On 9/26/2011 2:07 PM, Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:13:26 -0700, Jim
wrote:

I think one can safely assume that the folks doing the experiment are
aware of all those potential error sources.

The odds are distinctly against that being true.

At the end of the day, the measurement is going to expose a design
flaw (recall the Hubble Lens?), not shake the foundations of Physics.


Almost certainly you're right. But as far as the error sources
referenced in the older post (solid earth tides, etc.): those have been
taken into account.

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 14:05:58 -0700, Jim Lux
wrote:

as far as the error sources
referenced in the older post (solid earth tides, etc.):

and disregarding variations in solid earth Permeability and
Permittivity....

those have been taken into account.

Further correspondence from the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/30/op...das30.html?hpw
"Was Einstein Wrong?"

"...the Global Positioning System’s satellites are programmed to
account for the effects of relativity."

GPS is used to measure the path;
GPS is adjusted for relativity;
Relativity has been disproven;
GPS adjustments for relativity are suspect;
the method to measure the path is suspect;
the disproof is suspect.

One example of a very common experimental failure - circular
referentiality.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 12:49:37 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

GPS is used to measure the path;
GPS is adjusted for relativity;
Relativity has been disproven;
GPS adjustments for relativity are suspect;
the method to measure the path is suspect;
the disproof is suspect.

One example of a very common experimental failure - circular
referentiality.

Some fancy bookkeeping could balance the accounts, I suppose.

I still would smile at the dis-connect of logic, however. And I would
suppose the next step is the rehabilitation of the term Relativity
insofar as Physics. Would we storm the libraries with label makers to
white wash the term out? What would that science be called?
Post-Newtonian Physics?
Pre-Neutrinian Physics?
Informally, both?

I see a generation of Physicist candidates struggling through years of
lectures trying to distinguish between the two being uttered from the
podium.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC