Einsteins theories are obsolete

[Aractus]

Isn't it nice, Zen, when we find things we agree upon?

[Kayenneh]

[Galacticer]

Care to back up that assertion of yours with evidence?

Apparently he doesn't.

And I think I hear the sound of molinjor approaching swiftly.

Is this standard? this very low lever of you?

---

Isn't it nice, Zen, when we find things we agree upon?

Yac!

[Aractus]

To offset these two effects, the GPS engineers reset the clock rates, slowing them down before launch by 39,000 nanoseconds a day. They then proceed to tick in orbit at the same rate as ground clocks, and the system "works." Ground observers can indeed pin-point their position to a high degree of precision. In (Einstein) theory, however, it was expected that because the orbiting clocks all move rapidly and with varying speeds relative to any ground observer (who may be anywhere on the Earth's surface), and since in Einstein's theory the relevant speed is always speed relative to the observer, it was expected that continuously varying relativistic corrections would have to be made to clock rates. This in turn would have introduced an unworkable complexity into the GPS. But these corrections were not made. Yet "the system manages to work, even though they use no relativistic corrections after launch," Van Flandern said. "They have basically blown off Einstein."

http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/

And? So they don't use the complete complicated general relativity formula, and instead use an approximation that is close enough - it's still based on the theory of relativity and still requires that knowledge. It's not based on Newtonian Mechanics, Quantum Mechanics or anything other than General Relativity. Dumbass.

[Galacticer]

And? So they don't use the complete complicated general relativity formula, and instead use an approximation that is close enough - it's still based on the theory of relativity and still requires that knowledge. It's not based on Newtonian Mechanics, Quantum Mechanics or anything other than General Relativity.

duh?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Did you read the article dude?????

me thinks not!

---

[Aractus]

No, because you're distorting the truth. Yes they don't use a complete GR formula for the calculation and instead use a simpler one, that much is true, however it's still based on GR and not any other theory.

[Galacticer]

and so there are no applicatiosn that need relatvity, or quantum theory for that matter, all nonsense.

[Esquilax]

Here's the short version of the OP's position here, for those of you that have gone blind from facepalming:

"Prove me wrong, or I must be right!"

[Galacticer]

No, because you're distorting the truth. Yes they don't use a complete GR formula for the calculation and instead use a simpler one, that much is true, however it's still based on GR and not any other theory.

So, now it is very clear you haven't read it , at all!



what else is new?

---

Here's the short version of the OP's position here, for those of you that have gone blind from facepalming:

"Prove me wrong, or I must be right!"

very strange reaction indeed

[Zen Badger]

And? So they don't use the complete complicated general relativity formula, and instead use an approximation that is close enough - it's still based on the theory of relativity and still requires that knowledge. It's not based on Newtonian Mechanics, Quantum Mechanics or anything other than General Relativity.

duh?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Did you read the article dude?????

me thinks not!

---

But I looked up the wiki article on Tom van Flandern.

That was amusing.