much larger then the observed accuracy (Ref.1 , Ref.2).
    However, in reality the positions are actually not obtained by comparing the time signal received from the satellite with the receiver time, but by observing the difference between the time signals obtained from a number of different satellites (see the Wikipedia GPS article for details (note that I have linked this now to an older version of the article, as the latest version is not as clear in this respect)).
    Consider for simplicity a one dimensional problem where the receiver is located somewhere on the line connecting the two transmitters. In this case the signal from transmitter 1 reaches the receiver at time
    (1) t1 = t0+ x1/c

    and the signal from transmitter 2 reaches the receiver at time
    (2) t2 = t0+ x2/c ,

    where t0 is the time the signal is being sent out (assuming both transmitter clocks are synchronized), x1 is the distance of the receiver from transmitter 1, x2 the distance of the receiver from transmitter2, and c the speed of light.
    Now if one subtracts Eqs.(1) and (2) one gets
    (3) x1-x2 = c. [t1-t2].

    One knows therefore the position of the receiver just by comparing the time signals from the two transmitters (the receiver clock is completely irrelevant).
    If one assumes now that the transmitter clocks are running fast or slow by a relative factor (1+ε), one has instead:
    (4) x1-x2 = c.[(1+ε).t1 -(1+ε).t2] = c.(1+ε).(t1-t2)

    which means that the position will simply be wrong by a relative factor ε, but there is obviously no accumulation as the transmitter clocks run at the same rate relatively to each other (assuming that all satellites have identical heights and speeds, i.e. identical relativistic time dilations).
    Now the quoted relativistic correction of 38 microseconds/day corresponds to ε=4.4.10-10. As the satellites are at a distance of around 20000 km (=2.109 cm), the positional error due to relativity should actually only be 4.4.10-10 . 2.109 cm = 0.8 cm! This is even much less than the presently claimed accuracy of the GPS of a few meters, so the Relativity effect should actually not be relevant at all!
    For a further discussion of this issue please see my discussion pages."
"Note: anyone interested in the math in the above quote should refer to the link below (the forum software does not allow for subscript or superscripts in the equations)
https://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/gps.htm "

Again, see Tom Van Flandern and Ronald Hatch (a guest speaker for the Electric Universe) on the first page for more references on the subject.
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer

User avatar
Brigit
Posts: 1107
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:37 pm

Let's Examine "Dave" and See If He Has Any Valid Points

Unread post by Brigit » Fri Oct 14, 2022 11:18 pm

Dave says, "It’s hard to know whether Wal really does know zero things about general relativity or if he just relies on his targets knowing zero things about general relativity, but anyone who says something like this about GR is a moron. Completely contrary to ignoring stars and planets, it is specifically observations of stars and planets that have firmly corroborated relativity countless times.

26:04 The first was the famous observation with  Eddington of a star’s apparent position bending around the sun during a solar eclipse.  Then there was the flawless alignment with the  perihelion precession of Mercury. The observation of gravitational lensing all over the universe.  Modeling the paths of stars near galactic center as they rapidly orbit a supermassive black hole."

In the beginning of his video, "Dave" prefaces what he says by categorizing the Electric Universe and SAFIRE as "pseudoscience." That is a very interesting term he uses. We will come back to that later, but we started with his main point, and that is that any one who contradicts GR does not understand it and does not know anything about science. But the fact is, there are some individual scientists who have found real problems with GR, and with the supposed "proofs" of GR.

We have here an assertion that there is a supermassive black hole in the center of the Milky Way galaxy, and in the center of most galaxies. The modeled paths of stars near the galactic center validate this assumption.
  • https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2018/02 ... 173466.jpg
    Black hole - Wikipedia
    "A black hole is a region of spacetime where gravity is so strong that nothing – no particles or even electromagnetic radiation such as light – can escape from it. The theory of general relativity predicts that a sufficiently compact mass can deform spacetime to form a black hole."
In the Electric Universe, as physicist Wal Thornhill (and too few others) has tirelessly pointed out, the centers of galaxies are not occupied by a black hole. Galaxies are indeed the foci of powerful forces, but gravity and bent space-time are not what we are looking at. Rather, the centers of galaxies are the sources of bipolar jets spanning for millions of light years, and they are also the source of pairs of quasars, which are ejected right along their axes.

The implications of these active galaxies ejecting quasars is astonishing. The connections between these galaxies and the pairs of quasars are sometimes physical bridges of bright materials from the galactic center to the quasars. This was observed and cataloged by astronomer Halton Arp.

Now if you read this, you have a choice. Do you accept the idea that the quasars are unconnected with the galaxies because they are highly redshifted, or do you look at the evidence and consider that these redshifted quasars are connected to the galaxy that gave them birth ?
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer

jackokie
Posts: 215
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2020 1:10 am

Re: Let's Examine Dave and See If He Has Any Valid Points

Unread post by jackokie » Mon Oct 17, 2022 5:46 pm

"Look at the evidence"? That's crazy talk, said the chorus of astrologers - er, consensus astrophysicists.
Time is what prevents everything from happening all at once.

Post Reply