What is Religion?

That's all its worth!

 

why do you run with the wrong pack?

I can gaslight just like you only mine is factual not einstein 'metaphysics'.

Beyond Mainstream​

Science Magazine for Critical Thinkers​

Scientist Profile​

Ron Hatch

• Mind Blown 30+ patents in GPS and says GPS reveals problems in special relativity
• Profession GPS Scientist
• Interest Special Relativity
• Education B.S. in math and physics from Seattle Pacific University
• Nationality USA
• Born Oklahoma, USA
• Resides Willmington, California
• Goal Come up with new models for light
• Favorite Scientist(s) Lorentz
• Current Work Working on new models for light

Wiki Page wiki.naturalphilosophy.org

So you hear almost every day how GPS is a practical example of the use of Einstein’s relativity.

It must be true, right? Wrong.

Just ask Ron Hatch. Ron, a critical thinker, holds of over 30 patents in GPS and one of the most decorated GPS scientists on the planet and he says that GPS doesn’t support relativity, but actually shows flaws in the theory.

Why don’t we hear about this all over the news?

Because no one, not even those in the billion-dollar GPS industry wants to reveal to the world that humankind’s most beloved science genius, may in fact be, dare we say it: MAY BE WRONG… (poor old Albert)

Read More
Here are some places you can find Ron’s work on GPS and relativity:

• http://www.beyondmainstream.org/site/member/?memberid=257
• http://wiki.beyondmainstream.org/index.php?title=Ronald_R_Hatch

Technical Papers & Abstracts (Count: 28)

• 2010 - Contesting and Testing Infinitesimal Lorentz Transformations and the Associated Equivalence Principle
• 2010 - Using GPS to Refute the Equivalence Principle
• 2009 - Against Ether Drag
• 2008 - A New Three-Frequency, Geometry-Free, Technique for Ambiguity Resolution
• 2008 - Properties of Geodesics: Resolving an Apparent Conflict of Global Positioning System Evidence with General Relativity
• 2007 - A ?Hubble Explanation? Explanation of the Anomalous Acceleration of the Pioneer Spacecraft
• 2007 - A New Theory of Gravity: Overcoming Problems with General Relativity
• 2005 - Special Relativity and the Magical Speed of Light
• 2004 - Clocks and the Equivalence Principle
• 2004 - Those Scandalous Clocks
• 2002 - Clock Behavior and the Search for an Underlying Mechanism for Relativistic Phenomena
• 2002 - Conducting a Crucial Experiment of the Constancy of the Speed of Light Using GPS: Comments on Ashby's ?Relativity and the Global Positioning System?
• 2002 - In Search of an Ether Drift
• 2000 - A Modified Lorentzian Ether Theory
• 2000 - GPS Carrier-Phase Ambiguity Resolution
• 2000 - Mass Variation in Relation to the GPS
• 1999 - Gravitation: Revising Both Einstein and Newton
• 1999 - Gravitational Energy and the Flatness Problem
• 1999 - Lorentzian Dynamics
• 1999 - Symmetry or Simultaneity
• 1997 - Black Holes are Tachy
• 1996 - A Modified Lorentz Ether and Sherwin's Experiment
• 1996 - Clock Retardation and the Speed of Light in a Gravitational Potential
• 1996 - The Speed of Light, Conservation Laws, and Gravity Probe B
• 1995 - Relativity and GPS - I
• 1995 - Relativity and GPS - II

Books (Count: 2)
1992 - Escape from Einstein
1973 - The Long Day of Joshua and Six Other Catastrophes

About Beyond Mainstream Science
Beyond Mainstream is a science magazine dedicated to those critical thinkers who take on Big Physics and Big Cosmology. The objective of this website is to create a science woke community that understands there are many problems in mainstream science and there are many people working outside the mainstream who have identified the problems, fixed those problems, and are proposing new theories and models.

Quick Links

• Topics
• Scientists
• Fighting Big Science
• Problems in Mainstream Science
• Editorial Staff
• Memes

Ron Hatch

 

In Memoriam – Ronald R. Hatch, Leading Light of the PNT Community
by Editor | Sep 30, 2019 | Blog

We were saddened to hear of the passing of our colleague and leading light of the satnav community, Ronald R. Hatch. He passed away unexpectedly on Friday several days after a medical procedure. Ron was a member of the U.S. National PNT Advisory Board.

The following was gleaned from GPS.gov.

Ron Hatch was an expert in the use of GPS for precision farming, as well as other high precision applications. He became a private consultant, after he retired from John Deere, where he was the Director of Navigation Systems Engineering and a Principal and co-founder of NavCom Technology, Inc., a John Deere company. NavCom provides a commercially operated differential GPS augmentation service to the agriculture industry and other high accuracy users.

Throughout his more than 50 year career in satellite navigation systems with Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory and companies such as Boeing and Magnavox, Hatch was noted for his innovative algorithm design for Satellite Navigation Systems.

He consulted for a number of companies and government agencies developing dual-frequency carrier-phase algorithms for landing aircraft, multipath mitigation techniques, carrier phase measurements for real time differential navigation at the centimeter level, algorithms and specifications for Local Area Augmentation System, high-performance GPS and communication receivers, and Kinematic DGPS.

In addition to the Hatch-Filter Technique, he obtained numerous patents and written many technical papers involving innovative techniques for navigation and surveying using the TRANSIT and GPS navigation satellites.

He also authored “Escape From Einstein” and has published multiple papers in which he challenges current relativity theory.

In 1994, Hatch received the Johannes Kepler Award from the Institute of Navigation (ION) for sustained and significant contributions to satellite navigation.

In 2000 he received the Thomas L. Thurlow Award and was elected a Fellow of the ION.

He also served the ION as both the Chair of the Satellite Division and as President.

In Memoriam - Ronald R. Hatch, Leading Light of the PNT Community - RNTF

GPS.gov: Ronald Hatch

Your rebuttal?

Thats not popular consensus opinion, its fact!

You should know that there is such a thing as facts, not subject to 'popular opinion' which the bulk of your opinions rely on.

 

THAT is what its worth!

 

What a loss. A fellow Oklahoman, too. I wonder if he passed the torch of Modified Lorentz Ether Gauge Theory (MLET), or if his theory will enter the dustbin of science history. Trying to revive ether is an uphill battle. I notice no Ph.D or even a masters degree in his resume. Pretty gutsy of him to take on Einstein. The mainstream science consensus is that he was a crackpot, despite his admitted achievements in GPS and applied science. BTW, that's also the reputation of Beyond Mainstream Science, which should be re-titled The Journal of Pseudoscience, the outlet for quacks who couldn't make it into quality refereed journals.

 

Mainstream science consensus is the product of cowards and sell-outs.

 

Beyond Mainstream Science is the province of quacks and nutjobs.

 

Not now days.
Now days they come complete with a PhD in their title!
Much of so called science today is pure bunk.

No matter how you wish to spin it sweet heart, No one, Not NASA, NO ONE could get the gps system to track accurately until Hatch came along and tossed your god einstein in the trash.

Then between Newton/Lorentz/Hatch got the gps systen working so well we can write our names on a piece of paper. Prior to hatch the best they could do using einsteins metaphysics was around 30 feet!

Spin is not a rebuttal!

 

Yes with that degree of error, using Einsteins relativity youd set a course for Alpha Centuria and wind up in Andromeda! LOL

Meantime you have People like Tish whining that he doesnt have a Phd therefore he dont dare take on the Einstein god. (a fallacious 'authority' argument position) lol

Theres an old saying, you cant argue with success, and that is precisely what Tish just did.

Saying something just aint so after its proven by my standards is delusional.

