General Space Thread

[sickofallthebollocks]

 

[Arnie]

2 hours ago, sickofallthebollocks said:

 

 

These were experiments to show movement of objects. He was doing a kid's show if I recall correctly and the blue chart is numbered to track accurate movement:

 

 

Maybe you are actually buying into the real bollocks.This page has a whole load of detailed experiments with the supposed CGI screen. Clearly your twitter user is posting bollocks:

Kinetic theory - Astro Academy: Principia - Astro Academy: Principia

 

Edited August 17, 2022 by Arnie

[Arnie]

James Webb telescope way beyond the Moon. For those interested in astronomy, here is a direct link to a live interaction for the telescope:

 

Where Is Webb? NASA/Webb

[The All Eye]

I've been interested in space for as long as I can remember.  Watching those old sci-fi movies when I was young aroused my imagination as to what, or who, can be found in the deep reaches of that dark void.  As an adult I love those old sci-fi movies, pulp magazines, comics, and radio shows that jolted the imagination of 'what could be.'  We now know that many of the science in sci-fi media has come true over the past few decades, and maybe even longer.  Just look no further than the gadgets on the original Star Trek show.  Was this predictive programing or a soft disclosure?  Maybe both.

 

We're also familiar with the phrase "there is nothing new under the sun."  I believe everything we see in entertainment has happened on some other planet or alternate reality, or dimension, and has been "downloaded" to the person producing said entertainment piece. When we watch Star Wars, this could have taken place in some far distant galaxy and the information, after traveling for light years, reached someone that was receptive to the energy.  They, in this case George Lucas, put that energy into a visual media.  There are plenty of cases of authors getting instant downloads of information such as George Lucas, R.A. Salvatore, J.K. Rowling,  Edgar Rice Burroughs, and many more.

 

It's an interesting concept to think about - Energy traveling though space and people being open to certain information.

Edited August 17, 2022 by The All Eye
Added information

[Arnie]

8 hours ago, sickofallthebollocks said:

Yes buddy, and they've been at it for such a long time, but it's falling apart for them also isn't it?  Check this funny clip here which shows what NASA were trying to fool everyone with back then:

 

 

Tell me something. Considering the picture you posted shows the actual source for the video(top right), why do you believe the person who tweeted this total bollocks? It's from British Pathé News, bugger all to do with NASA and obviousy just a bit of fun at the end of a news reel.

 

 

Edited August 17, 2022 by Arnie

[Arnie]

On 10/16/2021 at 6:47 AM, alexa said:

Lucifer in the sky with diamonds. Couldn't get more blatantly obvious if they tried.

 

Please explain. Which is the obvious bit and what is it obviously about? Even if Lennon was lying, I don't see what you are getting at. I thought this was a space thread not a place for posting nonsense related to it.

 

Beatles: Remembering Real 'Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds' - Rolling Stone

"Until the end of his life, Lennon maintained that the song was actually inspired by a painting that his three-year-old son Julian had made of Lucy O’Donnell, his classmate at Heath House nursery school. “This is the truth: My son came home with a drawing and showed me this strange-looking woman flying around,” he explained during an appearance on The Dick Cavett Show in 1971. “I said, ‘What is it?’ and he said, ‘It’s Lucy in the sky with diamonds,’ and I thought, ‘That’s beautiful.’ I immediately wrote a song about it. After the album had come out and the album had been published, someone noticed that the letters spelt out LSD and I had no idea about it. … But nobody believes me.”

 

"

[sickofallthebollocks]

https://mindmatters.ai/2022/08/james-webb-space-telescope-shows-big-bang-didnt-happen-wait/

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Arnie]

40 minutes ago, sickofallthebollocks said:

How about Arnie, you tell me something.
YOU show me the original footage in connection with this absolute 'bollocks'?
If you find it - I will be happy to see it - all I want is the truth, don't care wether something I posted (turns out) to be incorrect - happy to be incorrect as long as the truth comes out.
So - Rather than you demanding this and that - how about YOU find the truth of this?
You tell me something.
 

 

I just DID show you the original BPN news video. You quoted it - have a quick flick through it and you will see. I didn't demand anything from you, I asked you why you automatically believed that tweet when it had the BPN logo in the top right corner.

