Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
piasan

Lisle's Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC)

Recommended Posts

This is an offshoot from the "The Absurdity of Theistic Evolution" topic.

6 hours ago, indydave said:

It's my opinion that you have not yet GRASPED what his explanation is, much less answered it.

I contacted Lisle.  His answer was (paraphrasing): "I covered in my book, buy it."  Call it whatever you like, but scientific literature behind pay walls can stay there.  I don't buy articles from mainstream science either.  I saw no reason to annoy him by pursuing the matter with him.  He'd just tell me to get the book or ignore my request... or at least would be justified to do so after all, he did tell me where to find the answer .

That said, I'm not unfamiliar with his ideas having first read them at the AIG website. some years ago.  Briefly:

  1. The accepted speed of light is a two way average because the one way speed of light cannot measured.
  2. Relativity is satisfied as long as the two way average speed of light is c.
  3. The one way speed of light cannot be measured, even in concept because clocks cannot be synchronized.
  4. The speed of light is infinitely fast from source to observer and half speed from observer to source.  This satisfies Relativity.  It also solves the distant starlight problem of YEC.
  5. Because this is a "convention" it is neither testable nor falsifiable.

While it may not be possible to measure the absolute one-way speed of light, it is certainly possible to test Lisle's convention.  And GPS is a good example.

6 hours ago, indydave said:

.... if you have, then give us in detail WHAT HE WOULD SAY is the explanation for GPS, and then you may answer it. It seems that he claims he answered that in his book and you don't know whether it is a good explanation or not because you haven't read his book.

You are correct that I haven't read what he would say.  On the other hand, I'm way more than slightly familiar with radio navigation using three different systems. 

I know this with absolute certainty:

  • GPS satellites are calibrated to compensate for relativistic effects of velocity and altitude.
  • For GPS to operate, the system MUST be synchronized within a few billionths of a second AND.
  • For GPS to operate, the one way speed of light from the satellite to the ground MUST be 299,792458 m/s.
  • GPS works.

Therefore, Lisle's claim that clocks cannot be synchronized is false.  Lisle's claim that the one way speed of light can not be known is false.

 

6 hours ago, indydave said:

 He speaks confidently as if he knows that other physicists would not dispute the point (re the impossibility of synchronization).

If he thought his proposal would survive scrutiny, why didn't he remove the religious aspects and submit it for review?   (Hint:  I'm already pretty sure of the answer.)

Do you think there are any physicists that think the GPS system will work without being synchronized?

 

6 hours ago, indydave said:

I believe he thinks that GPS works because the assumption the speed of light is isotropic ARE BUILT INTO THE CORRECTIONS that they make when they do their synchronization testing. And therefore those corrections are incorrect, but they are incorrect precisely such that the result is the same AS IF the speed of light is isotropic. Do you have some other understanding of his position? If yours is the same as mine, then have at it in refuting that.

You "believe he thinks" and if your belief isn't the same as mine, I should "have at it in refuting" what you "believe he thinks."

You basically propose the system has stacking errors that accumulate in such a way that they just happen to cancel out in a couple dozen satellites at any one time over a period of decades.

I think you have some explaining to do.  (If you've already done it in the TE thread, I'll bring the answer here ASAP)

(It will probably be at least Wednesday before I can get back to this with any more than fairly quick post)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how you can tell from a correctly working GPS that Lisle is wrong? And it's not just Lisle that thinks the one-way speed of light is a convention. 

I might have missed a lot of this discussion but this problem seem to be on a much deeper level, than to be explained by the fact that GPS works within our frame of reference. You don't even have to strictly adhere to Einsteins special relativity theory. You could opt to adhere to Lorentz theory which is experimentally indistinguishable from special relativity.

Or as wikipedia states it:

In 1904 and 1905, Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincaré proposed a theory which explained this result as being due the effect of motion through the aether on the lengths of physical objects and the speed at which clocks ran. Due to motion through the aether objects would shrink along the direction of motion and clocks would slow down. Thus, in this theory, slowly transported clocks do not, in general, remain synchronized although this effect cannot be observed. The equations describing this theory are known as the Lorentz transformations. In 1905 these transformations became the basic equations of Einstein's special theory of relativity which proposed the same results without reference to an aether.