 

Well in science some things are permanent and the same with religion.
Science is religion for some people.
Just like the argument from authority fallacy seems to be tishs religion.
Eienstein admitted Lorentz should get at least 50% of the credit since the foundational math is his, poincare and boyd I think all contributed.

 

Yes, theories come and go. There are challenges to Big Bang and Darwinian evolution--some by folks "with a PhD in their title!" But they have to convince the scientific community that their findings are superior to the old ones, as demonstrated by falsifiable, tested hypotheses. That's the way it works.

 

so do religions.
religion can be falsified each to its own degree.

 

All organized religions utilize falsification in their precepts.

 

They insist on using the word religion incorrectly.

 

Earlier you were taking the position that Buddhism isn't a religion, and that the highly secularized versions popular in the West are the pure form of a religion misunderstood by western scholars of Asian forms of Buddhism--that the multiple narakas of the Majihima Nikay or the intercessions of bodhisattvas, for example, are dispensable frills. Some scholars think the opposite might be true. "The West's idea of Buddhism derived from this partial selection, divorced from their cultural context. Buddhism was interpreted as an intellectual, rational, philosophical religion based on mental development." "Buddhism in the Modern World: Adaptations of an Ancient Tradition, edited by Steven Heine and Charles S. Prebish.| Journal of Global Buddhism
H. Waterhouse (2001),) Representing Western Buddhism pp. 122-127. Criticisms of Buddhism: Its History, Doctrine and Common Practices
"Western Buddhists usually downplay these supernatural elements, insisting that Buddhism isn’t so much a religion as a practical method for achieving happiness. They depict Buddha as a pragmatist who eschewed metaphysical speculation and focused on reducing human suffering."Why I ditched Buddhism.

“We learned that Buddhism was always tied up with mythology and irrationality, to its very core. Yet what did we do? We continued to study the high-brow stuff that had interested us before, reconstructing Buddhism as containing only an "essential element" which happens to be just the most rational-seeming parts. Within the vast array of textual material, some texts resonate more easily with western ideas of rationality than others. It has often been translations of these texts that receive wide attention while the more esoteric or apparently irrational texts have, until recently, been largely ignored or dismissed... Now, the most common form of 'Buddhism' that is practiced in the west is the kind done once a week, or perhaps one week a year. Self-help mysticism has found respectability under the banner of 'Buddhism', and presently it is things like meditation classes and weekend (or week-long) retreats that people associate with Buddhism."Waterhouse, 2001; Buddhism in the Modern World: Adaptations of an Ancient Tradition, edited by Steven Heine and Charles S. Prebish.| Journal of Global Buddhism
Criticisms of Buddhism: Its History, Doctrine and Common Practices

To individual seekers of meaning and truth, this issue might seem unimportant. To scholars trying to understand religion, it's very important in understanding human behavior, and how belief-values systems originate and function in meeting individual and social needs. Seek refuge in the Buddha, the dharma, and in the songha.

 

Agreed. Without the Source of creation (God), it's not "religion".

It's also my opinion that, without God there is no meaning.

 

I follow the useful definition of scholars in the field of comparative studies. I've explained how I'm using the term and why. It's established usage in the field of comparative religious studies. By "conventional definition", are you referring to dictionary definitions that will give you the popular "lay" usage in the locality or region where the dictionary's audience happens to be located? In theistic countries, that would be association with a deity. But scholars who are trying to understand the origins of religion and how western religions compare with counterparts elsewhere have found it useful to broaden their horizons. They developed functional and cluster approaches to overcome problems with structuralist conceptions which took too narrow and culture bound approaches to the subject. In trying to understand the origins of religion, for example, they noticed that primordial peoples seemed to exhibit deep spirituality and communal rituals without a concept of deities. They began to talk about ancestor worship, animism in which animals and natural objects were treated as though they had spirits, and pre-animism involving mysterious sacred forces operating in nature. Not exactly deities but close enough, And they encountered vast populations in Asia who had deities but followed belief-value systems that relegated them to a back seat, while engaging in communal rituals and adhering to metaphysical doctrines and moral codes that altered their lives. As Hecht puts it: "A great many of them believed in other unprovable, world-connecting contentions, such as karma, that help to explain how they lived without primary reliance on deities." J.M. Hecht (2004). Doubt , p.86. So scholars developed concepts of religion which were useful in highlighting these similarities and facilitating cross-cultural comparisons. I've given you, in past postings, the names of a number of scholars who take this approach. Definitions are not true or false, only more or less useful. I've explained why functionalist and cluster definitions are considered useful, given you the names of leading scholars who find them so, and discussed how I'm using the term. That should settle it. Your resistance to that idea strikes me as something of a hang up, which I find puzzling.

Not at all. Some are philosophical; others are ideological. Remember that quotation from Durkheim in the original OP, distinguishing religion and ideology from philosophy and science. Religion and ideology were about not simply beliefs but collective action. And religions are distinguished from ideologies in the part of Durkheim the OP left out. Religion is characterized by a certain content: belief in the sacred, spiritual, metaphysical, transcendent, or supernatural (but not necessarily a deity). Durkheim focused on the phenomenon of totemism, which involves ascribing sacredness to venerated objects emblematic of kinship groups or common ancestors. The earliest and most common forms seem to have involved the spirit world or somewhat amorphous unseen forces that humans developed rites and rituals to try to influence. As societies became more complex, the spirits acquired more defined form and jurisdictions and became deities. One could say, as you seem to, that there was no religion earlier, but many scholars in the field find it useful to use a more inclusive definition of religion to emphasize the perceived continuity.

So what??? There you go again with the "conventional definition". I've already explained why I think it's legitimate and useful not to use that. You can if you want, but it seems a bit high handed to impose it it on an entire scholarly discipline. It smacks of etymological "essentialism", the notion that terms can have one and only one fixed set of attributes that are necessary to their identity, or as Fuss puts it , a belief in "invariable and fixed properties which define the 'whatness' of a given entity." Dianna Fuss (1989) Essentially Speaking, pp. xi-xii. Essentialism, as a practice for defining basic terms in religion, philosophy and the social sciences, is questionable.
Some Remarks on Essentialism on JSTOR. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1600910X.2010.9672755
https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2175&context=theses

The fact that Buddhism has "mythological aspects" is more significant to me than a "so what?" As Hecht indicates in the quotation in my first paragraph supra, Buddhism retains metaphysical concepts from Hinduism, like samsara and karma, that serve as functional equivalents for God in relating humans to an unseen order that carries ethical implications. Professor Alan Bloom of the University of Hawaii discusses the nuances that distinguish godlessness in Buddhism from garden variety western atheism. First of all, Asian Buddhism isn't exactly "godless". It recognizes gods, but they play no role in the Buddhiust blueprint for living and are not "The Source", as Intrepid 37 uses the term. "Buddhist teachings taught that the gods, though powerful to aid beings in their worldly life, were irrelevant for gaining enlightenment and spiritual development. No amount of devotion or praying to a god will bring Buddhist enlightenment." " In Buddhist legends, the gods of India play a great role. Brahma and Indra encourage the Buddha to share the truth of his enlightenment with all people. In later mythic depictions in Mahayana Sacred texts, the audiences attending the Buddha’s sermons include hordes of deities of every type who listen and affirm the Buddha’s message. In popular religion in every Asian country, the gods support Buddhism and provide for the worldly needs of the people for health, wealth and spiritual protection Buddhism and Atheism | Shin Dharma Net. A personal belief-value system detached from songha, ritual, and spiritual significance, becomes a philosophy, which is fine. But it needn't bar us from the study of the broader phenomenon in which the philosophy is an integral part of communal observance, ritual, and connection with a spiritual dimension.

 

That's an expression of your personal belief, as is your definition of God as "the Source of creation." You, of course, are entitled to your opinion.