Bjarne

But the way we think we can detect these wawes is so fare not consistent with the theory Only if the theory is correct Good to here you is open minded. I am afraid the problem is that the price can be a little higher than many are willing to pay Would the ruler change due to different influence of gravity ? Here follows a thought experiment.... ‘A’ live in the basement of a skyscraper, ‘B’ at the top of the same building. Both have measured the time it took a photon to travel 13 billion. from the very first star and to us.. But A’s clock (deeper in the gravitational field) is as we know ticking slower than B’s clock. B would argue that it took the photon one minute longer to reach us – than the time A has measured. Simply because B’s clock is ticking faster than the A’s watch. The difference is in reality less, but it means nothing , its the same point. We accept that the speed “c” is the same for both A and B. When both A and B know the time and speed, A and B can only conclude that either the distance to the star that emitted photon is significantly different, which is utopia, because the universe is not likely to change shape depending on the observer who observes a process . Otherwise, the conclusion can only be that A’s ruler (in the basement) must have changed (become longer) proportional to the stretch of time. Only in this way A and B both can agree that ‘c’ is the "same" for both (even though ‘c’ is not comparable the ‘same’..) Or what do you think ? Don't you think such logical dilemmas prevent us from discussing rational ? If logic thinking is against the theory of relativity, it is the logic thinking that is the problem, - never the theory of relativity. And therefore a discussion is fast helpless stucked

Let's make all this short, the point is so long that gravitational waves are not detected , but energy loss is a fact, - we have indeed a big problem , because where does that energy go ? How can energy vanish undetected? I believe this is a serious question we sooner or later is forced to consider., Right now such thought is forbidden because of the holy theory of relativity I think time is not correct, let LIGO and gravitational waves ideas cool down the next couple of years, then we can take a talk. Or if you wish start a thread at speculation and I can put a few very noisy flies in your head.

If we can meet a dark place, no problem In the meantime have you ever thought about what is relativistic mass / energy really (made of) ? And what do you think happens in the process where kinetic energy is converted to mass / energy ? Furthermore, gravitational energy, where is that. I know we have a worrd / expression for that energy, can you piont to where is the energy, - you know E (convertible with M) ? We have more to learn more about gravity, much more, - and also how energy and space get involved with each other.. I think you will agree to that.

Take a watch , good quality video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mQhZB5lmvk Yes this is what I mean, - Well energy loss has been detected, - not gravitational waves. Energy loss can be explained by different theories. So long it doesn’t become a holy cow, - fine I really don’t understand why so many people think that the theory of relativity is everything or nothing. Already in the late 1800 it was known that the consequence of the Lorentz Equation meant that time dilation was a consequence, but no one except Einstein took that serous. Einstein begun to implement these already known consequences, - in a new overall picture of the world. The point is that you can implement the consequences of the Lorentz transformation in a different way, - it will not be the end of the world. It all depend on which experiments supports you , and which aspect of science could have been misunderstood, or poorly understood.. And therefore my point is maybe a modification of the of relativity can soon be justified, - and even without the GPS systems stop working. Well, it all tells about the property of space, but it doesn’t prove that the cause of gravity is curvature of space. – There is a huge gap / lack of evidence here. A modified theory of relativity could maybe answer what relativistic energy really is and why gravitational waves, - never are detected, - and even unite Relativity and Quantum mechanics.. Nerver say never I would have preferred if you had answered the question Which evidence are there for Newtonian limits, I am not sure I is aware of all..

Which evidence are there fore Newtonian limits, I am not sure I is awre of all

I am not insulting anyone, but only skeptical to science that in fact in many cases seems not to have any grounding. For years I tried to understand what is curvature of space. Which differences would I see if I could jump from one space time reality to another? Would the ruler at different altitude inside a gravity field always be the same? - as well as comparable the same ? How does space curve right here at my desktop, and yes what is that curved space for kind of stuff ? How does matter know that space curves here? What about a 90 ton heavy CAT, is it so heavy because of the curvature of space How is matter curving space What happens in the process where kinetic energy is converted to relativistic mass ? Ohh yes I have really tried, there are too many unanswered question and answer nobody really understand , and certainly not my grandmother that Einstein once said she should. Tell me please 3 other well grounded reasons to that Newtonian gravity is not enough other than, that Mercury have a stange orbit anomaly. I geuss you will not

This is what the scientific method is for, my opinion is not important Yes indeed, so long serveral aspect of the theory not is verified otherwise than postulates, caricature and math (and not by observation or measurable experiments), as well as so long there are fundemental conflict with other well established science. Don't take all i write literally I don't understand, if gravity is not caused by curvature of space, don't you think that aspect of the theory is wrong ?

On the one hand I understand your point of view, on the other hand I think this theory have to be verified in a proper way, - step by step. In my universe it is not enough to conclude that when Einstein’s said A, - and indeed was correct , - then B and C are also automatically correct. You know the best way of telling a lie, is to camouflage it with 90% truth. The part of GR dealing with dilation is very well supported by hard evidence. I fully accept this part of the theory, But there are problems - ultimately with quantum physics, + gravity-waves are still not yet detected. Do you think it is impossible that one day we will have to recognize the cause of gravity was not curved space, but something else entirely? Now we got deep enough into the rabbit hole where the last and most important question remains; - Can you imagine that Galileo 5 and 6 may shed completely new light on exactly how a perihelion precesion anomaly is created ? and maybe even to such an extent that we are forced to "amputate" a "upper" part of GR, ? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. Our political life is also predicated on openness. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as we are free to ask what we must, free to say what [we] think, free to think what we will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress. Robert Oppenheimer

Well noted, - and what else as plenty countless caricature and math support the curvature of space postulate? I mean is the cause of the perihelion precision most of all a postulate or rather most of all hard evidence?

