MacM

I appreciate your response. However, I cannot accept it as being signifigant in regard to defense of SRT. We all know the earth is an oblate spheroid. We all know gravity redshift is accounted for. I saw a figure that GPS uses 15 adjustments to achieve its current accuracy. However there are only two primary ones that regulate the overwhelming range of performance. That is GR due to orbit distance and Velocity affect of orbit. I believe I indicated that the surface clock was at the equator and hence the maximum and that at other latitudes the affect would be even less. Surely you can see that the inclination of the earth's axis to the orbit plane has minimal affect on the issue. Of course it must be taken into account but that does not address the issue, nor alter the results. The surface clock V2 (assumed at the equator) has an absolute velocity, with the pole being "0", of 463.8 m/s. For this clock I calculate 1.195058E-16 * 24 * 3,600 = 10.325E-12 or -10.325 Pico-seconds per day Based on SRT measurements one gets -5.58 micro-seconds per day because the earth's surface clock gamma affect is negligable and will be disregarded . Perhaps you would care to address the issue which is the fact that GPS uses the earth's axis as a local preferred rest frame, a view prohibited in SRT. Using relative veloicty between clocks one gets -5.58 micro-seconds. As I have shown computing velocity gamma affect for absolute velocity of surface clocks and orbiting clocks relative to the rest frame produces a different result (the correct result and the one used by GPS is -7.2 micro-seconds).

I would be interested in some feedback on this issue: GPS uses the eath's rotating axis (Pole) as a local preferred rest referance frame. The earth's equator has a velocity of 463.8 m/s. GPS satellites have a velocity of 3,874.5 m/s. The "Relative Velocity" between the orbiting clock and a clock at the equator is (3,874.5m/s - 463.8m/s) = 3,410.7m/s. Using SRT in GPS one gets: 3,410.7/c = 1.1369E-5, squared = 1.2925E-10. Divided by 2 = 6.4627E-11. Time loss would be 6.4627E-11 * 24 * 3,600 = 5.58378E-6 or - 5.58 micro-seconds per day maximum deviation by being at the equator. Other latitudes would be less. HOWEVER: Using the absolute velocity of orbit of 3,874.5 m/s and NOT "Relative Velocity" per SRT one gets 1.2915E-5c, squared = 1.66797E-10. Divided by 2 = 8.33986E-11. 8.33986E-11 * 24 * 3,600 = 7.205E-6 or 7.2 micro-seconds per day due to orbit velocity. In this case earth's equitorial velocity produces a dilation only in the pico-seconds/day and is disregarded. Over a dozen considerations are made in the GPS system but prelaunch adjusments of GPS orbiting clocks consist of only two primary ones. About +45 micro-seconds gain due to GR (Gravity) and for a -7.2 micro-second loss due to velocity, for a net adjustment of -38 micro-seconds. Since it is known that GPS clocks are preadjusted for 7.2 microseconds loss per day (which matches absolute velocity of orbit and not SRT's Relative Velocity, GPS does not use SRT. It uses the Lorentz Relativity concept of absolute velocities and not SRT Relative velocity. The other adjusments are generally made by software based on signal data. Further since the velocites and calculations are based on absolute velocities relative to a common preferred rest frame the two components are not reversable as they are in SRT where each can claim to be at rest. In this format the orbiting clock always has higher velocity and always is the clock which shows dilation. Why is it so many physicists (Relativists) are so quick to claim GPS "Proves" SRT? It actually only proves the Lorentz Gamma function and discredits the SRT view where there is reciprocity between observers. SRT prohibits the use of local absolute rest frames and claims either observer can be at rest. It doesn't work that way in GPS. It appears GPS favors Lorentz over Einstein.

Definitely. A recent story was on national news about a dog in Atlanta Georgia. He had gotten loose from the family yard and got on a main road and was struck by a car. He was severly injured but from that point crawlwed 8 miles. NOT HOME but to the front door of the family vetinarian clinic.!

The above numbers are grossly in error. http://hypertextbook.com/facts/AprilDunetz.shtml http://van.hep.uiuc.edu/van/qa/section/Electricity_and_Magnets/Electrocution/20020825144219.htm http://www.csao.org/uploadfiles/magazine/vol11no1/shock.htm This last one shows death at less than sufficient current to light a 100 W light bulb. At 120 V that means death occurs less than 13/16 of an amp.

