/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14997333
>GR is a thought experiment from SR
No but it's still all fake and gay none the less. Nice attempt though.

>then what defines whether Bob is accelerating relative to the rest of the universe, or whether the rest of the universe is accelerating relative to Bob?
"yes"

>>14997333
nothing, precedence doesn't exist
>then reconcile the twin paradox
simple, it's not a paradox

>>14997355
>simple, it's not a paradox
Why not?

>>14997333
because forces are acting on bob and not the rest of the universe (the observer) regardless of the fact that the universe 'looks like' its moving away from bob from his perspective? i dunno. at any rate good luck proving the existence of aether

>>14997355
>missing the point
If there is no aether then explain what determines whether rocket twin is accelerating relative to earth twin or whether earth twin is accelerating relative to rocket twin
Relativists always claim it is the former but most of them don't believe in aether or absolute space in which case what is the basis for claiming it is the former?
>>14997349
Read the thread idiot, I already said I already know the anti-Einstein answer. I dont believe in Einstein relativity either but I want to have a civil conversation with people who do believe in Einstein relativity so I can better understand their position
>>14997377
According to Einstein proponents it is because the rocket twin accelerates, decelerates, accelerates again, decelerates again. But they give no explanation for why they think that twin is non-inertial when I could as easily argue Earth is non-inertial and rocket is inertial unless they acknowledge that aether or objective space exists

>>14997395
Prove that the forces are acting on Bob and not the rest of the universe. Prove the forces are not simply Bob maintaining his 0 acceleration while the universe is accelerating around him.
>good luck proing the existence of aether
Thanks

>>14997333
everything has absolute speed
aether is static
speed of light comes from aether
theres no relativity of c

>>14997333
Space-time is field.

>>14997492
Read the last two lines of OP post faggot. I already know all that but I want to know what relativists believe.
>>14997595
Go on, please.

>>14997333
Acceleration is non-inertial. There is no equivalence of non-inertial frames

>>14997333
>If there is no aether, and if Einstein's version of relativity is right, then what defines whether Bob is accelerating relative to the rest of the universe, or whether the rest of the universe is accelerating relative to Bob?
thrust

>>14997595
hypotenuse

>>14997333
I really don't like you.. "relativity" means that which is the same.. "relative to", means "in contrast"..

>>14997991
prove it is rocket twin thrusting through universe and not universe thrusting around rocket twin

>>14998095
action reaction

>>14998095
two rockets accelerating in 180 opposite directions

How does proving the existence of Aether disprove general relativity?

>>14997333
"field" is aether/ether.
The original idea that aether is a substance in space is incorrect even from the schizo side.
It IS space, and matter.

Because space is fake and gay. Instead of debating religion and philosophy like Chad did for thousands of years now we have manchildren prattling off about muh black holes, muh multiverse theory, muh general relativity. Get a King James Bible and read it from cover to cover.

>>14998116
prove the rocket isnt just reacting to the univeres's acceleration

>>14998438
It doesn't, and in fact Einstein went back to believing in the aether near the end of his life, but most modern proponents of Einstein relativity believe that there is no aether, and I want to know how they reconcile this.
Also, acknowledging aether would have implication on relativists' views on time dilation and simultaneity. (simultaneity is absolute of course but retard relativists deny that, they are idiots)
>>14998457
Reasonable

>>14997333
>if Einstein's version of relativity is right,
it's not

>>14998997
Read the last two lines of OP you absolute illiterate fucktard. I already know relativity is wrong. I already know time dilation is wrong. I already know simultaneity and time are absolute. I want to know what relativists believe and how they reconcile what I asked about in the OP post. You don't need to fucking tell me what I already know.

>>14997333
>If there is no aether, and if Einstein's version of relativity is right, then what defines whether Bob is accelerating relative to the rest of the universe, or whether the rest of the universe is accelerating relative to Bob?
You can measure acceleration/gravity as a force on yourself, so I'm not sure what you're asking.

>then reconcile the twin paradox
Only one twin accelerates.

>>14997410
>Prove that the forces are acting on Bob and not the rest of the universe.
Bob has an accelerometer that shows he's accelerating.

>>14999128
>Bob has an accelerometer that shows he's accelerating.
>>14999124
>Only one twin accelerates.

so acceleration (not velocity) is actually the cause of time dilation?

>>14997333
>what defines whether Bob is accelerating
The geometry of spacetime

>>14999153
No, time dilation is caused by relative velocity or a difference in gravitational potential. Both twins experience time dilation until they are back together. The question is why the traveling twin has aged less when he returns, and the answer is that he accelerated but the other twin didn't.

>>14999182
>No, time dilation is caused by relative velocity
then why is your answer to "which one advances in age" acceleration?

>>14999128
Prove that the accelerometer is measure its own acceleration and not the acceleration of the rest of the universe.
>>14999124
Prove it is not the universe accelerating relative to Bob.
>>14999158
lol

>>14997333
In modern GR the metric and spacetime is what is considered fundamental, the equations tell you that less time passes for Bob than a stationary observer. In the abscense of gravity an accelerating observer simply has less time pass than one following a geodesic.

>>14999332
>lol
What's so funny?

>>14999188
Because acceleration affects proper time. Time dilation doesn't imply a change in proper time. You should learn basic relativity on your own before asking questions like this.

>>14999332
>Prove that the accelerometer is measure its own acceleration and not the acceleration of the rest of the universe.
How would it measure the acceleration of something else? Magic?

>Prove it is not the universe accelerating relative to Bob.
Already did. Accelerometer.

>>14999350
>Because acceleration affects proper time
so acceleration causes time dilation.

>>14997333
Bob isn't following a geodesic, simple as.

>>14997333
The speed of light. Check this, explains it better than I ever could https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8GqaAp3cGs

>>14999552
>globohomo flat art
No thanks.

>>14999555
You're just can't handle the truth

>>14999533
>so acceleration causes time dilation.
No. Time dilation occurs regardless of acceleration, when one observer has velocity relative to another. If Twin A is moving at constant velocity from Twin B's point of view with neither experiencing any acceleration, Twin A's clock will appear to progress slower to Twin B than Twin B's clock. That's time dilation, with no acceleration. This was already explained to you.

Twin A will see the same effect in Twin B's clock, since he sees Twin B moving away from him on Earth. But the proper time will be the same, both clocks measure the same amount of time for each Twin until acceleration occurs.

>>14999367
>proper time
You have no idea what you are talking about

>>14999376
>How would it measure the acceleration of something else? Magic?
If there is no aether, how would it know the difference between it accelerating relative to the universe and the universe accelerating relative to it?
>Already did. Accelerometer.
Prove that accelerometers actually measure acceleration
>>14999543
Prove it's not the universe not following a geodesic and moving relative to Bob who is stationary
>>15000054
>proper time
But according to Einsteinian relativity, there is no 'proper' time, just time in any given frame of reference, and simultaneity is relative (obviously all of this is wrong but it's what Einstein believed)

>>14997403
>Read the thread idiot,
I'm the first fucking post and all I did was accurately describe OP's misunderstanding over a misunderstanding regarding the OG original misunderstanding.

>I dont believe in Einstein relativity either but I want to have a civil conversation with people who do believe in Einstein relativity so I can better understand their position

It's incomprehensible. They're incomprehensible. You're looking for logic where there is none.

>>14997410
>>14997395
>good luck proving the existence of aether
One stone himself said it exists yet would be undetectable by the nature of how it works. You're never going to actually find it because it's nothing specific.

>>14999158
"Geometry of the aether". Now what? Some even say specific geometries of it "travel" and "have a constant speed" despite no evidence of such.

>>14998979
>>14998123

what happens if I travel at 99.99999% c?
>>15000000

>>14997377
why would it?

>>15000693
Because...?

>>15000699
>If there is no aether, how would it know the difference between it accelerating relative to the universe and the universe accelerating relative to it?
Your question is incoherent and doesn't answer my question. Let's try again: How would it measure the acceleration of something else?

>Prove that accelerometers actually measure acceleration
It's true by definition (measurable acceleration, i.e. what you experience as g-forces)

>But according to Einsteinian relativity, there is no 'proper' time
You clearly understand nothing about relativity. According to relativity, proper time is what a clock measures as it travels between two events. There's no point in continuing this discussion since you can't even accurately describe what you're attempting to criticize.

>>14999533
Who are you quoting?
>>15000722
>"Geometry of the aether"
Who are you quoting, schizo?

>>14997333
Michelson-Morley experiment has disproved aether. There is no aether.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

>>14997333
>>14997349
>>14997403
>>14997822
>>14998095
DON'T QUESTION THE SCIENCE; CHUD

>>15001080
>Who are you quoting, schizo?
>who
Do I need another human being or something to leech words off of? Who was Einstein quoting when he made up spacetime?

>>15001086
Michelson-Morley experiment has disproved aether.
>Null result proved

Nah, try again (and again and again with subsequent experiments while you're at it).

>There is no aether.
>quotes rationalwiki regarding ONE theory of the aether

I'm glad that your one particular failed experiment couldn't even prove/disprove ONE theory of the aether, what does that have to do with it being "disproved"?

>>15001086
>rationalwiki
Dropped
>>15001057
>How would it measure the acceleration of something else?
How do you know what it is measuring?
>It's true by definition
So if an accelerometer malfunctions, that changes the definition of acceleration? A physical property (acceleration) is now subjective to a human-made measuring instrument? Wow nice science bro.
>According to relativity, proper time is what a clock measures as it travels between two events
Prove that the rocket twin is changing direction of travel instead of staying still while land twin is moving and accelerating and decelerating.
Protip: You cannot, because acceleration is defined as change in velocity (NOT as something measured by an accelerometer as you stupidly claimed), and velocity is according to Einsteinian relativity theory relative, and if velocity is relative then so too is acceleration, since something that is subjective to something that is relative is also itself relative.

>>15001086
>Michelson-Morley experiment has disproved aether. There is no aether.
The experiment has never been replicated except under conditions that would disqualify it for disproving the aether.

>>15001737
>>15001086
Even if we just assume that it was done properly and is replicatable, all it would "prove" is that the aether doesn't behave exactly how we thought, and/or that the way light travels through the aether is not exactly what we thought. So it might mean that the "luminiferous" aether exactly as believed back in Newton's era isn't quite right, but it doesn't prove or even suggest that there is no aether.

>>15001654
>How do you know what it is measuring?
Its design. Stop avoiding the question. How would it measure the acceleration of something else?

>So if an accelerometer malfunctions, that changes the definition of acceleration?
No, I said nothing about malfunctioning accelerometers.

>A physical property (acceleration) is now subjective to a human-made measuring instrument?
I don't know what you mean by subjective. The method of measurement doesn't change what's being measured. Proper acceleration is completely physical.

>Prove that the rocket twin is changing direction of travel instead of staying still while land twin is moving and accelerating and decelerating.
The land twin will experience no g-forces except gravity, while the rocket twin will experience new g-forces whenever he accelerates (such as on takeoff and when he turns around). It's not symmetric.

>Protip: You cannot, because acceleration is defined as change in velocity (NOT as something measured by an accelerometer as you stupidly claimed)
You can tell whenever you change velocity via an accelerometer, so I have no idea what point you're trying to make. There is no contradiction between the two. Maybe you're talking about coordinate acceleration, which IS subjective to the coordinate system you arbitrarily choose.

>if velocity is relative then so too is acceleration
Doesn't follow.

>>15001753
>How would it measure the acceleration of something else?
If it is still and the universe is accelerating then it could measure the aether's acceleration. Whether or not that actually happens is irrelevant. Accelerometers are a measurement device. They do not define anything, they just measure something. If you actually think that a measuring device can define a physical property, you are a moron.
>No, I said nothing about malfunctioning accelerometers.
But I did, because you said that accelerometers define acceleration. Are you ESL?
>I don't know what you mean by subjective. The method of measurement doesn't change what's being measured. Proper acceleration is completely physical.
Yet you said that accelerometers define acceleration.
>The land twin will experience no g-forces except gravity, while the rocket twin will experience new g-forces whenever he accelerates (such as on takeoff and when he turns around). It's not symmetric.
If the universe accelerates around someone, then that someone will experience g-forces.
>b-but then the g-force is what causes time dilation!
okay but then your theory is still wrong because Einsteinian relativity says that time is traveling slower due to velocity not due to acceleration
>You can tell whenever you change velocity via an accelerometer, so I have no idea what point you're trying to make.
An accelerometer is an artificial construct. It does not define physical reality, it just attempts to measure something in physical reality.
>Doesn't follow
If x is subjective to y and z is subjective to x then z is necessarily subjective to y, supertard.

>>15001753
>The method of measurement doesn't change what's being measured
>acceleration being the measurement

>Proper acceleration is completely physical.
>what something else does is physical
You couldn't explain it if you tried rofl.

>I don't know what you mean by subjective.
You know, like common emotions all us regular human beings experience from time to time. You know of this right?

>>15001763
>If it is still and the universe is accelerating then it could measure the aether's acceleration.
How would it measure the acceleration of something that doesn't exist, that isn't itself? Magic? You're not answering the question. It's fine if you have no answer, just say so.

>They do not define anything, they just measure something.
There's no contradiction there.

>But I did
You asked a question as if what I said implied that. It doesn't. I didn't say malfunctioning accelerometers define anything.

>Yet you said that accelerometers define acceleration.
Yes. Where's the contradiction?

>If the universe accelerates around someone, then that someone will experience g-forces.
How?

>>b-but then the g-force is what causes time dilation!
No. Time dilation is caused by relative velocity. It has nothing to do with acceleration.

>An accelerometer is an artificial construct. It does not define physical reality, it just attempts to measure something in physical reality.
Again, there's no contradiction there.

>If x is subjective to y and z is subjective to x then z is necessarily subjective to y, supertard.
What are x, y, and z?

>>15001776
>>acceleration being the measurement
>>what something else does is physical
Yes. What is there to explain?

>You know, like common emotions all us regular human beings experience from time to time.
What do emotions have to do with acceleration? You can certainly feel acceleration since your body is a kind of accelerometer, but it has nothing to do with emotions. You sound mentally ill.

>>15001798
>How would it measure the acceleration of something that doesn't exist, that isn't itself? Magic? You're not answering the question. It's fine if you have no answer, just say so.
>implying the aether doesn't exist
>There's no contradiction there.
But you claimed that accelerometers define acceleration, retard.
>You asked a question as if what I said implied that. It doesn't. I didn't say malfunctioning accelerometers define anything.
You said accelerometers define acceleration
>Yes. Where's the contradiction?
Measuring and defining are different things, fucktard
>How?
Aether, perhaps. Or perhaps they won't. But either way, if there is no aether you have no way of proving or even defining what is accelerating relative to what.
>No. Time dilation is caused by relative velocity. It has nothing to do with acceleration.
According to special relativity, yes, but you have no way to prove which one has velocity
>Again, there's no contradiction there.
But it counters your previous claim that accelerometers define acceleration, retard
>What are x, y, and z?
Whatever you want them to be. The statement still holds true. For example, z could be the derivative of x, x the derivative of y, and y an algebraic function. Or z could be acceleration, x velocity, and y position. Or z could be your status as being worth having a conversation with, x your status as intelligent, and y your acknowledgement that special relativity is a hoax.

>>15001817
>>implying the aether doesn't exist
Yes, it doesn't exist.

>But you claimed that accelerometers define acceleration
And?

>You said accelerometers define acceleration
Right, not malfunctioning accelerometers. Do you know what a straw man is?

>Measuring and defining are different things
The sky and blue are different things, yet the sky is blue.

>Aether, perhaps
That's not an explanation, and it doesn't exist.

>But either way, if there is no aether you have no way of proving or even defining what is accelerating relative to what.
Wrong, you just use an accelerometer. You can also calculate purely via special relativity, the amount of time each twin will age, and you'll get the correct answer regardless of whether you're on Earth or in the rocket. Have you tried that?

>According to special relativity, yes, but you have no way to prove which one has velocity
They both have velocity from the other's point of view, and they both therefore have time dilation from the other's point of view. How do you still not understand this?

>But it counters your previous claim that accelerometers define acceleration
No it doesn't. Where's the contradiction?

>Whatever you want them to be
No, no, no. You made an argument as if it applied to what we're talking about. So explain what x, y, and z are in this context.

>>15001804
>Yes. What is there to explain?
You're calling a measure something when you just said
>The method of measurement doesn't change what's being measured.
You're contradicting yourself with the lack of explaining why you believe acceleration and an action of something else is physically something else entirely. It's like saying I become a completely different thing when I go jogging as opposed to sitting down. It's a rate of change...OF SOMETHING ELSE (that being the "object"/physical thing you're referring to).

>You can certainly feel acceleration since your body is a kind of accelerometer, but it has nothing to do with emotions.
>is a kind of accelerometer
You really don't comprehend being a "human being" do you? Because that's what your body actually is, numbskull. The "feeling" is the rest of yourself catching up..to yourself. You call the displacement of something something else entirely and physical no less. It makes no sense.

>You sound mentally ill
You think acceleration is a physical thing. You're the only one here who sounds like a lunatic.

>>15001737
silvertooth 1986

>>15001900
I wonder why schizentists don't talk about that result...

>>15001900
>>15001914
lol you fags are both retards

>>15001871
>You're contradicting yourself with the lack of explaining why you believe acceleration and an action of something else is physically something else entirely.
What "action of something else" did I say is "something else entirely?" It really shouldn't be this hard to clearly express the alleged contradiction if it actually exists.

