/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10233411
>debunked
I've never heard of this happening

>>10233411
Stop shitposting fucktard

>>10233417
You won't if you only read the authorised material.
It works like any religion, they only tell you the stuff that makes them look good.

>>10233422
Any suggested reading?

>>10233423
Here's where he stops replying, I guarantee

>>10233424

PLACE YOUR BETS BOYS

>>10233423
http://timecube.2enp.com/

You could try doing your own study.
Or even review the authorised material with a critical mind, you know, think for yourself.

>>10233438
Marshmallow A Lie & Word Is Lies.

Navel Connects 4 Corner 4s.

God Is Born Of A Mother –

She Left Belly B. Signature.

Every Priest Has Ma Sign

But Lies To Honor Unicorns.

Belly B. Proves 4 Corners.
Your dirty lying teachers

use only the midnight to

midnight 1 day (ignoring

3 other days) Time to not

foul (already wrong) marshmallow

time. Lie that corrupts earth

you educated brilliant fools.
GoBelly-Button Logic Works.

Here is something to start you off.
https://vimeo.com/295270284

>>10233443
This. The other day I jumped on a train and flew right against the back wall. It really hurt, don't do it kids

>>10233417

Guess there's some convincing guy in Youtube! Even dabs for extra millenial attention!

>>10233443
The laser on the mirror was moving sideways when the photon left, so the photon starts off with some sideways velocity

>>10233443
This video is so fucking retarded i lost my fucking 5 minutes watching it....

You are pretty boring compared to our dear Tooker, at least put in some genuine effort.

>>10234253
Photons or light is never affected by the motion of the source, so the photon could never get any sideways motion from the mirror. Try again with another excuse.

>>10234302
You were just an idiot to begin with, there was nothing much more you could lose other than time. Or, don't make stupid statements that have no value to the discussion.

>>10233411
Einstein made a completely crazy claim, that starlight would bend around the sun, and his equations calculated exactly how much the startlight should bend around the sun. During a solar eclipse in 1919 they measured where the stars were and where the stars should be, and it turns out Einstein was EXACTLY right.

Also, his theory explains Mercury's perihelion orbit which no one else has come up with any sort of counter claim.

Also, we use relativity in GPS, otherwise GPS signals would drift several miles every minute.

>>10234962
>light is never affected by the motion of the source
what?
don't you believe in the doppler effect

>>10235061
>otherwise GPS signals would drift several miles every minute
That's a myth. GPS works as long as the satellite clocks are synchronized.

>>10233411
I don't doubt there are many people today still believe the world follows Newtonian physics or Aristotelian physics. It would still allow them to function in society, like if you drop a caveman into today's world he could still survive in some national park, he could still hunt the deer and eat the bananas there, or carry out intellectual activities that his senses allow him to do.

Human senses aren't made for modern physics, so in every discussion with these anti relativity cranks they would always circle back to what makes "sense" to them.

>>10236442
Relativity is used to synchronize the clocks.

>>10236485
The clocks don't de-synchronize. Time dilation is irrelevant for GPS calculations. The receiver only needs timestamp differences. It doesn't matter how fast or slow the clocks are.

>>10236545
They do, this has been experimentally proven:

https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.56.4405

The tickrate of satellite clocks are set to run slower to counter the relativistic effects. If no desynchronization occurs then why is this done? It would cause a desynchronization. There is no way to get around this simple fact.

>The receiver only needs timestamp differences. It doesn't matter how fast or slow the clocks are.
LOL then why did you claim before that GPS works as long as the clocks are synchronized?

Time dilation is meassurable. Muons generated in the upper atmosphere have a lifetime of about 2 microseconds. Had time dilation not been a thing they would not have been able to reach the ground, even traveling at the speed of light.

Length contraction is pretty much the same as time dilation, but from another perspective, travelling at relativistic velocities does not change how time is the muon, but makes the distance shorter.

Mass increase for objects at high velocity only because mass and energy is really two sides of the same thing, so the relativistic mass is the resst mass modified to take into account the mass equivalent from the kinetic energy

Yes time is a thing, and even without relativity it is quite convenient to describe event by a position and a time. While it may be overkill there is nothing wrong with working with classical space time

>>10236594
The satellite clocks and earth clocks desynchronize, yes. But that's irrelevant since GPS doesn't use the receiver's time. You'd need an atomic clock in the receiver to be sufficiently accurate, which obviously isn't the case.

The satellite clocks run at a different rate because it's more convenient to have them show the same time as the ground, although it's not strictly necessary for the system to function.

>>10233411
No pure jewish bs

>>10236678
>But that's irrelevant since GPS doesn't use the receiver's time.
Where did I say anything about the receiver's time? The clocks are synchronized with each other and a stationary base on Earth from which it receives updates to its orbital parameters.

>You'd need an atomic clock in the receiver to be sufficiently accurate, which obviously isn't the case.
Yeah, that's because the atomic clock is at the base station, not the receiver. You're arguing against a straw man and completely missing the point.

>The satellite clocks run at a different rate because it's more convenient to have them show the same time as the ground, although it's not strictly necessary for the system to function.
It is in order for their orbital parameters to be updated correctly.

>>10236678
The fact that this is an issue at all is due to relativistic effects, also it is not as simple as just using the sattelite time, as the satelites also need to be synchronised to eachother.

>>10236678
So first you said it works as long as they are synchronized, then you said they don't de-synchronize, now you're saying they do de-synchronize but still work. Do you have any idea what you're talking about or are you just spouting whatever sounds good at any particular time?

>>10236701
The need to be synchronised

If this is done using relativity they do not de-synchronise

If done without taking relativity into account,

they will drift appart and the system fails.