In the theory, the one-way speed of light is principally only equal to the two-way speed in the aether frame, though not in other frames due to the motion of the observer through the aether. However, the difference between the one-way and two-way speeds of light can never be observed due to the action of the aether on the clocks and lengths. Therefore, the Poincaré-Einstein convention is also employed in this model, making the one-way speed of light isotropic in all frames of reference.

Even though this theory is experimentally indistinguishable from special relativity, Lorentz's theory is no longer used for reasons of philosophical preference and because of the development of general relativity.

Personally I believe Lorentz theory might be closer to the truth, mainly because you don't need to believe in the B-theory of time. Which seems much more problematic than accepting the aether frame suggested in Lorentz theory. But of course that is just my own preferences, I'm not at all certain if that preference is correct or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tirian said:

I don't see how you can tell from a correctly working GPS that Lisle is wrong? And it's not just Lisle that thinks the one-way speed of light is a convention. 

I might have missed a lot of this discussion but this problem seem to be on a much deeper level, than to be explained by the fact that GPS works within our frame of reference. You don't even have to strictly adhere to Einsteins special relativity theory. You could opt to adhere to Lorentz theory which is experimentally indistinguishable from special relativity.

Or as wikipedia states it:

In 1904 and 1905, Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincaré proposed a theory which explained this result as being due the effect of motion through the aether on the lengths of physical objects and the speed at which clocks ran. Due to motion through the aether objects would shrink along the direction of motion and clocks would slow down. Thus, in this theory, slowly transported clocks do not, in general, remain synchronized although this effect cannot be observed. The equations describing this theory are known as the Lorentz transformations. In 1905 these transformations became the basic equations of Einstein's special theory of relativity which proposed the same results without reference to an aether.

In the theory, the one-way speed of light is principally only equal to the two-way speed in the aether frame, though not in other frames due to the motion of the observer through the aether. However, the difference between the one-way and two-way speeds of light can never be observed due to the action of the aether on the clocks and lengths. Therefore, the Poincaré-Einstein convention is also employed in this model, making the one-way speed of light isotropic in all frames of reference.

Even though this theory is experimentally indistinguishable from special relativity, Lorentz's theory is no longer used for reasons of philosophical preference and because of the development of general relativity.

Personally I believe Lorentz theory might be closer to the truth, mainly because you don't need to believe in the B-theory of time. Which seems much more problematic than accepting the aether frame suggested in Lorentz theory. But of course that is just my own preferences, I'm not at all certain if that preference is correct or not.

"I don't see how you can tell from a correctly working GPS that Lisle is wrong?"  

 

I was asking similar questions and getting nowhere... Good Luck!!   I'm done..

 

For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.   2 Timothy 4:3-4 New International Version (NIV)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Tirian said:

I don't see how you can tell from a correctly working GPS that Lisle is wrong? And it's not just Lisle that thinks the one-way speed of light is a convention. 

I might have missed a lot of this discussion but this problem seem to be on a much deeper level, than to be explained by the fact that GPS works within our frame of reference. You

Lisle claims that the speed of light from the source to the observer is infinite and from the observer back to the source it is half of c.  That makes the average value of c for the two way trip the accepted value.  The claim is that we can't tell the difference.  In that averaging infinite c with half of c over a round trip with both legs of equal work will be indistinguishable from the accepted value of c, Lisle is absolutely correct.

When it comes to GPS, the problem is that the system works by determining the time it takes for the signal to reach the receiver from the satellite.  Then, using the equation "distance = velocity x time"  and using a velocity of 299,792,459 m/s (the accepted value of c) to get the distance.   The receiver calculates the distance to the satellite.  Finally, the receiver uses the distances from multiple satellites to determine its position by triangulation.

The problem is that for this to work, the distance from each satellite must be calculated accurately.

Under Lisle's proposal at infinite velocity, the time delay from the satellite to the receiver for each satellite will be zero and the distance to each satellite will also be zero.  A solution will be impossible.

If the alternative is true and the signal travels at half of c, the time delay will be double the expected value.  This will cause all of the distance calculations to be double the correct value.  If a solution is possible at all, it will be off by thousands of miles.

Either way, GPS won't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Tirian said:

I don't see how you can tell from a correctly working GPS that Lisle is wrong?

6 hours ago, Blitzking said:

I was asking similar questions and getting nowhere... Good Luck!!   I'm done..

 

You claim to be super intelligent.   OK, I understand intelligence =/= knowledge.  This is simple 10th grade geometry.  I suggest if you don't understand this go talk to any high school geometry teacher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  On 1/5/2019 at 8:17 PM, piasan said:

..... notice the frequent references to the confirmed synchronization of the GPS system.  Lisle's ASC requires synchronization be impossible.  That alone is sufficient grounds for rejection of Lisle's "convention."

  21 hours ago, indydave said:

I beg to differ. Lisle would say that GPS works in that there is a semblance of synchronization that probably occurs on a regular basis to synchronize clocks on all of the satellites with the time in Colorado. 

 

I beg to point out that you don't know what Lisle would say any more than I do since you haven't read his book either.

What do you mean by "semblance of synchronization?"  That seems to me like being a little bit pregnant.  Besides, we have multiple scientific references certifying that the GPS system must be, and IS synchronized within a few billionths of a second.    Directly contrary to Lisle's convention.

Blitz likes to play "who to believe."   OK, here's one .... I can believe Lisle or the GPS on my dash board that shows my correct position.   I KNOW the GPS works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2019 at 5:22 AM, piasan said:

Do you think they just shoot these things up there and start using them to navigate?  The satellites are brought into system synchronization after they are put on station and tested for months before they are placed in service.

21 hours ago, indydave said:

I agree that the second scenario I gave is unlikely but it is one way they could attempt synchronization, i.e., to have three satellites in one rocket and then they separate to different positions. But that movement would cause them to no longer be synchronized. That is why I asked you if you agreed with Einstein and you said yes.

But if they are put on station and after that there are numerous signals back and forth from the ground to the satellite, then that involves two way light travel and if the signals received by the satellite arrived instantaneously but they have time corrections which assume the speed of light, then each satellite will have a different time even though it would be intended that they all have the same time. Do you agree with this?

 

I absolutely agree that if Lisle is right that each satellite will have a different time.  Hence, they are not synchronized.  Do you agree?

 

On 1/6/2019 at 5:22 AM, piasan said:

If Lisle is right, synchronization signals from the ground would arrive at the satellite instantly.  The satellite knows the distance to the station and adjusts for the signal travel time which would actually be zero.  Thus system synchronization would be impossible.  The same thing would happen if the signal arrived at half of c. 

21 hours ago, indydave said:

They would not be actually synchronized but they would be off by exactly the amount needed to cause them to give correct triangulation signals. They are in PRACTICAL synchronization.

 

Huh?  How are they in any kind of synchronization if they all have different times?  I have no idea what you mean by "PRACTICAL synchronization."  If the time of the satellite is off, the receiver will get the wrong time delay and will give an incorrect leg which will result in a position error.

 

On 1/6/2019 at 5:22 AM, piasan said:

If Lisle is right, synchronization signals from the ground would arrive at the satellite instantly.  The satellite knows the distance to the station and adjusts for the signal travel time which would actually be zero.  Thus system synchronization would be impossible.  The same thing would happen if the signal arrived at half of c. 

21 hours ago, indydave said:

I'm not sure he would say that. It can't be instantaneous in both directions. I think you have two different reference points and different POVs. Don't you think that Lisle would say that the clocks are effectively synchronized even though they are not actually in synchronization? They are wrong by exactly the correct amount of error for the system to work.

 

If the signal is instantaneous in both directions, the calculated distances to all the satellites would be zero and no fix will be possible.