>You really don't comprehend being a "human being" do you? Because that's what your body actually is, numbskull. The "feeling" is the rest of yourself catching up..to yourself.
Word salad.

>You think acceleration is a physical thing.
It is, you can consistently measure it with an accelerometer. It's not subjective. Take your meds.

>>15001958
excellent rebuttal, very high IQ

>excellent rebuttal, very high IQ

>>15001972
>you can consistently measure it with an accelerometer

Measure what? What is "it" that you're measuring?
>acceleration: the measurement of rate of change of the velocity an object
or:
>acceleration: "the object" that has never been experimentally shown to exist.
or something else? What is the thing that you are measuring and calling "physical"?

>It's not subjective.
It's a tool you retard. What it's measuring and calling "measure" is subjective. That's what measurements "are" dummy. Subjective. Made up. They don't actually exist as objects for you to accurately describe, your accurate description is the reification of the measure.

>>15002068
lol wrong

OP is purposely being a dense retard

>>14997403
Only gravitational acceleration is inertial

>>14997333
>no aether
but there is
>Einstein's version of relativity is right
it's horrendously wrong, relativity theory has zero basis in reality
>twin paradox
doesn't exist, twins who are the same age here on Earth will always be the same age no matter where they go, there's no such thing as "time dilation", that's just an electromagnetic phenomenon (i.e. electromagnetic retardation of clocks, or just the notion of using light-based measurements of time in general)

>>15002729
If there's an aether, why are Maxwell's equations Lorentz invariant?

>>15002738
what you refer to as "Maxwell's equations" are a set of 4 extremely reduced and simplified versions concocted by Heaviside for use in engineering operations, which were then further mangled completely by Lorentz to literally force invariance (symmetrical regauging) into them
they were good for that, but they're piss-poor at describing the actual underlying reality
Maxwell's original 20 quaternion equations fully accounts for the aether, and are not Lorentz invariant
http://www.halexandria.org/dward760.htm
>In truth the four equations traditionally included in the teaching of physics are more aptly named the “Maxwell-Heaviside Equations” inasmuch as Oliver Heaviside reformulated Maxwell's original equations from a quaternion format into a simple vector format. Maxwell's original paper consisted of 20 equations with 20 unknowns. According to Tom Bearden, Maxwell's 1865 paper had its quaternion equations reduced to vector notation -- after a comparatively limited debate among some 30 scientists – a notation advocated by Heaviside, Gibbs, et al – after Maxwell was already dead.
>«After publication of the first edition of his Treatise, Maxwell of course also caught strong pressure from his own publisher to get rid of the quaternions (which few persons understood). Maxwell thus rewrote and simplified about 80% of his own 1873 Treatise before he died of stomach cancer in 1879. The second edition of that treatise was later published with that 80% revision done by Maxwell himself under strong pressure, and with a guest editor. But the 1865 Maxwell paper shows the real Maxwell theory, with 20 equations in 20 unknowns (they are explicitly listed in the paper). The equations taught today in universities as ‘Maxwell's equations' are actually Heaviside's equations, with a further truncation via the symmetrical regauging performed by Lorentz.»

>>15002744
kek

>>15002745
nothing funny about it, those are the facts
the average person knows virtually nothing about the history and theory of electricity

>>15002744
>>15002745
>>15002749
from Maxwell's original paper:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rstl.1865.0008
>There are twenty of these equations in all, involving twenty variable quantities.

>>15002744
>>15002745
>>15002749
>>15002753
>Between these twenty quantities we have found twenty equations, viz.
>- Three equations of Magnetic Force
>- Three equations of Electric Currents
>- Three equations of Electromotive Force
>- Three equations of Electric Elasticity
>- Three equations of Electric Resistance
>- Three equations of Total Currents
>- One equation of Free Electricity
>- One equation of Continuity
>These equations are therefore sufficient to determine all the quantities which occur in them, provided we know the conditions of the problem. In many questions, however, only a few of the equations are required.

>>15002744
>>15002749
Every person with a physics degree has heard this history. You can have 20 equations if you split it all into components. The 20 equations are not in fact quaternion equations. Quaternions are equivalent to vectors and serve to reduce the number of equations. It's all contained in the vector equations, the quaternion equations, or the component equations because they're all equivalent. More equations doesn't mean more information. You can add an aether term to the vector equations the same as any formulation, and it's equally useless because there is no aether. Like most schizo websites,
>http://www.halexandria.org/dward760.htm
contains no actual equations or physics and is basically word soup. It's cope from some retard who's too lazy to work through a physics textbook.

>>15002842
>Every person with a physics degree has heard this history.
hilarious bullshit with zero basis in reality
that's something only midwit morons who don't actually know anything about physics think
I studied computer engineering in university and dealt with numerous people who both had finished physics degrees and who were almost finished, and I can assure you that perhaps 1 in 100 of them would have any idea whatsoever about any of this
the vast majority of people who study physics don't actually go back and read the original papers, they just work on the simplified understanding of engineers like Heaviside, and in this particular case the further abominable mangling of that understanding in turn by Lorentz
>The 20 equations are not in fact quaternion equations.
they in fact are
that's exactly what they are
>Quaternions are equivalent to vectors and serve to reduce the number of equations.
>Quaternions are equivalent to vectors
well, if there was any doubt about whether or not I was dealing with someone who knows precisely zero about physics or mathematics, now there is none
>all contained in the vector equations
hilariously false, Heaviside's vector equations are simplifications that remove elements that are vital to get an actual understanding of the underlying physics
and Lorentz' symmetrical regauging of these is literally the worst crime against physics ever committed
>there is no aether
imagine being this ignorant of the actual facts of reality

>>15002917
Can you give me an example of some of the vital physics they remove? Preferably in the form of an equation

>>15002917
Are these the 20 equations you're talking about? Or maybe these are some modern-day fabrication to fool idiots like me. Anyway, assuming these are the correct equations, perhaps you could circle some of the quaternions for me

>>15002942
You didn't read a word he said did you?

>>15002976
>he

>>15001848
>The sky and blue are different things, yet the sky is blue.
The sky doesn't define blue, retard. You are one of the dumbest people on /sci/ and that says a fuck of a lot. Measurement tools do not define what they measure you absolute moronic fucktard

>>15001958
BASED

>>15001958
BASED
>>15002091
retard
>>15002729
>all of your post
Obviously but that's not the point of this thread faggot, the point of the thread is to understand what relativists believe. Obviously they are wrong but we can still seek to better understand their position.

>>15002979
So presumably the answer is no.

>>15002996
Maybe (you) could answer my question
>>15002927
Or this one
>>15002942

>>15002997
Modern physics is pseudoscience. Aether exists and relativity is a hoax. >>15002744 is correct

>>15003000
And yet you, excuse me "he", can't give me any example of how Maxwell's original equations differ from the vector version. Can you, or he, or whoever, explain a single piece of physics and show me the actual equation in which it's present?

>>15003004
>Can you
No because I don't know enough about the equations
>or he
Looks like he already did.

>>15002997
You only asked that question because you're too stupid to actually read his posts.
>After publication of the first edition of his Treatise, Maxwell of course also caught strong pressure from his own publisher to get rid of the quaternions (which few persons understood). Maxwell thus rewrote and simplified about 80% of his own 1873 Treatise before he died of stomach cancer in 1879. The second edition of that treatise was later published with that 80% revision done by Maxwell himself under strong pressure, and with a guest editor. But the 1865 Maxwell paper shows the real Maxwell theory, with 20 equations in 20 unknowns (they are explicitly listed in the paper). The equations taught today in universities as ‘Maxwell's equations' are actually Heaviside's equations, with a further truncation via the symmetrical regauging performed by Lorentz.
1) Read the fucking paper.
2) Read the fucking book.

The first edition printing of the 1873 Treatise has the quaternions in it. The 1865 paper has his earliest interpretations, written in his own notation.

>>14998095
>>14998979
Accelerometers.

>>15003009
So you're just quoting his (sorry, I mean your) posts now? What I would really like is a specific equation or physical prediction. That would make this discussion much simpler. I agree you can write the theory in 20 equations, although it seems to me those equations are implicit in the vector formulation. If there is something in those equations that is missing from the vector equations that is so important, then please do me a favour and point me in the right direction. I don't really have time to read Maxwell's 500-page treatise, but surely since it's so important you (or your friend "he") could give me a page number, equation, anything....

>>15003025
>his (sorry, I mean your)
>you (or your friend "he")
Is "he" in the room with you now, anon?

>>15003035
Anon I'm sorry. It's all so confusing! Maybe we should just let "him" come back, since you apparently have no understanding of Maxwell's equations and probably shouldn't comment on relativity etc.

>>15003038
I think you should take your antipsychotics. Maybe once you've mellowed out you can read some Maxwell or wait for another anon who's more willing to put up with pseuds to entertain you.

