How mainstream science explain the Discordant Einstein's Synchronization Method with the GPS?

That does not seem a concern in any Reflections on Relativity.Why?
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/rrtoc.htm

You'll have to be more specific: which of those 500+ pages should we look at? And who wrote this book?

In short, though, the GPS system uses Relativity and it works. Thus, the GPS system provides a positive, ongoing, successful test of Relativity.

I think we've looked at some of these pages before. I like 1729.

I think what you mean to say is how can we explain time dialtion given GPS. Easily, GPS uses relativstic corrections so infact it relies on relativty being correct.

btw Star Pilot you seem to be having a few problems with the cocneptual aspects of relativty, to help you understand the subject you could do far worse than that website you've posted which looks pretty sound to me ( anyone who knows that the Minkowksi metric function over the set of all events in Minkowski spacetime is strictly speaking not a metric more than likely knows theor shizzle, thoguh t it's not strictly a pseudometric either, it's a pseudo-Riemannian metric)

You should ask Tensor that is where he find that page about the Sagnac effect.
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
I am looking for a reference explaining how the GPS was synchronized using Einstein relativity.I find absolutely nothing about that subject.
:-?

There is this really neat feature on the web called "Google". Try putting "GPS relativity" into google. I found a whole list of helpful links. Here is the first one.

__________________
Old laser physicists never die, they just become incoherent.
These days, every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows what a photon is, but he is wrong. - Albert Einstein

Could you be more specific? What does the above post by you have to do the the page I posted on the Sagnac effect?

There are several different sites. here is one. Here's Wikipedia's entry. A little work searching the net will allow you to find many more. And you might want to follow Bad jcsd's advice. That page you posted to is a good reference for Relativity.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

Here something specific I was looking for
http://physics.syr.edu/courses/PHY31...g/GPS/GPS.html
So,that is the confirmation than the GPS was not synchronized using the original Einstein clock synchronization method.

I have the confirmation than the Sagnac effect is include in the GPS synchronization as stated by Marmet.

I'm still failing to see the relevance, if your referring to the thought experiment to illustrate the failure of simultaneity at distance where two clocks are synchronized by pulses of light, then I'm failing to see any connection with GPS. Ifact in the thought experiemnt the two clocks are in the same rest frame, whereas the clock on the GPS and an Earthbound clock are not in the same frame, so the two situationas aren't even analogous.

A link to van Flandern's site and "helpful" in the same paragraph?

__________________
"I have a cunning plan that cannot fail."
S. Baldrick

Here is Neil Ashby's "GPS and Relativity" article.

__________________
"I have a cunning plan that cannot fail."
S. Baldrick

"When the velocity of light is measured with the Global Positioning System (GPS), we find that it is (c-v) or (c+v), in which v is the rotation velocity of the Earth where the cities are located."

Is it true? If not why?


And that one from Laser Jock Google search suggestion.
"There are a number of papers which have been written to explain these valid effects in the context of Einstein's relativity theories. However, quite often the explanations of these effects are patently incorrect."
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm

Where is that a quote from? Context please. In the strictest sense, the local co-ordinate velocity of light is always c in any given refernce frame, so no it's not true.


Starpilot, you need to be careful ther are 100's of sites on the internet full of crap, don't believe everything you read on the internet! (except what I write natch )

[quote="Bad jcsd"]The author of that page is the one who have worked upon the synchronisation of the GPS and other navigation systems.
http://egtphysics.net/index.htm

You're quoting an aether theory website as a good source of info on Relativity? I hope you just misread the title of the site...

edit: Just in case there is any confusion, that site claims that C is not constant. How could you get a good explanation of GR from a source that doesn't accept GR? That's like asking for an explanation of why the sky is blue from a guy who says the sky is green.

Based on his credentials, he really should know, but apparently he does not.

As far as i can work out he was involved in creating algorithms for removing noise not with the synchronistaion aspect.

But still colour me very unimpressed as his 'theory' from what I've read does not differe from any physical way from relativty, infgact the only difference seems to be that in his theory you arbitarily claim that one frame is an 'absolute frmae' and perform all calculations from that frame!

Also on his page 'STR falsified' he discusses gravitaion to try and falsify STR when it is well know that gravity is outside the STR's aplplicativty as theory of spacetime on a global level.

Read just a little more: he claims C is not constant. Uh huh.... :roll:

Hey, if I measure time in one frame and distance in another, do you think I can get out of a speeding ticket? [-(

ops: ops:

I didn't look at to very closely. I just saw the whole list of links and clicked on the first one. #-o

__________________
Old laser physicists never die, they just become incoherent.
These days, every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows what a photon is, but he is wrong. - Albert Einstein

He does say this, but he also says that observers needn't be stationery in their own frame(!!!!!) which I take as he's just doing special relativty but performing all the calculations in one frame, though he's not very clear.

Don`t throw this site without at least a deep analysis to see the reason why he propose
A MODIFIED LORENTZ ETHER THEORY
Here a good start.Don`t stop before reading the introduction chapter.This can blow your minds away... 8)
The Mechanisms of Relativistic Phenomena
http://egtphysics.net/Mechanism/ClockRel.htm 8)

I read and I braced myslf for my mind being blown away, but it didn't happen

That page shows a number of misconcpetions about relativty (the idea that the STR are the GTR are disjoint is laughable, the STR really is just as special case of the GTR and so is the idea that the failure of simulatenity at distance is problematic except for people who don't understand it), plus the only actual difference in terms of predictions between his theory and the STR that I can see is the rather ad hoc manner he's tacked on gravity to his theory.

:-?
You miss something important.
"Since clock effects are a function of velocity squared (kinetic energy) and gravitational potential energy, it would seem that the common factor is related to the energy of the particle. But SRT treats kinetic energy as relative and GRT treats gravitation as a geometric effect completely independent of energy considerations."

He missed nothing, but you missed his point entirely. That site treats STR and GTR as separate theories, whch demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about Relativity. This means your source is worthless in regards to refuting relativity.

As Bad jcsd pointed out, STR is a special case within the GTR equations. This occurs when the curvature tensor, in the GTR equations disappears. At this point, the frame becomes inertial and the much easier STR math can be used. But they are still the same theory.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

Oops double post!

Personally I have always understanding STR as an extension of GTR.
STR apply where GTR is unable solve a particular problem.Can we say simply than STR and GTR are not similar?

As I have expexted you have not even read the
INTRODUCTION which expose observations who don`t match STR and GTR predictions.

Duplicate Post deleted.

LOL, Star Pilot, it looks like we both had a similar problem.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

Then you have a wrong understanding.

Nope. GTR is applicable all the time. If you find a situation within the GTR where spacetime is flat, then the STR math can be used. We could get rid of the STR and do everything using the GTR, but the math is so complex, that when the situation arises, we use the STR math.


But, I did read the introduction. when I got to the bolded part, I realized the author doesn't know what he is talking about. And if he doesn't know what he is talking about, I can't trust his interpratation of what he thinks is happening in the relativistic corrections.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth