Strange

The point is that someone with depression can choose what to do about it: curl up in a ball, seek professional help, get drunk, repeatedly spam science forums with incoherent rants, ...

That isn't what he said.

Your wilful ignorance is very tedious: "relativity must be wrong because I don't understand it". As you appear to be happier to be left ignorant, I will leave you to it.

It is not as if the show makes paedophilia appear to be a good thing. I think it is a well made program that tackles some very difficult issues (I have no idea how realistic it is). They often have difficult moral dilemmas, rather than a simplistic good-bad view.

Of course. I was talking about the difference due to gravity. But there will be a difference due to velocity as well. In that time on Earth (for the "stationary" observer). The satellite experienced less time and so will count fewer pulses.

You can only account for differences due to relative speed using special relativity. You can account for everything (e.g. gravity) using general relativity but it is much more complex. So, if difference in gravity are not significant, then it is much, much easier to use special relativity. The satellite and the receiver on the ground would receive them at different frequencies because they are at different heights (different gravity).

I think you have been banned from all the (other) good ones.

You think pulsars transmit numbers!? That is one part of it. But actually, that is simply done by scanning a range of frequencies until you find the one the satellite is transmitting on. That is the easy part. No relativistic calculations required at all. It doesn't just arrive at different times, it will arrive at a different frequency. Not really. You can account for some effects using just special relativity. Or you can account for all effect using general relativity. You don't have to use both.

Yep "contradicting accepted science" = "speculation". How hard is that? How is it closed minded to give you your own special area to discus your ideas?

This makes so little sense, I don't really know where to start. How do pulses from a distant galaxy (but I suspect you actually mean pulsar, not quasar) tell it anything about its distance from Earth and the time ilation/length contraction involved? (It is nearer to 20,000 km, by the way.) Howe would that tell the receiver the time? How does that work? Do you think frequency changes with distance? And you haven't explained how you compensate for the relativistic changes in time and distance. (I know you like to pretend they don't exist, but unfortunately, they do.)

Exactly. Directly contradicting your assertion that it is "a process that is pretty much contained locally, within a few thousand lyrs at a maximum". Please show how you would do this, in appropriate mathematical detail.

And once again, we are back to posting random papers and articles with no explanation of their relevance ... Why?

Almost. They are run at a clock frequency that compensates for most of the difference. This just reduces the amount of correction that needs to be done by the receivers. The entire correction can't be done statically as it depends on a number of variables: the relative speed of satellite and receiver, the difference in height., etc. So the receivers need to use GR to compensate for the difference - they actually use an approximation to reduce the computation required. The receiver also has to take into account the (constantly varying) Doppler effect between it and the satellites. Please show how you would do this, in appropriate mathematical detail. You are very fond of making grand statements like this but when challenged to back up your claims it all goes strangely quiet. Why is that, I wonder ... Why would the makers of GPS receivers (a very cost competitive business) make them unnecessarily complicated, and therefore more expensive? Also, note that it isn't just a matter of varying the clock frequency: the calculations of time and distance (used to do the triangulation to work out the location) also need to be corrected for GR effects. And of course this has to be done (differently) for each of the 4 or more satellites that the receiver tracks. (I used to work on the design of GPS systems)

Nope. Our models seem to work over distance of billions of light years and for billions of years. Have you considered the possibility that it is you who is wrong and not reality? (BTW we are about the same age!)

There is physical meaning to the equations. For example, you seem to be thinking of e = mc2 (or something). In this case, m has a physical meaning (rest mass) and e has a physical meaning (energy) by c2 is just a number (with the appropriate dimensions). It has no other significance. Of course relativity makes sense. It is also practically useful for developing technology.

Apparently not: "Although associated with the complex activity of star formation, the role of masers in the building of a new star is thought to be minor" https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/su201244 That page talks about methanol masers as well. I never knew about any of this stuff. Ain't the universe amazing! Also, according to the paper mentioned on that page(*), one of the main sources of shock waves is the heating and ionization of hydrogen by newly formed stars. This process is explained quite clearly here: http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/H/HII+Region (*) This, I think: http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.3366

Why would you want to "travel a square metre"? You seem to be trying to invest a conversion factor with some physical meaning. That way lies madness.

Maybe. But if the gas is denser then more energy would required to generate a shock wave. I really have no idea but the energy involved in creating hydroxyl ions in a near vacuum seems rather small compared to the known mechanisms (which involve the creation or destruction of entire stars). I have never seen this mentioned as a source of shockwaves.

As they say, some could be from star formation. You also get shock waves from supernova explosions, galaxy collisions, quasar jets, young pulsars and various other sources. My (limited) understanding is that these can all trigger star formation in clouds. I doubt there is enough energy in the exchange of electrons between ions to trigger shock waves. But I may be wrong.

Yes, water and OH ions are present. (Note that the page you link to doesn't seem to mention star formation, but the first page does.) These masers are associated with star formation. I assume this is because the conditions required to create masers are the same as those where stars are likely to be created (density of gas, etc). Particularly as they suggest that the cause of the required population inversion may be shock waves in the gas clouds, which I think can also trigger star formation. Or, as they say, it may be that the creation of large stars creates the shock wave that forms the maser.

I'm fairly sure the Compton effect can't be explained classically. Could you explain the math in that article for me, I couldn't quite follow it.

Which it wasn't. Your arrogant approach to these threads is getting rather tedious.

H2O is not a phase of hydrogen (the clue is in the "O").

Interesting that you choose an article on how to teach quantum theory in an attempt to discredit quantum theory! From that article: (emphasis added)

I'm sure they are. Who suggested they are not? Why can't you explain why you posted a reference to this article? Why didn't you provide a link?Why do you always answer a question with more questions? Why do you refuse to discuss the subject? But what is your point, here? We know there is water (and hydroxyl ions) in interstellar gas clouds. We know that, under the right circumstances, these can be stimulated to form masers. How is this connected to the subject of this thread? Can we clarify what you mean by this. By "pre star" do you mean (a) before all stars or (b) before some particular star (e.g. the Sun)? If (a) then the answer is clearly no. if (b) then the answer is yes for second generation (and later) stars. What part of your original question has not been answered? Why not?