>>15003040
Oh dear, I've embarrassed myself terribly. You're right. Perhaps one day a kind anon will explain the secret physics of Maxwell's *original* equations to me.

Mach's principle.

>>15003025
>>15003038
>>15003042
Get the fuck out.

>>15003091
Please forgive me sir. I know I have angered you, so I will have to content myself with reading about your contributions in Nature or wherever you choose to submit them, along with their denouncements of the spurious work of Einstein, Heaviside etc.

>>15003101
>reading meme magazines like Nature
lmao

>>15003112
Please have mercy sir. I am just a humble frog

>>15003025
>his (sorry, I mean your)
>you (or your friend "he")
>>15003038
>"him"
you're literally talking to someone else
the fact that you not only can't distinguish between two completely different modes and styles of writing, but apparently can't even conceive of the fact that there are more than one person who understands the actual physics and is able to school you on it
this was my last post in this thread: >>15002917
as for Maxwell, that he formulated his theory using quaternions is not up for dispute
as the other anon mentioned, this is abundantly clear in his Treatise (which I assume you've probably never even read a single page of, based on your ignorance of the subject matter)
attached is the first mention of quaternions in it, with more to follow

>>15003790
note here the stress Maxwell places on how there are many quantities which are NOT vectors, and how he explicitly points out that quaternions are NOT vectors, but a higher-order operation operating ON vectors
also:
>I don't really have time to read Maxwell's 500-page treatise
not a surprise, obviously, that a midwit with zero understanding of mathematics or physics can't actually be bothered to go back to the source material of the literally greatest scientific genius since Newton, and read what he has to say
one thing is remaining ignorant, but why revel in it and treat it as if that's a good thing?
shouldn't you at least be a bit embarrassed and ashamed about your own ignorance?

>>15003790
>>15003804

>>15003790
>>15003804
>>15003809

>>15002068
>Measure what?
Proper acceleration.

>>acceleration: the measurement of rate of change of the velocity an object
In what reference frame?

>>acceleration: "the object" that has never been experimentally shown to exist.
I have no idea what you're talking about. No one called acceleration an object.

>What is the thing that you are measuring and calling "physical"?
Proper acceleration.

>It's a tool you retard.
How does that even respond to what you quoted? You're not even saying anything meaningful.

>That's what measurements "are" dummy. Subjective. Made up.
They aren't made up, they're measured objectively. Accelerometers don't lie.

>They don't actually exist as objects
No one said they're "objects," schizo.

>>15003804
>one thing is remaining ignorant, but why revel in it and treat it as if that's a good thing?
>shouldn't you at least be a bit embarrassed and ashamed about your own ignorance?
People like him will never be ashamed. It's the Dunning-Kruger Effect. I hope he's just an undergrad.

>>15004086
>Accelerometers don't lie.
Fuck off retard
>>15003790
>>15003804
Based.
>inb4 the tard doesn't even read your screenshots

>then what defines whether Bob is accelerating relative to the rest of the universe, or whether the rest of the universe is accelerating relative to Bob?
Bob is accelerating relative to his own instantaneous rest frame

>>15003790
>>15003804
>>15003809
>>15003816
I'm so glad you're back! Please excuse my silliness. It's very nice of you to circle the word quaternion in all those places for me. However I was wondering if you could point it out in an equation, or explain how Maxwell's equations differ between the different versions in a specific way, with reference to a specific equation and/or physical quantity

Guys you cannot measure acceleration due to gravity (or spacetime curvature) with an accelerometer, unless your accelerometer is big enough to experience tidal forces, which would require an extremely huge one unless you're near a black hole

>>15004377
>being this dumb and autistic

>>15004607
>explain how Maxwell's equations differ between the different versions in a specific way, with reference to a specific equation and/or physical quantity
So that's a "no" on this?

>>15004380
>Guys you cannot measure acceleration due to gravity (or spacetime curvature) with an accelerometer
Of course you can. All accelerometers on Earth show an upward acceleration of 9.8 m/s2

>>15004308
>Fuck off retard
Not an argument. Thanks for conceding.

>>15004710
An accelerometer does NOT measure acceleration. It measures the equal and opposite counter-force. An accelerometer doesn't work in free fall.

>>15004647
>>15004720
Fuck off retard

>>15004767
Come on anon, surely you have something more than a schizo website link and a bunch of screenshots of old papers with the word "quaternion" highlighted.... right?

>>15004765
>An accelerometer does NOT measure acceleration.
It measures proper acceleration.

>>15004767
See >>15004720

>>15004772
>>15004840
Fuck off retard.

>>15004772
Schizos are always right
>>15004840
Fuck off retard

>>15004896
Right about what? You still haven't given us anything concrete. Just
>muh aether
>I know the secret speshul maxwell's equations
But can you offer any proof, or any idea of proof? Any physical prediction? Some equation or other mechanism? Any example of your super secret *original* Maxwell's equations? And just a reminder, highlighting the word QUATERNION is not sufficient. We know about quaternions.

>>15004879
See >>15004840

>>15004896
See >>15005230

>>15004903
>But can you offer any proof, or any idea of proof? Any physical prediction? Some equation or other mechanism? Any example of your super secret *original* Maxwell's equations? And just a reminder, highlighting the word QUATERNION is not sufficient. We know about quaternions.
You never even read the book, you're too stupid to demand anything from anyone. Go away and let real people talk.

>>15005255
holy fucking BASED

>>15005255
So... still nothing?

>>14998095
They're the same. Universe is quantitatively static.

>>15005725
>They're the same
So then which twin is accelerating is arbitrary

>>15006955
Nope. Only the twin on the rocket has proper acceleration.

>>15006981
Then you admit aether exists

>>15007076
It doesn't. Learn basic physics if you don't understand what proper acceleration is.

>>15007143

>>14997333
E=mc^2

there there, op
the trannies won't hurt you anymore

>>15007143
>who is thus momentarily at rest relative to the object being measured
How can you look at two objects and determine which is moving and which is standing still if there's no third object with which to compare them? That's the point of the OP. Retards ITT firing off the hip about "math" are just dodging the simple question.
Intuitively the answer is probably that the premise of the question inherently assumes an outside observer who occupies a single position and therefore constitutes a third object; if object one can observe ONLY object two, with no background, there can be no "movement" relative to object two, as object two cannot move closer to or farther from object one–"closer to" and "farther from" entail measurement of distance which must be performed relative to a background. In a hypothetical universe of two objects, object 2 is the universe of object 1. That is to say, from an "outside" perspective, there can be no movement relative to the universe; movement can occur only within the frame of the universe, by comparison to objects within it. Movement is, from an absolute perspective, an illusion.
Really this whole thread is about epistemic relativity.

>>15005255
But seriously though, why wouldn't you just post an example if the original equations just to shut the other guy up? You have spent the entire thread saying words and posting screenshots but why not bypass all this and post an equation?

>>15007350
>You have spent the entire thread saying words and posting screenshots but why not bypass all this and post an equation?
based on the way the posts are written, it looks like there's at least 3 or 4 different people that you're treating as a single person
doesn't look like the person who posted the screenshots has posted anything since the last one
typically when someone starts to mix up people on anonymous imageboards it's a sign that they're not addressing what's being said, but rather irrelevant things like who is saying it or how it's being said
you should probably work a bit on that

>>15000699
>Prove it's not the universe not following a geodesic and moving relative to Bob who is stationary
How can spacetime itself follow a geodesic in spacetime?

>>15007173
Not an argument. Explain how proper acceleration implies aether.

>>15007337
>How can you look at two objects and determine which is moving and which is standing still if there's no third object with which to compare them?
What does that have to do with proper acceleration? Try reading again. It says "momentarily at rest relative to the object." It says nothing about objective movement.

And then you go on a rant based purely on your ignorance of basic physics and inability to read. LMAO

If you're talking about ether theory you're also assuming the universe is stationary. The whole linear translation thing is just a mathematical trick, one would have to be outside the Universe to know, it's impossible.

The twin paradox is also not going to happen, in fact the premise of SR being false is if you get a big enough rocket into space with enough fuel, and there isn't any drag slowing down the spaceship, then the speed of light will be reached after a while assuming the machine doesn't break before it happens.

>then what defines whether Bob is accelerating relative to the rest of the universe
that's there's also stationary twin who isn't moving at high velocity relative to the universe

>>15009416
How do you know that if there's no privileged frame of reference?

OP is a flat earther faggot

>>15008056
I explained the connection, retard. "at rest relative to an object" is impossible to measure without a background to measure movement against. Do you have aphantasia or something? I don't believe for a minute you understand the "basic physics" if you can't parse a simple statement like that.

>>15009525
>I explained the connection, retard.
No, you didn't.