Even if it was possible to make it work without synchronizing, the clocks on the satelites go differently in orbit than they do on the surface, as predicted by relativity.

>>10236716
Replying to the wrong person?

>>10236688
>Yeah, that's because the atomic clock is at the base station, not the receiver
Wrong.

http://www2.unb.ca/gge/Resources/gpsworld.april96.pdf

>The offset between the receiver clock and the GPS system clock ensemble is allowed to change with time without any significant constraints, though some receiver manufacturers control its size by adjusting or steering the receiver clock. The inexpensive clocks in receivers make GPS navigation practical, but, as is well known, introduce a minor complication: There is an additional unknown associated with each snapshot of measurements, namely, instantaneous receiver clock offset or bias relative to GPS (System) Time, the estimation of which requires an additional satellite measurement. That is why four satellites are normally needed for three-dimensional positioning rather than three.

>>10236701
Are you literally retarded? I said that the SATELLITE clocks have to be synchronized. The EARTH clock can be desynchronized since it's not needed.

>>10236678
>Satellite clocks desync exactly as predicted by relativity
>Therefore relativity is false
>Think for yourself!

>>10233433
holy shit the rabbit holes goes deep

>>10236744
Nice strawman. I'm not arguing against GR but against your popsci misconceptions

>>10233411
So what do you believe in?

>>10236743
>>The offset between the receiver clock and the GPS system clock ensemble is allowed to change with time without any significant constraints, though some receiver manufacturers control its size by adjusting or steering the receiver clock. The inexpensive clocks in receivers make GPS navigation practical, but, as is well known, introduce a minor complication: There is an additional unknown associated with each snapshot of measurements, namely, instantaneous receiver clock offset or bias relative to GPS (System) Time, the estimation of which requires an additional satellite measurement. That is why four satellites are normally needed for three-dimensional positioning rather than three.
Yeah, none of this responds to anything I said. The satellites are synchronized with a station on Earth so that their orbital parameters can be updated. This all happens before anything is done with the receiver. You are arguing against a complete strawman by talking about what happens after you already have a sychronized, well-updated system. So you're argument basically is "if we correct for relativity before the receiver is used, then we don't have to correct for relativity at that point." Of course, this still means we are correcting for relativity.

>Are you literally retarded? I said that the SATELLITE clocks have to be synchronized.
Yes, satellites will also desync with each other due to relativistic effects. The way they are synced is to sync them all with the station on Earth.

>>10236748
>implying "GPS doesn't actually use relativity" is not a popsci misconception in response to a popsci misconception.

https://youtu.be/aKwJayXTZUs OP sucks penis

>>10236769
But the error still wouldn't be several miles per minute, that calculation is based on the wrong assumption that the receiver time is important.

>>10236817
The error depends on many variables but it could easily be within that range.

>>10236911
>Satellite data is updated typically every 24 hours, with up to 60 days data loaded in case there is a disruption in the ability to make updates regularly. Typically the updates contain new ephemerides, with new almanacs uploaded less frequently.
So if you were right GPS would be absolutely useless

>>10237005
That doesn't take into account the corrections inherent in the satellites tick rate. Those updates are corrections on top of the large relativistic corrections for time dilation caused by speed and gravity. Again, there are multiple variables here which makes this quite complicated.

>>10237189
>the large relativistic corrections for time dilation caused by speed and gravity
The standard argument is that an offset of ~39ns would cause an inaccuracy of ~11km (39ns*c) which is just plain wrong. I wish people would stop repeating this. This is not how the receivers calculate positions. If you watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbJzRdglxsM
You can just add the satellite offset to the pseudorange as long as it's the same for all satellites
Also
https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/128951
So yes, you need corrections but the error isn't as huge as people make it out to be.

>>10237494
Yeah but again, the initial assumption here is that the satellites are fast by the exact same amount, which is false. How do you make sure the satellites are synced with one another? By syncing them with a station on earth. This is done both by slowing the tick rate of the satellite from the start and by sending updates daily. The two effects can't be separated if you are going to try to say how much error there would be without either correction.

>>10237940
And I just demonstrated that removing the clock offset would result in an error of only 15cm per day. So what's your point?

>>10237940
And I just demonstrated that not slowing down the tick rate would result in an error of only ~15cm per day. So what's your point? Since the satellites only update daily, and the tick rate correction is constant, the 11km error per day is pure popsci bullshit

>>10233411
If time dilation was false your GPS wouldn't work.
Shitty bait or genuine retard? I can't tell anymore.

>>10236545
Stop posting you fucking moron

>>10233679
Dabbing is a zoomer thing. Bets are you're a millennial. 1985-1995 birth years roughly.

>>10238842
>The offset between the receiver clock and the GPS system clock ensemble is allowed to change with time without any significant constraints, though some receiver manufacturers control its size by adjusting or steering the receiver clock. The inexpensive clocks in receivers make GPS navigation practical, but, as is well known, introduce a minor complication: There is an additional unknown associated with each snapshot of measurements, namely, instantaneous receiver clock offset or bias relative to GPS (System) Time, the estimation of which requires an additional satellite measurement. That is why four satellites are normally needed for three-dimensional positioning rather than three.
Oops

>>10238830
>And I just demonstrated that not slowing down the tick rate would result in an error of only ~15cm per day.
No you don't, because the pseudorange calculation assumes that the satellites are fast by the same amount.

>>10239435
So, how does the constant tick rate slowdown fix this problem for 24h? If the clocks desynchronize very rapidly this wouldn't work

>>10233433
What in the fuck

>Actually replying to this thread
You people are the problem.