User talk:Physiker121

please add a  sentence
I would  add  the  following  sentence  at  the  end  of  the  paragraph:

Winterberg's general relativistic  equations which made the necessary corrections to signals of atomic clocks in satellites, are today used by  the Global Positioning System to obtain the precise accurately required in GPS. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 02:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I wish I could but the administrators won't let me. See discussion for details. They are asking for a scholarly source connecting Winterberg's name with GPS.Physiker121 (talk) 02:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes but if phrased properly it is just a statement of fact. We  simply  cannot  say  that  Winterberg  intended   for  that  application  but  it  today  is indeed  used  in  that  way.  It  could  be  phrased  like  this:

"The general relativistically corrected equations to properly treat signals from atomic clocks in satellites, first published in 1956 by Friedwardt Winterberg,  are  today  used  by the  Global Positioning System to obtain the necessary satellite precision for GPS." 173.169.90.98 (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with what you are saying, it's just that this administrator, Will Beback, has made the decision I can't include the term GPS at all without a scholarly source connecting Winterberg's name with GPS. If you can his mind, I'll do it. If I change it after he has told me not to I risk being blocked. Physiker121 (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe if you present my above argument to him he will agree. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I already did and right after I said that he took the GPS info out of the article. Physiker121 (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If you phrase it like this, I don't see how they could possibly disagree:

" Dr.Winterberg's calculation made general relativistic corrections to atomic clocks in orbit. Today, these relativistic corrections are used to provide the  precise accuracy required for the GPS satellite system."


 * It sounds reasonable but they are being hard line about everything right now. If you become an established member (I think you need 10 edits, a verifiable e-mail, and to be a member for a short amount of time) you can make any edit there you want or make any argument you want. That would help with the consensus aspect of it. Right now it's me against 3 others. The only thing I can do to sway that is to find a credible source linking GPS with Winterberg. Do you know of one?Physiker121 (talk) 02:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I know of no explicit source but everyone knows that GPS requires general relativistic corrections to clocks in orbit, and no one published the corrections before Winterberg. So very simple to state these facts. If this were clearly stated on the discussion page it would at least embarass them. Directly related subjects and facts are commonly inserted into Wikipedia articles, they should not be objecting. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 10:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. But I don't think this is an argument I can win when 3 others are against it, and two of those are administrators. I like to pick my fights well and unless there is a consensus for it or more evidence I think it is a loser for now. If you want to become an established member and present that argument I will support it.Physiker121 (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Singer only looked at gravitational redshift, while  Winterberg  considered both the gravitational redshift and "orbital" time dilation contributions to the overall correction, which is what is needed for GPS. Two effects  here,  Winterberg considered  both.  Singer did not have both. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

reference
I think  it  was  1956,  Winterberg's  article  on  atomic  clocks in satellites. Astronautica Acta II, 25 (1956). Please add  this  footnote  to the article. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 02:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello  and welcome to Wikipedia! I am Ukexpat and I would like to thank you for your contributions.  ''Click here to reply to this message.''  ukexpat (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)