>"at rest relative to an object" is impossible to measure without a background to measure movement against.
The "background to measure movement against" is the reference frame of the object. You're really not getting it. Look at your computer screen. Does it appear to moving? No, so it's at rest relative to you.

Why is it easier to accelerate at 0.5c than it is at 0.9999c?

>>15009567
Because the faster you go, the more resistance there is from the aether duh. Also, you eventually fall off the edge of the flat Earth, so accelerating to that speed is impossible.

>>15009497
So are you suggesting that the failures of Einstein mean the Earth must be flat?

>>15009544
If I couldn't see anything BUT my computer screen, I couldn't tell whether it was moving. The fact that I can see whether it is moving owes to the fact that I have other objects against which to compare it.
If the computer screen was the only object in my universe, any change to it would constitute a change to the universe, not a change to the object.
Since the twin paradox being validated experimentally demonstrates that this is NOT the case, the chain of relative comparisons with which we determine acceleration relative to ourselves has to terminate in some frame of reference which is objectively static, and which all other frames of reference derive from. This is what OP meant by "aether", and it's logically consequent from the fact that the slower moving twin and the faster moving twin age differently despite the fact that, from each other's perspective, they are moving "apart", and only the comparison to a third frame of reference shows that they are moving at different rates.

>>14997333
Inertial reference frames, we already talked about this retarded aetherfag

>>15009596
>If I couldn't see anything BUT my computer screen, I couldn't tell whether it was moving
You can tell whether it's moving *relative to you.* Not some other object, you. How do you still not get this?

>Since the twin paradox being validated experimentally demonstrates that this is NOT the case, the chain of relative comparisons with which we determine acceleration relative to ourselves has to terminate in some frame of reference which is objectively static
There is no "chain of relative comparisons" needed. You just keep making shit up that has nothing to do with the problem in order to reach your preconceived schizo aether conclusion. Stop.

>>15010064
Just admit you're a midwit and shut the fuck up

>>15010274
Acknowledging Einstein or any of his flawed works that have no basis in realty in any fashion is midwit tier. It helps perpetuate the psychosis that...it does make sense somehow. Some even now believe that any of the work he did somehow has to do with the invention of the atomic bomb or GPS. It's sad because if you ask them "how", most of the time they sit there and piss on themselves unable to reply. Really it's for the benefit of those people, it's saving them from the inevitable embarrassment they'll get dished once someone with a brain comes in to correct the record, or even worse ask them where they were taught such untrue nonsense.
But what it's really saving them from is having to attempt at trying to explain Einsteins actual work, it really is hilariously stupid. They attempt at simply redescribing his model "Spacetime" as best they can only to get reminded how stupid and nonsensical it is in the first place when they go and try and explain it. Space warps? How? They have no idea how and the only thing they can show you that's warped is the sour expression on their face once you ask them this simple question.

>>15010274
How does this respond to anything I said?

>>15010292
>Some even now believe that any of the work he did somehow has to do with the invention of the atomic bomb or GPS.
Relativistic corrections are needed to keep the clocks on board satellites synchronized with the ground station that sends them updates on their location. This is directly related to his work.

if spacetime exists, then sending a message back through space with a mirror is as easy as sending it back through time.

https://youtu.be/Qd77OXWC1eg

>>15010312
>Relativistic corrections are needed to keep the clocks on board satellites synchronized with the ground station
even if relativity was false you'd still have to do that once in a while. You can't build a perfect clock.

>>15010319
Completely wrong. Atomic clocks on Earth don't need these corrections, only the ones on satellites do. And they are perfectly predicted by relativity. You're saying that's a coincidence?

>>15010328
>Completely wrong. Atomic clocks on Earth don't need these corrections, only the ones on satellites do
there are no atomic clocks in space moron. It's just piezo crystals. They are very accurate, but drift because of temp and manufacturing variation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_oscillator

>>15010312
Relativistic corrections are needed
I already know the rest of the line because it's repeated so much like a broken record. See this is the psychosis I'm talking about with acknowledging Einsteins flawed works.
This retard is actually bothering to reply despite knowing full well its a department of defense secret that still has not been released to the public, but because some oddball attention whore physishit wanted some extra cash he decided to have the history/discovery channel film him making up bullshit. It's not related to his work and there is absolutely no proof you are ever going to show for it without outing yourself as a Russian/USA glownigger.
Deal with it.

>>15010338
the difference in location a hypothetical relativistic correction would be to GPS is on the order of nanometers. nothing in the GPS system is traveling anywhere near the speed of light.

(velocity of satellite)^2/(speed of light)^2= 1.6827115 × 10^-10. so the "correction" because of relativity would be insignificantly small.

>>15010355
>speed of light
Another psychosis helped perpetuated by Einstein. And you have proof this light travels? Let me guess, in the form of a null result?

>so the "correction" because of relativity would be insignificantly small.
I'm glad you can spend the time doing math that doesn't actually apply to anything in realty. Why on earth would it be a department of defense secret still if a basket weaver like you can go correcting it willy nilly on some forum filled with russians? You couldn't explain it if you tried, but you can accurately keep re-describing his equations over and over again like a parrot at least.

>>15010335
>there are no atomic clocks in space moron.
Why do you post when you have no clue what you're talking about?

>GPS and GLONASS satellites carry Rb (rubidium) and Cs (caesium) frequency standards, whereas Galileo satellites are equipped with PHM (passive hydrogen maser) and Rb clocks. In the case of BeiDou, the clocks used are of either Rb or HMAC (Hydrogen Maser Atomic Clock) standards

https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/7/2396/htm

>>15010338
The relativistic corrections to GPS satellite clocks are no secret, otherwise there wouldn't be numerous published papers about them. You have no argument. Explain why you lied about Einstein's work.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5253894/

>>14997333
>Ok but this thread is specifically directed at people who do believe Einstein's theory. I want to know their answer to this question. I already know the anti-Einstein answer so you don't have to tell me that.

There is no answer which is why cosmology is a laughing stock. Aether is blatantly and necessarily real for this reason and more.

>>14997991
>thrust

Then what determines when that thrust is approaching c?

You people are a fucking laughing stock and the entire field of cosmology should be bulldozed and rebuilt anew.

>>14999025
>I want to know what relativists believe and how they reconcile what I asked about in the OP post.

They cannot and KNOW they cannot. They will never admit this. True red pill is when you realize WHY they will not admit this: the entire field of cosmology is literally a religion sanctioned by the fucking Pope; go looking into who invented the bullshit big bang theory, why, and who propagated it. They're all a bunch of crypto-religious fucking jackasses.

>>15010507
>The relativistic corrections to GPS satellite clocks are no secret, otherwise there wouldn't be numerous published papers about them. You have no argument. Explain why you lied about Einstein's work.

All this proves is that light has a propagation speed. NO FUCKING SHIT. You faggots act like that's some big mystery. Light has a speed, and information travels at that speed. Eat a fucking dick you fraud cosmologist fuck.

>>15009567
>Why is it easier to accelerate at 0.5c than it is at 0.9999c?

EXACTLY. The field of cosmology should be burned to the ground. The thought experiments to prove aether are trivial. A universal reference is blatantly necessary to prevent violation of c.

>>15010355
>the difference in location a hypothetical relativistic correction would be to GPS is on the order of nanometers.
Your claim is nonsensical. The major relativistic correction is to the clock rate of the satellite, not it's location. Corrections to the satellite's location are sent periodically from the ground station and vary over time and position. If the satellite's clock was out of sync with the ground station it would not be able to receive accurate corrections and errors would quickly accumulate. So saying there is some order of error without specifying a time frame makes no sense.

We live in an infinite and eternal fractal-fluid universe. Understanding this effortlessly resolves all the problems that cosmological fraud are always scratching their poopy assholes about.

>>15010548

One of the inventers of GPS tech called the relativistic interpretation of it bullshit. I'm sure some Anon can pull that up. Was even in his obituary that he never agreed with GR.

>>15009567
Because kinetic energy is exponential. This is true even in Newtonian physics, where:
[math]\displaystyle E_{\text{k}}={\frac {1}{2}}mv^{2}[/math]

>>15010560

Yes, and you are missing the point. The universe necessitates a universal reference for that to even make sense.

>>15010507
did you even read this tho?

"What this means is that after initializing a Cesium clock, and leaving it alone for a day, it should be correct to within about 5 parts in 1014, or 4 nanoseconds. Relativistic effects are huge compared to this."

but this is misleading. He never gives an approximation of the time difference due to time dilation.

Lets say, like I did before, that the GPS satellite is going 4km/h at an altitude of 20200km above the earth due the relativistic time dilation the correction will be

(1-sqrt(1-(4km/s)^2/(speed of light)^2))*20200km/(speed of light) = 6ps

so the supposed error from time dilation is the same as the excepted clock drifting for 2 minutes after being synchronized.

Now if you google it GPS satellites are synchronized every 8 to 24 hours, so accounting for time dilation is useless. The clocks drift more and rounding or instrumentation error will be much bigger factors.