I'm pretty sure an essential part of Lisle's claim is that the clocks can NOT be synchronized.  Again, "effective synchronization" is like being a little bit pregnant. 

You can explain how the clocks can be wrong by "exactly the correct amount of error" when each satellite will have a different error and each receiver will also have a different error for each satellite.

21 hours ago, indydave said:

If it is instantaneously received at the satellite but they send time corrections which (incorrectly) assume a speed of c, then each satellite will have a slightly different time which is not perfectly synchronized but it is wrong by just the right amount of error. 

If it travels at half the speed of c, then it will be wrong but if it travels instantaneously back to Earth then it will be right again. The distances will be exactly the correct distance, and will allow triangulation.

Let's put it this way......   

Lisle's claims everything is OK as long as the average velocity = c.  He argues for infinite and half c which will give you an average of c.

Now, let's look at GPS.  Let's say the satellite is directly overhead (12550) miles from Colorado when a signal is sent to the satellite instantly.  The return signal at half c works fine for that distance.  What if the satellite is at an elevation of 45 degrees from the receiver.  That would put it some 17750 miles distant. .... that leg is 5200 miles longer than the uplink.  Averaging infinity and half of c doesn't work because the uplink and downlink are different lengths.  Also remember, the downlink is sending information to millions of receivers at millions of different distances.  You will need a different velocity for each receiver to get an average of c.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, piasan said:

Under Lisle's proposal at infinite velocity, the time delay from the satellite to the receiver for each satellite will be zero and the distance to each satellite will also be zero.  A solution will be impossible.

If the alternative is true and the signal travels at half of c, the time delay will be double the expected value.  This will cause all of the distance calculations to be double the correct value.  If a solution is possible at all, it will be off by thousands of miles.

Either way, GPS won't work.

If you are going to hijack what we were discussing to create a new topic, the fair thing would be for you to not force me to have to repeat the comments I made in the other thread. I have addressed what you said here in considerable detail there. It adds to confusion to force readers to go back and forth. That protest aside, my answer was to say that if there is two way communication to set up synchronization, then that means when they add a correction which they have calculated for the distance to the satellite and assuming that the speed of light is c, if it is really 1/2 c, then their synchronization will be off. And then when a signal is received on the ground instantaneously that will allow triangulation because the clocks on the satellites were not correctly synchronized. Because they were not synchronized, that means if the signal is instantaneous it would still give DIFFERENT times from each of the three satellites. Do you understand what I am saying? I would predict this is what Lisle would say. Do you think otherwise?

In the other thread I challenged you to make clear that you truly would become young Earth if this were answered for you. I would hope that you would be genuine and if you are given a good answer you would recognize that. if this truly is what you will do, I will bend over backwards to communicate with Lisle again so he can make it abundantly clear how his theory would indeed allow GPS to work. So please repeat your offer and try not to build in any escape hatches or wiggle room.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, this seem to have nothing to do with Lisle. But rather that you Piasan seem to think you can verify the one-way speed of light using the GPS system. If I understand you correctly you think that calculating the distance between GPS satellites by velocity*time using a velocity of 299,792,459 m/s proves that the speed is correct. 

I think you are not taking into account the time synchronization issues using two way communication raised by indydave. 

What scientist beliefs this to actually verify the one-way speed of light?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, indydave said:

If you are going to hijack what we were discussing to create a new topic, the fair thing would be for you to not force me to have to repeat the comments I made in the other thread. I have addressed what you said here in considerable detail there. It adds to confusion to force readers to go back and forth. That protest aside,

Let me respond to the protest ......

I posted that at 12:25 AM.  I got to bed at 1.  At 5:15 I had to get up and go to work.  This topic had to be opened before I could begin to respond to your comments in the other thread.  I managed to steal some time today, get on the computer and post two responses to comments you made in the other discussion.  Those responses were posted before your "protest" and I had already told you (over there) that I would answer your remarks on that thread over here. 

At 3:30 school let out.  I had gatekeeper duty at tonights BB game and didn't leave school until 8:30.  At about the time you posted that, I was sitting at a stop light where I was the third car forward in a four car rear-ender.  (No one injured.  My car is drivable but only until I have to replace or refill engine fluids.)  So I got home at midnight.  It's now 1:30 and I need to get up at 5:30 to go to work. 

 

3 hours ago, indydave said:

In the other thread I challenged you to make clear that you truly would become young Earth if this were answered for you.

That's a legitimate TE question. 

Right now, I have different priorities.     :putertired:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Piasan,

You seem to need to prioritize sleep first and foremost, so please take your time before answering. We are in no hurry :)

Since measuring the travelling time of radio signals are determined as the difference between arrival time at the receiver and time of transmission by the GPS satellite. You seem to have the same problem there as with any other attempt at measuring the one-way speed of light. Namely that it cannot be measured independently of a convention as to how to synchronize the clocks at the receiver and the GPS satellite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Tirian said:

Piasan,

You seem to need to prioritize sleep first and foremost, so please take your time before answering. We are in no hurry :)

Since measuring the travelling time of radio signals are determined as the difference between arrival time at the receiver and time of transmission by the GPS satellite. You seem to have the same problem there as with any other attempt at measuring the one-way speed of light. Namely that it cannot be measured independently of a convention as to how to synchronize the clocks at the receiver and the GPS satellite.

I have not followed this with full attention, but I believe how the current gps debate relates to Lisle is that by his convention the observer light moves immediately. So the spesific argument is that even if some anisotropy was permittable, Lisle's observer light teleportation will not work for gps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, siili said:

I have not followed this with full attention, but I believe how the current gps debate relates to Lisle is that by his convention the observer light moves immediately. So the spesific argument is that even if some anisotropy was permittable, Lisle's observer light teleportation will not work for gps.

I understand. But the question is if you actually need or use the one way speed of light for calculating the distance. Could it be that it is the two way speed of light that we know to be isotopic that are needed to get the correct distance calculations in this case? Maybe this is needed to counter time synchronization issues that would otherwise screw up the result.

Einstein's convention was simply to set the one way speed of light equal to the two way speed of light. But we simple don't know if that convention is correct or not, and scientist have so far been unable to actually verify that convention. I highly doubt that Piasan will be able to fare any better when he tries to verify the one way speed of light using GPS. It might be that Lorentz was correct and Einstein simplified things to much, who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, siili said:

I have not followed this with full attention, but I believe how the current gps debate relates to Lisle is that by his convention the observer light moves immediately. So the spesific argument is that even if some anisotropy was permittable, Lisle's observer light teleportation will not work for gps.

At school now, so I don't have time for lengthy, detailed, documented posts, but that is precisely right.

Killur's  400 odd nanoseconds out of 211 million is, quite simply, negligible.  On the the other hand, light moving infinitely fast in one direction and half c in the other would obviously make a HUGE difference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, piasan said:

Under Lisle's proposal at infinite velocity, the time delay from the satellite to the receiver for each satellite will be zero and the distance to each satellite will also be zero.  A solution will be impossible.

It wouldn't be zero, because the clocks were synchronized according to ISC, which is to say they are expecting a delay.  You get a signal at time T that says "My position is X and the time is T-C", where C is the delay expected by ISC.  From the ISC perspective that signal was sent at T-C, and both clocks are running in sync at T.  From Lisle's ASC perspective, that signal was sent at T and the "delay" is actually a product of the clocks running out of sync.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2019 at 4:15 AM, piasan said:

The Swarzchild equation, the calculator, and Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation dictate the gravitational influence is a direct function of the inverse square law.  This means as the distance of the mass from the center of the black hole (or well) its influence will diminish exponentially.  At twice the distance there will be one fourth the influence.  At 10x the distance, 1/100 the influence.  At 1000x the distance only 1/1,000,000 the influence.

On 1/7/2019 at 2:21 PM, indydave said:

Right, which is why if the center of the mass of the white hole is at some great distance such as 50 light years from Earth, and the Earth is inside that, it would not have severe gravitational effects on Earth. Especially if God was sending mass outward in an anti-gravity scenario.

 

OK,  and I presume you would also agree that since the gravitational influence diminishes as a direct function of the inverse square law,  let's look at that 50 light year white hole.

From the calculator at: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/schwarzschild-radius

A white hole of 50 light year radius would require 160,132,135,167,417 (or about 1.60e14 solar masses.  The highest estimates for the Milky Way is on the order of one trillion solar masses.  Your proposed white hole would require the mass of about 160 Milky Way galaxies.

Because of problems with squares and square roots for numbers less than 1, I'm converting light years to kilometers.  50 ly * 365 days/yr * 24 hr/day * 3600 sec/hr * 300,000 km/sec gives a result of 50 light years = about 6.7e14 km.

So, doubling the distance and square rooting the radius ......

  • Doubling the distance to 100 ly, the radius drops to 2.59e7 km.
  • Doubling the distance again to 200 ly, the radius drops to 5080 km. 

The radius of the Earth is 6371 km.   In other words, your white hole is smaller than the Earth before it has spread to 200 ly.  In order for your proposal to work, we should see the equivalent mass of 160 Milky Way galaxies within  about 200 ly of Earth.  If you insist, we can stretch that to 6200 ly to accommodate the 6000 years since creation.

On 1/7/2019 at 2:21 PM, indydave said:

Having more mass and then the event horizon at 50 light-years is no problem. You need to stop thinking that the white hole must be centered inside the Earth. As soon as the event horizon shrinks to less than 170,000 light-years, that solves the sn1987a problem. You should stop attacking something you haven't understood yet. It is just your strawman.

I absolutely agree that having more mass is not problem as it would support the white hole even longer.  But if Sn1987a were outside that 50 ly radius, then you should be able to show where the mass of some 160 galaxies is between us and Sn1987a.   If you can't do that, the "problem" isn't "solved."

 

On 1/7/2019 at 2:21 PM, indydave said:

If the event horizon is 3124 light-years, then that is enough to solve the 170000 light year issue regarding sn1984a. if that star is outside the event horizon while the Earth is inside the event horizon, then that means time would dilate!

Certainly.  But you're missing the mass of about 160 galaxies needed to support that event horizon.

Where is it?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, popoi said:

It wouldn't be zero, because the clocks were synchronized according to ISC, which is to say they are expecting a delay.  You get a signal at time T that says "My position is X and the time is T-C", where C is the delay expected by ISC.  From the ISC perspective that signal was sent at T-C, and both clocks are running in sync at T.  From Lisle's ASC perspective, that signal was sent at T and the "delay" is actually a product of the clocks running out of sync.

If the delay is the result of a synchronization error, wouldn't all receivers experience the same delay... or very close to it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, popoi said:

It wouldn't be zero, because the clocks were synchronized according to ISC, which is to say they are expecting a delay.  You get a signal at time T that says "My position is X and the time is T-C", where C is the delay expected by ISC.  From the ISC perspective that signal was sent at T-C, and both clocks are running in sync at T.  From Lisle's ASC perspective, that signal was sent at T and the "delay" is actually a product of the clocks running out of sync.

So clarify...if ASC is true, would gps still work? Are you saying what I said? That the adjustment to time which is sent to the satellite would be incorrect because it's based on c rather than 1/2 c. And this incorrect adjustment would provide that each of the three satellites would be not in synchrony, so therefore when they send a signal to your cell phone, there would be three different times and 3 different distances. Is that your reasoning also?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pi, I'm very sorry you had the car accident and I do appreciate your time problems, so take as long as you want to reply. But I am asking for you to tell us if you were being truthful or if you were throwing out a bunch of cocky BS when you said that if we answered your GPS challenge, you would become YE. if you were not sincere, then that is NOT cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, piasan said:

If the delay is the result of a synchronization error, wouldn't all receivers experience the same delay... or very close to it?