So what you really is saying is that the test of Relativity these yearsm - regarding ISS and Galileo 5 and 6 is waste of billions of USD taxpayers money ?

An aircraft can today fly around the world, - land and take off in different countries, avoid storms, adjust for wind impact, and much more, - without any need for pilot interaction. I think that satellites are also largely controlled by "auto pilot", where computers even calculates all data, and suggests how much the clocks must be synchronized and how much orbits must be adjusted, and who knows maybe without asking anybody for permission. (I guess) it all can be done fully automatically, - without much help is necessary from any GPS navigators That's what I mean by, - (human) attention at the GPS control center is not so much based on analyzing different causes of necessary adjustments or synchronizing, either to distinguish between different unwanted impacts, - but primary that GPS must work and be precise. Or shortly spoken, whether the theory of relativity is 100% correct plays a secondary role for commercial satellites navigators. When testing scientifically, - the attention is 100% scientifically, for long term uninterrupted periods. I think you will agree there is a difference

I can easy understand your points, and agree that the theory of relativity seems to have fit the bill very exact for decades, GPS etc.. But I also agree that there are still several good reasons to keep testing. Furthermore I think that if the attention is 100% scientific, - it is 90% better than if the attention only is 10% scientific.. Lack of attention was for example the cause of the biggest atomic catastrophe in the word. It is human to fail and it often happens if the attention is a different place.. To my opinion, - to get 28 GPS satellites to work perfect and précis together, included all the adjustment for known unwanted effects as well as daily dilation synchronizing, on the one hand of course it require all the knowledge we have - but on the other hand it also take a good part of the attention and scientifically test possibilities away – whereby the possible scientific outcome off course suffers. , Therefore I am very interested in space probes and satellites that really are tested to the limit of what is possible. – And as I wrote Galileo 5 and 6 is no so far I understand now100% test satellites, In my universe this is excellent, and such is where I would put my attention, my energy my mouth and my money.

I read these few articles, nothing about atomic clock on board ?? http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040412/full/news040412-11.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B I think the probe did not do any SR test right ? I start reading about Galileo GPS satellites, so far I have understood only 2 (Galileo 5 and 6) will undergo systematically scientific test, - of the theory of relativity - is this correct , http://gpsworld.com/esa-releases-diagrams-showing-galileo-5-and-6-orbit/

Off course but can be time consuming

Which satellites/ orbis are used for testing relativity? I mean most satellite have only GPS purposes,- I suppose But which satellites are also used for systematical scientific test of relativity ? All Galileo sattelites send out by ESA ? Others ?

Here is a excellent thread about the Pioneer anomaly http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/79814-pioneer-anomaly-still

Excactly

I know, very small orbits , nothing to worry about compared to flyby's Quote Meanwhile, space probes continue to challenge scientists every time they perform flybys. One of the last was that of the spacecraft Juno in October 2013, from Earth en route to Jupiter. NASA has not yet published data on this journey, but everything indicates that its speed as it flew over our planet once again differed from estimates. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-09-anomaly-satellite-flybys-confounds-scientists.html#jCp

Agree

Right, and and dont forget the motivation -e.g; the flyby anomalies.

So why continue testing relativity ? Chernobyl was also working very well (until it exploded),- just joking

Sounds good, thanks Another question which satellites/ orbis are used for testing relativity? I mean most satellite have only GPS purposes,- I suppose But which satellites are also used for systematical scientific test of relativity ?

I know it is done by measuring the time it takes a signal to reach the earth, but how do we know the time it takes to reach earth ?

So long influences that brings satellite out of orbit (mentioned above) is not systematical accurate and scientifically measured, - you will have a gap filled with uncertainty, - which mean you don’t know exactly how to distinguish between different contributions impacting a satellite. I am very sorry, - I am not sure I understand the question. The GR influence on satellites clocks is untouched. The SR influences is partly misunderstood and incomplete. To my opinion I have made it very clear what is wrong with the SR influence.. If there is any explanation missing please be nice to clearly explain what you think is the problem. For example mention a concrete example Notice English is not my first language. Off course I will do all I can to reply to you... I read some year ago that satellites clocks are adjusted to compensate for the influence of relativity, - but I don't know whether all these data / compensations are strictly recorded and scientifically analyzed for anomalies. If this is your concerns, you have a important point, here too can a (huge) job to be done. It is now easy to predict that satellites clocks orbiting aligned near the dark flow axis must reveal anomalies, that indeed is a good idea to analyze, - which i think not is done.. But again does these satellites carry precise enough clocks, able to detect such small time dilations anomalies?

Off course you will know how much an orbit is off, and how much is needed to get a satellite back to a preferred orbit. The thing is how to distinguish between different contributions that brought the satellite off? So long you have insufficient equipment available on board, you have not enough scientific data to support you. It’s a pretty heavy load that this year is brought to the ISS, both a atomic clock,, - a altitude measurement device and a gravity measurement devices, so far I remember. This is not without any reason. It has to be perfect done, to be able to close the gap of uncertainties.