>>15010531
>All this proves is that light has a propagation speed.
No, it also proves that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames.

>>15010563
Proof?

>>15010583
>He never gives an approximation of the time difference due to time dilation.
He does, equation 36. Why do you make shit up?

>Lets say, like I did before
Your calculation is incorrect. It doesn't even take into account the most significant effect, gravitational blueshift.

>Now if you google it GPS satellites are synchronized every 8 to 24 hours, so accounting for time dilation is useless.
Their clock rate is slowed down in order to allow those synchronizations to occur in the first place. You don't even understand what you're arguing against.

>>15010583
The real answer is that electromagnetic effects change the decay rate of radioactive particles. A satellite in space is affected differently than an isotope held in a lab on the ground.

>>15010676
Weird how they change the decay rate exactly how relativity predicts... regardless of what electromagnetic fields are present. What an amazing coincidence.

>>15010673
>He does, equation 36. Why do you make shit up?
then write that number with units here right now.

>>15010673
>It doesn't even take into account the most significant effect, gravitational blueshift.
the topic is special relativity. so you are changing your argument to say GPS works on the principles of general relativity? funny how the inventor of GPS didn't use GR in his initial descriptions of his invention.

>>15010673
>Their clock rate is slowed down in order to allow those synchronizations to occur in the first place
You are missing the point. a few minutes after synchronization the uncertainty in the clock ticks make any accounting of SR pointless. do you understand what uncertainty is? seems like you don't. you can't just compensate for it.

>>15010689

>>15010680
It's seasonally variable even on Earth but go off I guess.

>>15010694
this isn't relevant to triangulating a persons location, moron. GPS is based on calculating distance from the time it takes a signal to propagate at a known speed. of course, things like doppler shifts will occur in the carrier, but how is this relevant to calculating where you are? and BTW Doppler shift is many orders of magnitude larger than this.

>>15010689
>the topic is special relativity
No... the claim was that GPS is not related to Einstein's work. General relativity is Einstein's work. And special relativity is not applicable to satellites due to non-inertial reference frames, so you're admitting that you're engaging in a strawman argument?

>funny how the inventor of GPS didn't use GR in his initial descriptions of his invention.
And?

>>15010689
>You are missing the point. a few minutes after synchronization
Again, the correction to the clock rate occurs before any synchronization. It is necessary for synchronization to be done accurately. Are you pretending to not understand this?

Aetherfaggots are hilarious. It will be a shame when they all die of old age within the next decade.

>>15010704
>you're admitting that you're engaging in a strawman argument?
no, but you are moving the goal posts.

>>15010704
>And?
lets review the story of how GPS was first demonstrated. some guy just used trig and a finite speed of light to calculate his position accurately using only trig, the speed of ight and Sputniks signal. Now you are telling me none of it can work without general relativity? How did it become necessary, when at first it was not even considered? it was just some aerospace engineer guy who invented this shit and demonstrated it's utility. Not a theoretical cosmologist.

>>14997395
>at any rate good luck proving the existence of aether
Yeah they just call it "dark matter" now.

>>15010700
>this isn't relevant to triangulating a persons location
It's highly relevant to synchronyzing with the ground station clock in order to update the satellites, which is relevant to triangulating a person's location. You're being obtuse.

>GPS is based on calculating distance from the time it takes a signal to propagate at a known speed.
Calculating that correctly requires the satellites to be synchronized and updated.

>>15010707
>Again, the correction to the clock rate occurs before any synchronization
so? 2 minutes later the uncertainty in the times will dwarf any relativistic correction and the next synchronization will not occur for another near full day.

>>15010720
>It's highly relevant to synchronyzing with the ground station clock in order to update the satellites
show your work. You just keep reiterating yourself, but provide no substance. I've calculated out how little SR and time dilation matter here. provide a real none gas lighting weasel worded argument to the contrary.

>>15010713
>no
Then explain why you are arguing as if special relativity is applicable to satellites orbiting Earth.

>you are moving the goal posts.
You are making up goal posts that never existed. Please show a single post in which I said anything about special relativity.

>Now you are telling me none of it can work without general relativity?
It can work, just not accurately. Regardless of whether you are willing to accept some level of error, that error still exists and is predicted perfectly by GR.

>>15010732
>Then explain why you are arguing as if special relativity is applicable to satellites orbiting Earth.
I suppose we both know SR is irrelevant to GPS so we can just stop here.

>>15010732
>It can work, just not accurately.
now can you quantify there error? equation 36 doesn't give any impression of how much more accurate GPS is with corrections from GR. My impression is the "correction" is irrelevant to other uncertainties and practically not even considered.

Show your work.

>>15010721
>so?
So you're wrong, Einstein's work predicts the faster rate of satellite clocks, and is used to synchronize them.

>2 minutes later the uncertainty in the times will dwarf any relativistic correction
Based on...?

>>15010729
>show your work.
I have you a detailed paper showing it. You claimed to have read it but you clearly didn't understand it. There's not much more I can do for you. Sorry.

>I've calculated out how little SR and time dilation matter here.
Incorrect calculation and a strawman, since SR is not even applicable. Stop.

>>15010765
>Einstein's work predicts the faster rate of satellite clocks
In theory ..... You don't seem to be able to differentiate between theory and reality. you haven't demonstrated that any of this is real. Clocks drift. How do I know the error in the satellite clock upon synchronization isn't just from basic clock uncertainty? You've failed to demonstrate anything.

>>15010771
>You claimed to have read it but you clearly didn't understand it.
the difference between me and you is you have faith the expression mean something very profound and true, while I actually analyze the data and conclude there is nothing of practical relevance in any of it, just a bunch of theory.

>>15010507
>The relativistic corrections to GPS satellite clocks are no secret,
YES THEY ARE YOU RETARD. IT'S STILL CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO THE DoD. EVEN GLONASS IS STILL CLASSIFIED. GET YOUR SHIT TOGETHER AND STOP REPEATING SHIT YOU DON'T KNOW.

> You have no argument
>"The GPS is a navigation and timing system that is operated by the United States Department of Defense (DoD), and therefore has a number of aspects to it that are classified. Several organizations monitor GPS signals independently and provide services from which satellite ephemerides and clock behavior can be obtained."
Even the article you still keep linking says exactly what I just told you. Apparently we do have a glownigger, everyone. He's here declassifying it to us all putting his job in jeopardy as we speak, Well what say you glownigger? Care to explain how it actually works? Let me guess, the same way all these scientists knew about all this time which is why you kept spending millions keeping it secret? What?

>Explain why you lied about Einstein's work.
Absolutely non of Einsteins velocity composition laws are used in GPS or satellite navigation. I meant what I said, moron. Go ask GPS engineers yourself, they don't refer to them. You're probably not going to do any of this though. You're next line is probably something along the lines related to defending this shitpile for being a broken clock that's right twice a day, despite the fact it's not right at all because it's not referred to by any non-classified satellite work.

>>15010649
>You) #
>Proof?

Literally the most basic 5-year-old logic. What kind of proof are you looking for, for me to make a universe?

>>15010680
>exactly how relativity predicts

Easy for you whites to say this after being allowed to tweet your original theory endlessly to fit the data, and to this day!

>>15010697
No.

>>15010711
>Aetherfaggots are hilarious. It will be a shame when they all die of old age within the next decade.

Your leaders will always be aether fags, same way your leaders are always jews. The truth always leads. The masses, the slaves, always live in blindness, and of their making.

>>15010747
On a technical ground, isn't the inclusion of some linear approximation on GPS signal not actually indicate any unique case for any theory whatsoever? Approximations are the most natural math en vivo. Is it really the only theory where woops Taylor series expansion just werks. This isn't even a coherent conclusion.

>>15010715
>Yeah they just call it "dark matter" now.

EXACTLY

>>15011191
>tweet

Tweek

>>15011191
>whites

No offense to whites. Just sick of a class who happens to be exceedingly white gaslighting the fuck out of the sciences.

>>15010563
No, you are missing the point that an object's [math]\displaystyle E_{\text{k}}[/math] changes depending on your velocity relative to it, even in Newtonian physics.
From the perspective of a spaceship, the spaceship's velocity is always zero, and so it's [math]\displaystyle E_{\text{k}} = 0[/math].

>>15011195
>same way your leaders are always jews

As in Jews are the only people who have proven competent at upholding Moses' law which keeps our whole system from collapsing. Even Christ was a Jew.

>>15010747
>I suppose we both know SR is irrelevant to GPS so we can just stop here.
Thanks for admitting GR is relevant to GPS.

>now can you quantify there error?
No, it depends on the specific corrections the ground station is sending to the satellite, which it would not be able to do if the clocks were not synchronized. These corrections are necessary for the system to function. Also your story is wrong. The first satellite with a cesium clock (NTS-2) was sent into space a year before the first GPS satellite and confirmed that the clock rate needed to be slowed down. So GPS never worked without these corrections.

>My impression is the "correction" is irrelevant to other uncertainties and practically not even considered.
Your impression is wrong.

>>15011218

The fuck is Ek. Assume I am a pure hearted laymen and you cannot go wrong. What is it?

>>15011225
>GR

GR's only contribution to Newtonian physics was to give light a speed limit. WE ALL GET IT. C IS THE SPEED OF LIGHT. Stop trying to mystify and milk something we all know.

>>15010776
>In theory
In practice too.

>You don't seem to be able to differentiate between theory and reality.
How so? Were talking about a real system that provides a real test of the theory. And it passed.

>you haven't demonstrated that any of this is real.
If the designer of the system telling you that it's real is not a demonstration then what do you want? Do you want me to buy you a satellite?

>Clocks drift.
Atomic clocks don't drift this much. And the drift is exactly as theory predicted. Coincidence?

>How do I know the error in the satellite clock upon synchronization isn't just from basic clock uncertainty?
Because it's larger than the uncertainty for those clocks. The paper demonstrates this. You don't want a demonstration, you just want to deny reality.

>>15011228
Kinetic energy, i.e. the thing that grows exponentially if an object accelerates at a constant rate.

I see a whole bunch of physicists and cosmological TERRIFIED that laymen understand their teachings, and easily, so they try and gaslight to justify their job. STOP. We will have robot slaves soon. UBI and other things. STOP HURTING HUMANITY TO JUSTIFY YOUR CHAIR.

>>15010782
You didn't analyze anything, you completely failed to understand the paper or even what part of relativity theory is applicable to satellites. I already showed it's relevant and you have no argument. Delusional.

>>15011236
>Kinetic energy

And where is this iformation stored? I suspect we are saying the same fucking thing just in different ways and it's infuriating because it hurts our species to live in darkness.

>>15011243
Kinetic energy is just a mathematical construct describing how much work is required to accelerate an object to some velocity, not a real physical thing that's stored anywhere.

>>15011252

Yes, and that information cannot be found within the actual object, only from a universal perspective. Universal reference.

>>15011168
>YES THEY ARE YOU RETARD.
The guy who designed them has several papers describing them in detail. Not a secret. You're a proven liar.

>IT'S STILL CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO THE DoD.
Source?

>Even the article you still keep linking says exactly what I just told you.
No, it says certain parts are classified. The relativistic corrections are clearly not classified since they are being shared publicly. Lmao

>Absolutely non of Einsteins velocity composition laws are used in GPS or satellite navigation.
OK, and you think Einstein's only work are velocity composition laws? The relativistic corrections are explained in the link in the post you're replying to. You lose.

>>15011188
So you have no proof. Thanks.

>>15011260
There is no evidence of any universal reference, or of any absolute energy """content""". By merely accelerating, the kinetic energy of the rest of the universe changes accordingly; kinetic energy is relative.

>>15011263

I already wasted too much time arguing with slaves like yourself.

>>15011231
>GR's only contribution to Newtonian physics was to give light a speed limit.
That's SR, not GR. It's clear you have no idea what you're talking about. Just stop posting, you're only embarrassing yourself.

>>15011267
>By merely accelerating, the kinetic energy of the rest of the universe changes accordingly

Literally what I said, just more efficiently. I am a more efficient you. Got to go now, slave.

>>15011270
Thanks for confirming you have no proof. Very big of you.

>>15011273
It's the exact opposite of what you're saying, pseud. There is not one testable, repeatable experiment that supports the concept of an absolute frame of reference.

>>15011261
>Source?
The article you just posted (if it's the same anon).

>No, it says certain parts are classified
Exactly.

>>15011336
>The article you just posted (if it's the same anon).
No, that says certain parts are classified and goes into great detail about the relativistic corrections, which therefore are not classified. Why are you lying?

>Exactly.
Thanks for admitting that you were wrong.

>>15012094
>No, that says certain parts are classified and goes into great detail about the relativistic corrections,
>which therefore are not classified

Stop contradicting yourself anytime there, robot.

>>15012267
There's no contradiction there. Parts of GPS that are classified =/= remained corrections to GPS. Are you pretending to be retarded or do you actually not get this?

>>15012338
>Parts of GPS that are classified =/= remained corrections to GPS
>I know this for a fact because it's unknown

>>15012347
They're not unknown, they're detailed in the paper. Take your meds.

>>15012454
>they're detailed in the paper
The classified paper

>>15012527
Nope, the paper isn't classified, it's publicly available. Meds.

>>15012552
The last gasp of a man with no argument. I bet you think the coriolis effect is taken into account by snipers and missile launches too.

>>15012552
>"Parts of GPS that are classified"

>>15012690
>>15012570
The paper is about the relativistic corrections to GPS. Those corrections aren't classified, since there's a paper about them. You're mentally ill if you don't understand this.

>>15012751
>The paper is about the relativistic corrections to GPS
no. it's not. it's just a bunch of theory. there are is no actual data presented about the accuracy of the theory or whether or not the theory or supposed corrections are even implemented.

>>15012968
>no. it's not.
You're delusional.

>it's just a bunch of theory.
It's not, it gives the exact value the satellite clocks are allowed by.

>there are is no actual data presented about the accuracy of the theory or whether or not the theory or supposed corrections are even implemented.
Why are you lying? It explains how the corrections were tested on the NTS-2 satellite in 1977.

>>15013077
>It's not, it gives the exact value the satellite clocks are allowed by.
in theory retard. you really don't get that evidence =/=theory. the link is full of theory there is no evidence from the satellites any of the theory is true or if it is even used in practice.

>>15013077
>It explains how the corrections were tested on the NTS-2 satellite in 1977.
do you even understand what that means? it's one satellite. It's not the current constellation of GPS satellites. now lets refer to the literature.

"The successful launch of the Navigation Technology Satellite No.2
(NTS-2) marks the beginning of a new era in navigation and timekeeping history. NTS-2 (Fig. I) is the first NAVSTAR GPS (I) Phase I
Satellite, which will provide near-instantaneous navigation and
time-synchronization service on a worldwide, continuous basis to
the DOD community and a wide variety of commercial users. NTS-2
technological features encompass the world I s first orbiting cesium
frequency standards, built by Frequency and Time Systems (FTS) ;
nickel-hydrogen batteries (developed by COMSAT); three axis gravity
gradient stabilization with momeritum wheel unloading; control of the
spacecraft orbit; verification of Einstein's relativistic clock shift;
time interval measurement precision of 3 nanoseconds; and a worldwide
network (GE International Time Sharing) for data acquisition ."

http://www.leapsecond.com/history/1978-PTTI-v9-NTS-2.pdf

now lets go back to what I said before. the difference in time you'd have to compensate for from time dilation is 6ps. so the satellite in no way confirmed time dilation or any other effect of special relativity since it could only measure precisely down to 3ns.

>>15013090
>in theory retard.
And in practice. You're ignoring the rest of the paper.

>you really don't get that evidence =/=theory.
The evidence is the guy who designed the system telling you that the system is used. What more do you want? Do you want me to buy you a satellite?

>>15013126
>And in practice. You're ignoring the rest of the paper.
nothing in the paper gives any evidence of the validity of special relativity.

>>15013126
>The evidence is the guy who designed the system telling you that the system is used.
*citation needed

>>15013103
>do you even understand what that means?
Yes, apparently you don't.

>It's one satellite.
Yes, the first satellite these corrections were tested on is "one satellite" by definition. Why did you lie about the paper not presenting anything about the accuracy or implementation of these corrections?

>the difference in time you'd have to compensate for from time dilation is 6ps.
Incorrect calculation and irrelevant since the major source of error is gravitational blueshift, not time dilation. Why are you repeating the same crap that was already refuted? Is this your religious dogma?

>so the satellite in no way confirmed time dilation or any other effect of special relativity since it could only measure precisely down to 3ns.
Wrong.

>The frequency measured during that interval was +442.5 parts in 10^12 compared to clocks on the ground, while general relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 10^12. The difference was well within the accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock. This then gave about a 1% verification of the combined second-order Doppler and gravitational frequency shift effects for a clock at 4.2 earth radii.

>>15013146
>Wrong.
all you have is faith, and when that faith is tested you have denial. You have presented nothing that at all that provides evidence of the validity of SR, you just keep clutching you formulas and theories as if the math you don't even understand will help you cope.

>>15013134
>nothing in the paper gives any evidence of the validity of special relativity.
Non sequitur. The paper is about general relativity. Special relativity doesn't apply to non-inertial reference frames like satellites. You don't even know the basics of what we're arguing about, you're making a fool of yourself.

>The frequency measured during that interval was +442.5 parts in 10^12 compared to clocks on the ground, while general relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 10^12. The difference was well within the accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock. This then gave about a 1% verification of the combined second-order Doppler and gravitational frequency shift effects for a clock at 4.2 earth radii.

>*citation needed

Neil Ashby was born in Dalhart, Texas on March 5, 1934. He received
the B.A. degree (Summa Cum Laude) in physics from the University of
Colorado, Boulder, in 1955, and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from
Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts in 1956 and 1961,
respectively. After spending a year in Europe as a postdoctoral fellow,
he joined the faculty of the Department of Physics at the University of
Colorado in 1962. He has been a Professor of Physics there since 1970,
and was Department Chair from 1984–1988. He consults for the Time
and Frequency Division of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, working on relativistic effects on clocks and global time
synchronization. His work was the basis of general relativistic correc-
tion being properly included in the Global Positioning System. He has
been a member of the International Committee on General Relativity
and Gravitation from 1989–1995. He serves on several international
working groups on relativistic effects in geodesy and in metrology.
http://www.allanstime.com/Publications/DWA/Science_Timekeeping/TheScienceOfTimekeeping.pdf

>>15013155
>all you have is faith
Projection. I showed you exactly how your wrong. You're in denial.

>You have presented nothing that at all that provides evidence of the validity of SR
Because I'm talking about GR, not SR. But you already know this. You're not arguing honestly. You lost, just stop posting.

>>15013192
>His work was the basis of general relativistic correction being properly included in the Global Positioning System.
And the evidence for this claim is .....?

>>15013192
I don't think you realize how badly Einstein and his stans lost this argument. The original claim was "GPS is based on relativity and time dilation."

Now the claim is "According to GR there is a higher order doppler shift that makes GPS more accurate."

Ironically I believe in doppler shifts. I believe in blue shifts, but we've lost the point of this thread. The point was to point out how intractable special relativity is in terms of time dilation and twin paradoxes. So you aren't even arguing for time dilation anymore anyways, and you acknowledge GPS can work without TD and special relativity altogether. This has become a pointless argument and I won it a long time ago. The only "correction" needed for GPS is a doppler shift(not time dilation).

We learn nothing

>>15013211
Why did you ask for a citation if you're not going to accept it? Ask NIST for his credentials if you actually care, which you don't.

>>15013232
>I don't think you realize how badly Einstein and his stans lost this argument.
I think you're projecting.

>The original claim was "GPS is based on relativity and time dilation."
Why are you lying? That quote appears nowhere in the thread. The original claim was "Some even now believe that any of the work he did somehow has to do with the invention of the atomic bomb or GPS."

>Now the claim is "According to GR there is a higher order doppler shift that makes GPS more accurate."
No, no one said that. Are you a compulsive liar or just illiterate? My claim is that GPS relies on relativistic corrections to the satellite clock rate in order to keep it synchronized with the ground station, which sends updates of its location, which is necessary for calculating signal travel time accurately, which is necessary for triangulating the location of the GPS receiver.

>The point was to point out how intractable special relativity is in terms of time dilation and twin paradoxes.
You failed.

>So you aren't even arguing for time dilation anymore anyways
No, you stopped replying to my posts. You abandoned that argument.

>you acknowledge GPS can work without TD and special relativity altogether.
No, part of the correction is for time dilation, but gravitational blueshift is the larger part. One again proving you have no idea what you're talking about even though you could have read the paper explaining this several times by now.

>This has become a pointless argument and I won it a long time ago.
You're delusional.

>>15013412
>You're delusional.
He's not the one who believes reality conforms to Dr. Who quotes.

>>15013431
You're delusional. Stop posting.

>>15013412
this was over days ago. You can't prove GPS satellites are even relevant to time dilation and the twin paradox, which is the topic here BTW. Instead you've been rambling about a doppler blue shift. Guess what? they aren't the same thing. I doubt you even realize that. This doppler shift isn't even claimed to make twins age differentially. Your whole thesis here has been a non-sequitur. Even if this doppler shift is implemented, which I'm skeptical of, it doesn't prove twin moving at different velocities age differently. This is a huge waste of time, and just confirms how low IQ you are. You are just pointlessly fellating Einstein.

>>15014463
>this was over days ago.
Yes, you lost days ago.

>You can't prove GPS satellites are even relevant to time dilation
I already did. Try reading the paper.

>and the twin paradox, which is the topic here BTW
I'm not the one who brought up GPS, so I don't know why you're compatibility to me about it. I simply responded to the indirect assertion that Einstein's work is not related to GPS. Thanks for agreeing with me that it is.

>they aren't the same thing.
When did I say they are? Try to stay on topic and respond to what I actually said.

>Even if this doppler shift is implemented, which I'm skeptical of, it doesn't prove twin moving at different velocities age differently.
As I already explained to you, and you repeatedly ignored, the relativistic corrections include corrections for time dilation AND gravitational blueshift. The blueshift is just the larger source of error for satellites. So you're wrong, the need for these corrections does prove time dilation is real, as predicted by Einstein.

>>15014463
>this was over days ago.
Yes, you lost days ago.

>You can't prove GPS satellites are even relevant to time dilation
I already did. Try reading the paper.

>and the twin paradox, which is the topic here BTW
I'm not the one who brought up GPS, so I don't know why you're complaining to me about it. I simply responded to the incorrect assertion that Einstein's work is not related to GPS. Thanks for agreeing with me that it is.

>they aren't the same thing.
When did I say they are? Try to stay on topic and respond to what I actually said.

>Even if this doppler shift is implemented, which I'm skeptical of, it doesn't prove twin moving at different velocities age differently.
As I already explained to you, and you repeatedly ignored, the relativistic corrections include corrections for time dilation AND gravitational blueshift. The blueshift is just the larger source of error for satellites. So you're wrong, the need for these corrections does prove time dilation is real, as predicted by Einstein.

>>15014483
>Yes, you lost days ago.
See >>15013500

>>15014615
Not an argument. Thanks for conceding.

>>15014772
Thanks for the gold, kind stranger!

>>15014774
See >>15014772

Truly think sci because what is arbitrary

Thread honoring aether concluded with king aether mention

Aether is essentially real. Big Bang is Catholic invented bullshit. Red shift is due to aether. Universe is infinite fractal. FACTS. Why are we even arguing with these 1940s era, subhuman pop-sci frauds?

>>15015047
Vg

>>15015047

What I mean by this is call them the stooges they are, if they retaliate use self defense, lethally if necessary (cases of them sending their Nazis to drag you out of your house for free speech, etc...). Point is, these GR creatures are lost. Anyone with any intelligence knows it. IGNORE THEM.

>>15015050
Help them all.
Free pop

>>14997333
Why is this so hard to understand?

IMPORTANT: The speed of light is constant from all inertial reference points.

Definition of an inertial reference point: In classical physics and special relativity, an inertial frame of reference is a frame of reference that is not undergoing any acceleration. It is a frame in which an isolated physical object — an object with zero net force acting on it — is perceived to move with a constant velocity or, equivalently, it is a frame of reference in which Newton's first law of motion holds.

The picture above is what you would see from two different inertial reference points one where the clock is stationary and one where it moves.

>>15016126
Forgot picture.

>>15016126
>an inertial frame of reference is a frame of reference that is not undergoing any acceleration.
There is no such reference frame in reality

>It is a frame in which an isolated physical object — an object with zero net force acting on it — is perceived to move with a constant velocity or, equivalently, it is a frame of reference in which Newton's first law of motion holds.
There is no such object in the universe.

>Why is this so hard to understand?
It's completely understandable. It's just wrong is all and doesn't actually happen in reality. Furthermore it doesn't actually explain anything. It describes two objects being different, but provides no causal link as to how they are whatsoever other than the reification of distance/measurements as something that do something.

>what you would see
Will I ever see an experiment regarding this nonsense?

>>15016137
Is the earth currently accelerating?

>>15016137
Just say you don't understand what a frame of reference is and go back to school

>>15016126
>The picture above is what you would see from two different inertial reference points one where the clock is stationary and one where it moves.
How am I In two different reference frames at once? How am I seeing light that isn't incident on my retina?

>>15016144
>>15016179

>>15016137

>Will I ever see an experiment regarding this nonsense?

>>15016692
>I'm retarded hurr durr
Yeah we know

>>15016708
You shouldn't talk about yourself that way.

>>15016712
I wasn't, but we already figured your reading comprehension is toddler tier, given that you can't even understand something as simple as a reference frame even when you're being spoonfed information

>>15016717
Is "you" in the room with you now, schizanon? Multiple people are in this thread mocking you.

>>15016723
>no argument
>random schizo diatribe
Whoops, looks like someone forgot to take their meds again

>>14997333
does bob feel any g- forces?

>>15004380
Accelerometers can measure density variances as you travel over the earth, on the ocean. I don't know what poverty or third world accelerometer you've used, but this is old tech...