[Arnie]

16 minutes ago, sickofallthebollocks said:

https://mindmatters.ai/2022/08/james-webb-space-telescope-shows-big-bang-didnt-happen-wait/

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's the great thing about science, it tests itself over and over until it gets it right. I'm confident a big bang occurred of sorts, based on the CMB data that is fairly conclusive. Filling in the details, well that may not even occur in our lifetimes.

[sickofallthebollocks]

22 minutes ago, Arnie said:

 

I just DID show you the original BPN news video. You quoted it - have a quick flick through it and you will see. I didn't demand anything from you, I asked you why you automatically believed that tweet when it had the BPN logo in the top right corner.

Ok,  then ..what's your point?
The original BPN news video that you posted - shows the same thing at the end of the clip, the almost child-like supposed view of the moon and stars.  So, what you have posted is the same as what I posted yesterday?
Regarding what you said:
why do you believe the person who tweeted this total bollocks? It's from British Pathé News, bugger all to do with NASA and obviousy just a bit of fun at the end of a news reel.
How do YOU know it is from british Pathe News?  You suggest that British Pathe News produced the whole thing?  Is that it?  Did BPN create the spacecraft and produce the whole thing off their own backs?  If so, please explain to me how you know this?
Which organisation created the craft that went up there?  Surely not British Pathe News.  Who made the (even for back then) pathetic view of the moon and stars?  Was it British Pathe News?  Or was it NASA. either way -  If so - where's your proof that BPN created that - just for a bit of fun as you say?

It sounds to me that you're a die-hard NASA fan Arnie?   Please explain to us how you know this is not a NASA video and how it is a BPN created spacecraft and view of the stars.

If not, no worries, I'm getting bored now, fair enough if you have a different viewpoint, I can respect that.
I suppose it's your 'manner' of questioning that I found a little grating at the time.
eg:
I asked you why you automatically believed that tweet when it had the BPN logo in the top right corner. 
You don't know that I automatically believed that tweet, I posted it - that's all, from previous experience with most of what NASA has fed to the world in terms of general bullshit - in particular - the moon landing. I felt that this was a worthwhile poke at them, no need to take it personally - do you work for them?

and here:
why do you believe the person who tweeted this total bollocks? It's from British Pathé News, bugger all to do with NASA and obviousy just a bit of fun at the end of a news reel.
You are making confident assumptions on other peoples beliefs?  You don't know enough about me or other people on here to make these assumptions?  Based on a quick posting on a sham video showing a funny childlike view of the stars and the moon?

Best not to make assumptions based on a just a few things here and there of other peoples posts - you'll find soon that other members will see what you do and treat you in the same way.

[Arnie]

1 hour ago, sickofallthebollocks said:

Ok,  then ..what's your point?
The original BPN news video that you posted - shows the same thing at the end of the clip, the almost child-like supposed view of the moon and stars.  So, what you have posted is the same as what I posted yesterday?

 

My point was made. The tweet from shitty twitter said the clip was from NASA. It was nothing to do with them and I asked you why you automatically believed THAT bollocks.

 

1 hour ago, sickofallthebollocks said:

How do YOU know it is from british Pathe News?  You suggest that British Pathe News produced the whole thing?  Is that it?  Did BPN create the spacecraft and produce the whole thing off their own backs?  If so, please explain to me how you know this?

I know it's from BPN because they were commissioned to film the event. The whole thing was produced by "Project Stargazer". I know this because it is my hobby and I have seen this before, know quite a bit about it and have watched this video many years ago.

 

Project Stargazer: The history and future of balloon-based astronomy | Astronomy.com

Project Stargazer was a joint effort between the U.S. Navy, Air Force, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. Begun just a year before the creation of NASA, the project’s engineers and scientists had to develop a way to mount a working telescope to the roof of a balloon’s gondola.

 

 

1 hour ago, sickofallthebollocks said:

Which organisation created the craft that went up there? 

 

US Navy, MIT and Smithsonian.

 

1 hour ago, sickofallthebollocks said:

Or was it NASA. either way -  If so - where's your proof that BPN created that - just for a bit of fun as you say?

 

It is well documented by the teams who worked to build it. I said the stars bit at the end was added for fun. It is obvious now and then that it is only a depiction.

 

What Do The Stars Foretell For You? Aka The Stars And You - British Pathé (britishpathe.com)

 

Straight from the original source. BPN created that sequence on another of their movies at 2 minutes in that video:

 

And that video takes a clip of film from this one, showing the source of the stars and Moon footage - the London Planetarium:

 

1 hour ago, sickofallthebollocks said:

You don't know that I automatically believed that tweet, I posted it - that's all, from previous experience with most of what NASA has fed to the world in terms of general bullshit - in particular - the moon landing. I felt that this was a worthwhile poke at them, no need to take it personally - do you work for them?

 

Doesn't it ever occur to you that you are being fed bollocks about space travel? No, I don't work for NASA, I wish I did. I didn't take anything personally, but you seem a little miffed that I showed your tweet to be the bollocks that you are sick of. It's a debate forum isn't it?

 

1 hour ago, sickofallthebollocks said:

It sounds to me that you're a die-hard NASA fan Arnie?   Please explain to us how you know this is not a NASA video and how it is a BPN created spacecraft and view of the stars.

 

Just a fan, not die-hard. The question is and remains, why you think it IS a NASA video. It was nothing to do with them. You can stay convinced about the evil NASA claims all you like, but if you share them, why get upset when somebody shows you the claim is wrong?

 

1 hour ago, sickofallthebollocks said:

You are making confident assumptions on other peoples beliefs?  You don't know enough about me or other people on here to make these assumptions?  Based on a quick posting on a sham video showing a funny childlike view of the stars and the moon? Best not to make assumptions based on a just a few things here and there of other peoples posts - you'll find soon that other members will see what you do and treat you in the same way.

 

I have made no assumptions and have supplied enough links, videos and references to prove my case.

 

 

Edited August 18, 2022 by Arnie

[webtrekker]

Einstein was wrong, and Black Holes cannot exist.

 

Please watch these two excellent videos presenting Stephen J Crothers refutement of Einstein's equations and why an Electric Universe makes more sense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Arnie]

31 minutes ago, webtrekker said:

Einstein was wrong, and Black Holes cannot exist.

 

Please watch these two excellent videos presenting Stephen J Crothers refutement of Einstein's equations and why an Electric Universe makes more sense.

 

Stephen J. Crothers - RationalWiki

The elctric universe, doesn't that have its own thread?

The Electric Universe Theory Debunked (dapla.org)

[sickofallthebollocks]

1 hour ago, Arnie said:

3 hours ago, sickofallthebollocks said:

Ok,  then ..what's your point?
The original BPN news video that you posted - shows the same thing at the end of the clip, the almost child-like supposed view of the moon and stars.  So, what you have posted is the same as what I posted yesterday?

 

My point was made. The tweet from shitty twitter said the clip was from NASA. It was nothing to do with them and I asked you why you automatically believed THAT bollocks.

 

3 hours ago, sickofallthebollocks said:

How do YOU know it is from british Pathe News?  You suggest that British Pathe News produced the whole thing?  Is that it?  Did BPN create the spacecraft and produce the whole thing off their own backs?  If so, please explain to me how you know this?

I know it's from BPN because they were commissioned to film the event. The whole thing was produced by "Project Stargazer". I know this because it is my hobby and I have seen this before, know quite a bit about it and have watched this video many years ago.

 

Project Stargazer: The history and future of balloon-based astronomy | Astronomy.com

Project Stargazer was a joint effort between the U.S. Navy, Air Force, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. Begun just a year before the creation of NASA, the project’s engineers and scientists had to develop a way to mount a working telescope to the roof of a balloon’s gondola.

 

 

3 hours ago, sickofallthebollocks said:

Which organisation created the craft that went up there? 

 

US Navy, MIT and Smithsonian.

 

3 hours ago, sickofallthebollocks said:

Or was it NASA. either way -  If so - where's your proof that BPN created that - just for a bit of fun as you say?

 

It is well documented by the teams who worked to build it. I said the stars bit at the end was added for fun. It is obvious now and then that it is only a depiction.

 

What Do The Stars Foretell For You? Aka The Stars And You - British Pathé (britishpathe.com)

 

Straight from the original source. BPN created that sequence on another of their movies at 2 minutes in that video:

 

And that video takes a clip of film from this one, showing the source of the stars and Moon footage - the London Planetarium:

 

3 hours ago, sickofallthebollocks said:

You don't know that I automatically believed that tweet, I posted it - that's all, from previous experience with most of what NASA has fed to the world in terms of general bullshit - in particular - the moon landing. I felt that this was a worthwhile poke at them, no need to take it personally - do you work for them?

 

Doesn't it ever occur to you that you are being fed bollocks about space travel? No, I don't work for NASA, I wish I did. I didn't take anything personally, but you seem a little miffed that I showed your tweet to be the bollocks that you are sick of. It's a debate forum isn't it?

 

3 hours ago, sickofallthebollocks said:

It sounds to me that you're a die-hard NASA fan Arnie?   Please explain to us how you know this is not a NASA video and how it is a BPN created spacecraft and view of the stars.

 

Just a fan, not die-hard. The question is and remains, why you think it IS a NASA video. It was nothing to do with them. You can stay convinced about the evil NASA claims all you like, but if you share them, why get upset when somebody shows you the claim is wrong?

 

3 hours ago, sickofallthebollocks said:

You are making confident assumptions on other peoples beliefs?  You don't know enough about me or other people on here to make these assumptions?  Based on a quick posting on a sham video showing a funny childlike view of the stars and the moon? Best not to make assumptions based on a just a few things here and there of other peoples posts - you'll find soon that other members will see what you do and treat you in the same way.

 

I have made no assumptions and have supplied enough links, videos and references to prove my case.

Ahh so you like a good debate?  Is this how you enter a debate?  (Highlighted in bold your general approach to debates below) :
(I've also included a response to some of your earlier statements in bold too.
 

My point was made. The tweet from shitty twitter said the clip was from NASA. It was nothing to do with them and I asked you why you automatically believed THAT bollocks.

Great debating skills. 

Doesn't it ever occur to you that you are being fed bollocks about space travel? No, I don't work for NASA, I wish I did. I didn't take anything personally, but you seem a little miffed that I showed your tweet to be the bollocks that you are sick of. It's a debate forum isn't it?

Great debating comment there from someone who professess to be a hobbyist. When I told you to f**k off  earlier this was a response to your general demeanor and approach to debate.  Do you get it now?

this total bollocks? It's from British Pathé News, bugger all to do with NASA and obviousy just a bit of fun at the end of a news reel.

There you go again, bollocks this, bollocks that, you're obsessed with bollocks?

Maybe you are actually buying into the real bollocks.This page has a whole load of detailed experiments with the supposed CGI screen. Clearly your twitter user is posting bollocks

Oh dear? 

 

I know it's from BPN because they were commissioned to film the event. The whole thing was produced by "Project Stargazer". I know this because it is my hobby and I have seen this before, know quite a bit about it and have watched this video many years ago.

There you go - if you knew all this why didn't you say earlier?  Instead of creaming your knickers? 
You could have mentioned this or did you want to get into an angry debate?

 

Just a fan, not die-hard. The question is and remains, why you think it IS a NASA video. It was nothing to do with them. You can stay convinced about the evil NASA claims all you like, but if you share them, why get upset when somebody shows you the claim is wrong?

You're a fan?  Good on you, despite years of evidence to the contrary, and a hobbyist?  I'm feel extremely sorry for you that your hobby has turned out to be based on a complete lie all along  - and that all the star wars and star trek movies you probably love so much are also based on complete lies.

 

I have made no assumptions and have supplied enough links, videos and references to prove my case.
 you made loads of asumptions!!!??   You whined and moaned and were downright rude and combative to both me and another user on here??...furthermore, No - you didn't supply proof until your very last post.  Not until the last post you made?   And that is all questionable.

 

Thank you for referring that this might be part of the bollocks that I am sick of.  Infact the bollocks that I am sick of is 'people' like you who enter any discussion headlong straight into battle in a very smartarse manner,  and have no idea about how to be polite and courtious to other users.
That's why I told you to f off earlier, and why I continue with this approach somewhat as you don't seem to want to do things in a cordial manner. Then - nor do I.
Like I said before, I welcome those who have another opinion or have some info that is indeed correct, as I have shown on this forum for a long time.
I have been incorrect on quite a few occasions on here over the years, and happy to be shown the correct info, but, other users of the forum approach that in a far more dignified and mature approach than you have shown thus far.
Maybe you need to work on that 'Arnie', That is the first thing I've heard you say that is correct.
I am, however, thinking of changing my onscreen name to  sickofallarniesbollocks?
Definately not sickofallmyownbollocks though.

Anyway, why are you called 'Arnie'  that's a shills name if ever I heard one.   Are you another troll on here causing trouble, you won't last long on here with your attitude.
 

 

Edited August 18, 2022 by sickofallthebollocks

[webtrekker]

39 minutes ago, Arnie said:

 

Stephen J. Crothers - RationalWiki

The elctric universe, doesn't that have its own thread?

The Electric Universe Theory Debunked (dapla.org)

 

Admit it - you never even watched the videos, did you?

 

You know nothing about Stephen Crothers or, I suspect, the Electric Universe (although I wasn't pushing EE in that post at all. Thunderbolts just happened to have the totally independent Crothers as a guest speaker).

 

So, come on, watch the videos, digest the maths and show us where Crothers is wrong.

 

In fact, why not show us your own competence at maths by solving this very simple schoolboy maths problem? ...

 

 

Awaiting your reply.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 18, 2022 by webtrekker

[Arnie]

31 minutes ago, webtrekker said:

Admit it - you never even watched the videos, did you? You know nothing about Stephen Crothers or, I suspect, the Electric Universe (although I wasn't pushing EE in that post at all. Thunderbolts just happened to have the totally independent Crothers as a guest speaker).

 

So, come on, watch the videos, digest the maths and show us where Crothers is wrong.

 

I saw them a long while ago. Did you read all about Stephen, he's widely regarded as a crank with no relevant field experience. It's your claim, how about you isolate some section that you think stands out. I'm blowed if I'm trawling through that again just to refute it for you.

[Arnie]

47 minutes ago, webtrekker said:

Awaiting your reply.

 

The kissing circles problem? 

1/√r = 1/√R1 + 1/√R2

 

GPS works because the satellites are set for relativity variations. Right there goes your electrickery universe.

Edited August 18, 2022 by Arnie

[webtrekker]

1 hour ago, Arnie said:

Did you read all about Stephen, he's widely regarded as a crank with no relevant field experience.

 

I take no notice of claims that people are cranks without the accusers providing their own calculations that prove these 'cranks' wrong. I've yet to come across any worthwhile refutation of Crothers work, perhps you know of some?

 

 

 

[webtrekker]

1 hour ago, Arnie said:

It's your claim, how about you isolate some section that you think stands out.

 

No need to isolate any section, or trawl through the videos. He's clear from the very beginning of the first video why Einstein is wrong. Have a quick look.

 

 

[webtrekker]

1 hour ago, Arnie said:

 

The kissing circles problem? 

1/√r = 1/√R1 + 1/√R2

 

GPS works because the satellites are set for relativity variations. Right there goes your electrickery universe.

 

Ah well, at least you are at schoolboy standard. Well done!

 

 

 

Edited August 18, 2022 by webtrekker

[Arnie]

20 minutes ago, webtrekker said:

Ah well, at least you are at schoolboy standard. Well done!

 

GPS works because the satellites are set for relativity variations. Right there goes your electrickery universe. I missed your response.

[Arnie]

54 minutes ago, webtrekker said:

No need to isolate any section, or trawl through the videos. He's clear from the very beginning of the first video why Einstein is wrong. Have a quick look.

 

Unless the video has changed since I last watched it, he is talking nonsense. What he does is picks a vague section of relativity which has multiple solutions and suggests that it only has one - his.

 

 

 

58 minutes ago, webtrekker said:

I take no notice of claims that people are cranks without the accusers providing their own calculations that prove these 'cranks' wrong. I've yet to come across any worthwhile refutation of Crothers work, perhps you know of some?

 

"Mr C" in this account:

Gerard ’t Hooft, Strange Misconceptions of General Relativity (uu.nl)

 

There are dozens of links within the Rationalwiki article:

Claims

Here are a few of the many schoolboy howlers from "the Miles Mathis of cosmology": Stephen J. Crothers.

• There has been a deliberate suppression of scientific truth by the community of physicists and astronomers concerning the black hole and the big bang.^[4]

• There is no theoretical basis whatsoever for the existence of black holes.^[26]

• Neither Newton's theory nor Einstein's theory predicts black holes; both theories preclude it.^[4]

• Black holes are the result of David Hilbert’s corruption of the so-called Schwarzschild solution.^[4]

• Schwarzschild's "coordinate singularity" at r=2m is non-removable.^[27]

• The Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates are just unmitigated rot built upon a set of invalid assumptions.^[28][29]

• The (Penrose-Hawking) singularity theorems are not theorems at all, as they are based upon false concepts.^[30]

• It is possible to have M³ and E³ in one-to-one correspondence. ^[31][32][33]

• Einstein's gravitational waves are fictitious.^[34]

• Einstein's pseudo-tensor is a meaningless concoction of mathematical symbols.^[35]

• The Universe is not expanding.^[4]

• The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is not cosmic in origin, it is produced by the Earth’s oceans.^[36]

• The big bang is creationist claptrap.^[37]

Edited August 18, 2022 by Arnie

[webtrekker]

53 minutes ago, Arnie said:

 

Unless the video has changed since I last watched it, he is talking nonsense. What he does is picks a vague section of relativity which has multiple solutions and suggests that it only has one - his.

 

 

 

 

"Mr C" in this account:

Gerard ’t Hooft, Strange Misconceptions of General Relativity (uu.nl)

 

There are dozens of links within the Rationalwiki article:

Claims

Here are a few of the many schoolboy howlers from "the Miles Mathis of cosmology": Stephen J. Crothers.

• There has been a deliberate suppression of scientific truth by the community of physicists and astronomers concerning the black hole and the big bang.^[4]

• There is no theoretical basis whatsoever for the existence of black holes.^[26]

• Neither Newton's theory nor Einstein's theory predicts black holes; both theories preclude it.^[4]

• Black holes are the result of David Hilbert’s corruption of the so-called Schwarzschild solution.^[4]

• Schwarzschild's "coordinate singularity" at r=2m is non-removable.^[27]

• The Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates are just unmitigated rot built upon a set of invalid assumptions.^[28][29]

• The (Penrose-Hawking) singularity theorems are not theorems at all, as they are based upon false concepts.^[30]

• It is possible to have M³ and E³ in one-to-one correspondence. ^[31][32][33]

• Einstein's gravitational waves are fictitious.^[34]

• Einstein's pseudo-tensor is a meaningless concoction of mathematical symbols.^[35]

• The Universe is not expanding.^[4]

• The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is not cosmic in origin, it is produced by the Earth’s oceans.^[36]

• The big bang is creationist claptrap.^[37]

 

If all you can come up with is RationalWiki drivel then we'll just end the discussion here.

[webtrekker]

1 hour ago, Arnie said:

GPS works because the satellites are set for relativity variations. Right there goes your electrickery universe. I missed your response.

 

I'm still awaiting your response to the touching circles question. You provided me with a formula btu not the answer. (To 3 decimal places will do).

 

 

 

[webtrekker]

6 minutes ago, webtrekker said:

 

I'm still awaiting your response to the touching circles question. You provided me with a formula btu not the answer. (To 3 decimal places will do).

 

 

 

 

While I'm waiting, here is your answer to the GPS question...

 

The simplest way to understand all this "without going crazy," Van Flandern says, is to discard Einsteinian relativity and to assume that "there is a light-carrying medium." When a clock moves through this medium "it takes longer for each electron in the atomic clock to complete its orbit." Therefore it makes fewer "ticks" in a given time than a stationary clock. Moving clocks slow down, in short, because they are "ploughing through this medium and working more slowly." It's not time that slows down. It's the clocks.
(…)
At high altitude, where the GPS clocks orbit the Earth, it is known that the clocks run roughly 46,000 nanoseconds (one-billionth of a second) a day faster than at ground level, because the gravitational field is thinner 20,000 kilometers above the Earth. The orbiting clocks also pass through that field at a rate of three kilometers per second--their orbital speed. For that reason, they tick 7,000 nanoseconds a day slower than stationary clocks.

To offset these two effects, the GPS engineers reset the clock rates, slowing them down before launch by 39,000 nanoseconds a day. They then proceed to tick in orbit at the same rate as ground clocks, and the system "works." Ground observers can indeed pin-point their position to a high degree of precision. In (Einstein) theory, however, it was expected that because the orbiting clocks all move rapidly and with varying speeds relative to any ground observer (who may be anywhere on the Earth's surface), and since in Einstein's theory the relevant speed is always speed relative to the observer, it was expected that continuously varying relativistic corrections would have to be made to clock rates. This in turn would have introduced an unworkable complexity into the GPS. But these corrections were not made. Yet "the system manages to work, even though they use no relativistic corrections after launch," Van Flandern said. "They have basically blown off Einstein." – Rethinking Relativity by Tom Bethell