I suppose we could say it is CLOSE (which only counts in hand grenades and horseshoes), but when the signal is sent from the ground-up to each of the three satellites with a correction which is based on c, it would be off... by exactly the amount needed to give triangulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, piasan said:

Certainly.  But you're missing the mass of about 160 galaxies needed to support that event horizon.

Where is it?

:off_topic:  how is it that you can think of this subject being relating to Lisle's anisotrophy??? Don't you need for us to start another new topic? I'm serious! What are the guidelines in your head that tell you when something needs its own new topic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, piasan said:

I absolutely agree that having more mass is not problem as it would support the white hole even longer.  But if Sn1987a were outside that 50 ly radius, then you should be able to show where the mass of some 160 galaxies is between us and Sn1987a.   If you can't do that, the "problem" isn't "solved."

 

Your error is in thinking that sn1987a would start out where it is now. In fact it would have about 170,000 years (cosmic time) to move to that position.

Let's assume the center of the universe is only .1ly from Earth. The mass of the entire universe fits within a sphere with a radius of 266 light years. As I recall the event horizon would be at 150 billion light years. Sn1987a would start out quite near to Earth. Let's say it was at the distance of .5ly. Then God begins sending mass outward. That eventually shrinks the event horizon. Events outside the event horizon operate on cosmic time, which flies by at hyperspeed compared to Earth time. When the event horizon is at .5 light years, the mass inside would equal the Milky Way and the expansion is nearly complete. About then sn1987a passes through the event horizon and starts traveling outward from .5ly toward its position now at 170,000 ly from Earth... which happens to be about the average diameter of the Milky Way. 170,000 years of events take place. All of the stars of the Milky Way follow and soon the mass is so small that it cannot support the white hole event horizon and it evaporates. At that time, Earth time equals cosmic time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, indydave said:

Pi, I'm very sorry you had the car accident and I do appreciate your time problems, so take as long as you want to reply. But I am asking for you to tell us if you were being truthful or if you were throwing out a bunch of cocky BS when you said that if we answered your GPS challenge, you would become YE. if you were not sincere, then that is NOT cool.

Thanks on the car.  Of course, the most important thing is no one was hurt.  It has just been a really long couple days that ended up on a sour note.  I usually drive the kind of car you can total by kicking a fender, so  the car isn't much of a concern.  I looked over and figured I could drive it for a couple days while I find a replacement .... as long as I didn't have to open the hood.  That will require pry bars and you won't get closed again.   The wife isn't going to let me buy another $1500 special though.

As I pointed out before, that's appropriate for the TE thread, I'll discuss it there as soon as I can get caught up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, popoi said:

It wouldn't be zero, because the clocks were synchronized according to ISC, which is to say they are expecting a delay.  You get a signal at time T that says "My position is X and the time is T-C", where C is the delay expected by ISC.  From the ISC perspective that signal was sent at T-C, and both clocks are running in sync at T.  From Lisle's ASC perspective, that signal was sent at T and the "delay" is actually a product of the clocks running out of sync.

Right.  And if the clocks are out of sync by more than a few billionths of a second, the system won't work.

 

6 hours ago, indydave said:

So clarify...if ASC is true, would gps still work? Are you saying what I said? That the adjustment to time which is sent to the satellite would be incorrect because it's based on c rather than 1/2 c. And this incorrect adjustment would provide that each of the three satellites would be not in synchrony, so therefore when they send a signal to your cell phone, there would be three different times and 3 different distances. Is that your reasoning also?

I think it's exactly what I said in the other discussion. 

And if the distances are different, will the triangulated position still be accurate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, piasan said:

Certainly.  But you're missing the mass of about 160 galaxies needed to support that event horizon.

Where is it?

7 hours ago, indydave said:

:off_topic:  how is it that you can think of this subject being relating to Lisle's anisotrophy??? Don't you need for us to start another new topic?

 

Fair point.  Good suggestion.  I'll take your advice.

Immediately after that Indy posts:

6 hours ago, indydave said:

Your error is in thinking that sn1987a would start out where it is now. In fact it would have about 170,000 years (cosmic time) to move to that position.

There goes another irony meter.  :rotfl3:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

Our Terms