Strange

Obviously the receiver has to adjust for this. It cannot just have a radio tuned to a fixed frequency, it has to scan the range of possible Doppler-shifted frequencies to find each satellite (initially it doesn't know whether each satellite is moving towards, away or tangentially). But the receiver uses GR to correct the time signals from the satellite (as well as correcting the distances to do the correct triangulation). Hence the time determined by the receiver is not just a copy of the time received from the satellite. After all, it is getting data from at least 4 satellites.

Google is your friend: Spin-stabilized magnetic levitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia How to Build a Magnetic Levitating Top But there is still no such thing as anti-gravity.

Which is irrelevant to the big bang theory. Of course there is evidence for the big bang theory; that is why it is the best theory we have at the moment.

Thank you!

The clocks on the satellites run at a different speed just to do a very rough compensation for relativistic effects. The detailed correction is done at the receiver where it takes into account the exact difference in gravitational potential (I can't remember now if this includes the altitude of the receiver, but it might), relative velocity, etc. The trigonometry used to calculate position by triangulating from 4 (or more) satellites (so maybe that should be "quadrangulating") has to take relativity into account in correcting distances to get anywhere near correct results. (I used to work with someone who wrote the software for GPS receivers, and he talked me through all this at the time, even though I have forgotten most of the details now.)

Or maybe it is based on the content of your posts...

The first part is a consequence of the theory of relativity. The second part appears to be something you have made up. The equivalent of a sonic boom for light is Cherenkov radiation. People have looked for signs of this as evidence of the existence of tachyons.

Calculating optimum routes is one of those things we can do pretty well just by glancing at a map. But is a very hard problem for computers (it might be NP-complete). Yep. Just a processor with a bit of specialised hardware and software (at several layers: calculate position from satellite data; transfer that to map position; work out best route; tell driver what to do; ...) The bugs can appear anywhere in those things. There are also things like radiation causing random bit changes in memory, which can make the system go wrong. But it is usually human error.

Actually, the "v" is supposed to represent the Greek letter nu, [latex]\nu[/latex], which is used for frequency (for reasons I am not sure of). Frequency of a photon (I assume; I am not quite sure where Mordred got this equation from for this context. It kinda makes sense on an intuitive level, but is not something I am familiar with.) There are no charges involved. It is just an oscillation in the electromagnetic field. Not as far as I am aware. (Or, rather, only for gravitational waves, not electromagnetic waves.) The rest of your post appears to be philosophy, not physics, so I have no comment.

Errors in the map are one source of problems. The other is "meta information" about the streets: one way streets, narrow roads unsuitable for heavy vehicles, rough roads unsuitable for any vehicles, etc. Another problem is the route finding algorithms; how the system works out the best route from A to B. I have seen comparative reviews of GPS receivers which produce wildly different routes - sometimes just varying by a few miles, but in one case adding thousands of miles to the journey!

Everything electronic depends on special relativity (the bit without gravity) as that is a part of quantum field theory and we use that to design semiconductor materials and devices. (One of the challenges for GPS receivers is being able to receive a good signal from 4 or more satellites, particularly in urban areas where buildings can block signals or cause reflections. The radio signal at the receiver is lower than the background noise, so the receiver has to do a bit of searching to find them. )

I don't think it is a mistake. It has enabled all sorts of things which would have been really hard before. It is used to measure the movement of land on either side of geological faults, is is used to track migrating animals (so we can better understand and, if necessary, protect them), the availability of accurate time anywhere in the world has all sort of uses. It was used in measuring the speed of neutrinos (even if they got the wrong answer!) It is useful for surveyors and cartographers. The only negative thing is when people depend on advice from a cheap navigation system.

Mass and energy are equivalent. Put enough mass and/or energy inside its Schwarzschild radius and you get a black hole.

I think this example is backwards. Every test is consistent with relativity. But not every possible prediction has been tested. So we have evidence for black holes, even if not absolutely certainty, and that is consistent with GR. On the other hand, not every possible solution to the equations necessarily exists; for example, I'm not sure anyone really expects white holes to exist. Definitely not true. The way that science proceeds is by scientists challenging each other and, more importantly, challenging existing theories.

No! The wet is just there waiting for you to turn!! And this is artificial water so ...

Well, obviously they are, because that s what the theory predicts. Absolutely. That is how we have the set of theories we do now: they produced different or better predictions than previous theories (where "better" means matching reality). If you have mathematical mode that can produce testable predictions, then you are doing science. If those predictions are "better" (more accurate or predict something that current theories don't) then you have a new theory. Well, I guess they will ridicule things that pretend to be science but aren't. Of course science doesn't have all the answers. But science is the best method we have found of finding (practical/useful) answers. The ultimate cause (if any) is not currently known.

As the theory predicted what would happen and the experiment confirmed it, I don't know what you think is incomplete or missed.

The amount of light and heat received by Uranus are reduced by exactly the same amount (inversely proportional to the square of distance).

Not really. Scientific theories start out as hypotheses. Then they are tested and reviewed and tested again. If it isn't shown to be correct then it is reluctantly accepted as a theory. The results of that experiment were exactly as predicted by theory.

We have measured the speed of light. Speed equals distance over time. Of course it travels. What drop off are you referring to? The inverse square law? Or something else? Because you can see the object it came from.

I am not aware of any weak interactions that involve photons. (But even if there were, the photons would not be "propelled by a force".) And the big bang was not a force. In Newtonian physics, gravity can be treated as a force. In GR (which describes the big bang and black holes) it is not a force. It is the curvature of space-time. Where science has predicted things before they are found, that is because we have a mathematical mode supported by evidence. Do you? Or are you just using your imagination to come up with fanciful ideas? We obviously do have calculations for black holes. That is why they make sense.

The speed of light isn't due to any force. Photons, like all massless particles travel at the speed of light, with no force required. The reason that nothing can escape a black hole is also not due to any forces. It is because of the curvature of space-time. Not wishing to be impolite, but if you have to ask that question, it suggests you are a novice at basic algebra. Nice analogy. But irrelevant to science (and most branches of engineering).

We could. That is true, regardless of everything else in your post.

I can put the kettle on at 3pm (your "start" or "zero" time). After a while it boils. I could measure the time it takes it fortnights, days, minutes, seconds, picoseconds, or Planck times. What is special about the last of those? It is just a (very small) unit of time.

I've never thought about it.