Not posting this to make a claim. But to address the issue of patents. Patents do not mean something works. Here is a link to my first patent. http://my.voyager.net/~jrrandall/McCoinPatent.html I have changed the valve to use electrorehological and/or ferro-fluids and to be thicker than the width of the spheres such that the sphere never feels the differential pressure across the valve and moves through by gravity and controlled timing in causing the valve to form a pressure barrier at the top and/or bottom of the valve. The bottom has an elastomeric membrane with a stretchable hole which in theory would hold back the fluid (like a wiper) as the sphere drops through the bottom by gravity while the top is forming the barrier and allowing the lower pressure to be applied through the fluid to the entire surface of the sphere. It is not considered practical by any means (even if it worked) because the amount of energy per mass of the system just isn't a viable source. However, it does present some rather interesting academic questions. I know from contact over the years that infact my patent has been used in some colleges in physics quizes. 1 - Does it work? If so explain how. 2 - Does it not work? If not why not?. I have been interested in gravity for over 50 years and have done some actual testing which shows that gravity is not what they currently think it is. It is a product of energy transfer. See: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4934 Have fun. Dan K. McCoin

I personally doubt it does. At least not as some exotic matter but only as some minor unobserved components. The galatic rotational velocity issues has an alternative gravity explanation. See: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4934 This is my own idea so take it for what it is worth.

I would think so.

Thanks for the links. I have put them in Favorites for further reading.

Don't blame me. Blame the Relavitists.

It is called "Velocity Addition Formula"

I take it you don't like Windows. Well I don't either. We have been discussing making some changes. Have any recommendations? Thanks

AC is used in power production and transmission in that it is much more efficient. In DC you would actually push the electron down the line from the power plant to your house and through your computer. In AC you merely jiggle the existing electrons in the wires. They move back and forth and it actually takes an electron hours to move from your wall outlet to your computer due to some intrinsic losses, etc. Voltage is not dangerous but current kills. AC or DC current are dangerous. You can actually insulate yourself and hold onto a Van De Graff DC generator that charges your body to a million volts (I've personally done it to 250,000 Volts). Your hair stands on end and your clothes move around as though you were in the wind but it is all static electricity. The trick is to discharge yourself "Slowly" and not create damaging current. Or better yet don't grab hold of the generator.

Hi, I'm new here and I just wanted to draw your attention to my first post: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4934 It has bearing on your comments above. It may be that: 1 - Dark Matter is very limited and not as prevelant as currently believed. Indeed probably negligable. 2 - Dark Energy doesn't exist as an exotic anti-gravity energy field. 3 - That gravity has a common function which inherently results in a different calculation of gravity that explains both the star rotational velocity anomaly at galatic scales (AD HOC Dark Matter solution) and the accelerating expansion of the universe (AD HOC Dark Energy solution).

The "UniKEF Gravity Testing" section of the site has been repaired. http://www.unikef-gravity.com/ Digesting the text to understand the function is the hard part (I think). This could all be BS but in 50 years that I have been wroking on this there have been over a dozen predictions that have come to pass. It seems highly unlikely that it is total BS but that there is some underlying truth in the concept. If supported mathematically it should cause a major shift in our thinking about current physics, cosmology, etc. Imagine being able to show that a "Finite" universe can account for all observed gravitational functions from inverse square to Mercury's orbit, rotational velocity of stars around galaxies and the accelerated expansion of the universe!. All as one natural function. The calculus section should give those knowledgable in the mathematics some idea of what effort is involved. Please contact me by PM or e-mail if you have questions or if you choose post your questions here so others mights follow the development. Assuming we are sucessful those that contribute can (at their choosing) be listed on the paper if it becomes published. Thanks.

Sorry you can't get to the site. You might try the Home Page which is MSN. It is not as well presented but you might be able to get the information. http://groups.msn.com/McCoinUniKEFTheory/home.htm

Hi, I should probably have named this thread "Challenged New Member". I am 63 and have a highly technical background training and experience. I have joined here for several reasons but one in particular is the apparent number of members that are good in Calculus. I had introductory Calculus 40 years ago but have never used it and at this late stage simply consider that I do not do calculus. I do algebra and write my own engineering and physics programs in GWBasic. But while I understand the functions of calculus I certainly do not perform it. i.e. - I am a handicap! I have my own web site: http://www.unikef-gravity.com/ Which is part of a theory I put together in 1954. It has been absolutely a thrill to see numerous rather bizzar "Priori Predictions" from that concept become standard views of science but I'll save that for another day. The theory is virtually devoid of any testing or mathematical support; except in the area of gravity; which was the emputus for the theory's development. As is indicated on site the concept has both testing data and some calculus (done by a physicist friend in 1965) which tend to support the concept. My challenge is for any member interested that can do the required calculus completion, with step by step recital; including graphics, to offer either pay and/or credits in a formalized version for submission to peer review for a scientific paper on the subject. Let me draw interested parties attention to: 1 - The Summary Graph 2 on Page 4. This is the function which needs completion by calculus. 2 - The Testing Section and photo album. 3 - And the Calculus Section The paper is to be dedicated only to the gravity calculus and not include esoteric consequences of the concept. The theory seems to provide a complete gravity function. a - Is inverse square locally. b - Flattens to be stronger at galatic scales which mitigates the amount of Dark Matter. c - Becomes repulsive and predicted the accelerating expansion of the universe without Dark Energy. I look forward to your input. Thanks Dan K. McCoin lmccoin@elp.rr.com PS: Note: This is a new site and I have just noticed that the "Testing Section" isn't coming up. I have contacted the person responsible and hopefully that will be fixed quickly. ((Now repaired))