Einstein's Relativity and Everyday Life -- Clifford M. Will

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sam Wormley
  • Start date Start date
Tom said:
Of course I admit that oscillators are affected by acceleration.
Galileo discovered that over 300 years ago.
Click to expand...

What "oscillators" other than the pendulum did Galileo with?
 
Phineas T Puddleduck said:
A simple googling will prove to you that GR and SR affects on atomic
clocks, moving ones and ones in gravitational potential wells, have
been proven NIST/NPL etc. You insist on some formula whose age changes
with each post, whose ownership changes (Newton, Galileo) yet has no
historical basis.

You then try to attack by claiming a position of authority,
unforunately such authority is over 30 years old - and in a totally
unrelated field. You then try to undermine me by obsessing with some
energy transducer knowing full well I do not deal with such things. But
somehow this is supposedly able to offset the fact that not only do you
understand a principle of physics that is hardly considered
"alternative", you prove your ignorance by lumping it in with feng shui
and astronomy.

Note I have no issue whatsoever with admitting ignorance in some
fields. Thats why I study physics, to fill in the holes of my
understanding.

Tellingly though, your own equation contains a binomial first order
approximation of the correct formula. As a result, even though you
disclaim GR you are accepting (in this case) the features of the
physics that lead to corrections to the GPS clocks - the gravitational
redshift and time dilation which IIRC is the dominant factor over the
SR time dilation due to the satellites movement.

When called on this, you dismissed it without being able to discuss
why, except to try and draw on your unrelated experience on another
field.

Now I could either continually poke you with a stick, as it is funny -
or I could listen to the inner voice of sanity and killfile you and
Jeff Relf as cranks. Which is rather sad in your case, as if your
references are correct regarding your past work - you were once a
pretty intelligent guy.

But you've degenerated into kook territory, and the surest sign of that
is claiming authority in a subject you have no experience in. Its not
your forte, you haven't done the maths and so when even someone like me
(who has only touched upon GR compared to some people here) can rip
your argument to shreds - its quite telling.

And thats only cause as part of my preliminary work into GR I did the
math regarding the effects of GR in the solar system. As I have said to
you, the factor is around 1 to 8 decimal places. This meant that the
effects were largely masked till the advance of better technology.

Can you explain the discrepancy of around 40 arc seconds of arc per
century in Mercury's orbit otherwise? You can say (rightly) that the
discrepancy is small - as it is around 10% of the total deflection
caused by examining the gravitational pull of the other planets - but
if what you are saying (as I believe) is that you just IGNORE this
discrepancy, then you truly are a terrible scientist.

S0 if you want not to be killfiled....

1) CIte exactly where this Galilieo/Newton redshift formula comes from.
I want a proper source where I can read it for myself. Websites don't
count. Cite it as if you were writing a technical document.

2) Cite exactly how you can reconcile your claim that GR is hokum when
in this case you are accepting gravitational redshift and time
dilation. Especially when the above mentioned formula contains a GR
term.

If you cannot do so in the next 2 posts I'm going to killfile you.
Click to expand...

Go ahead.
Make my day!

My target audience are mature, moral, rational, intelligent people,
not immature, brain-washed parrots and cultists.

Regarding your question:
"Can you explain the discrepancy of around 40 arc seconds of arc per
century in Mercury's orbit <without GTR>?"

It is easy to generate many models (Equations) that fit some set of data,
but this does not mean that the model is useful
and viable, particularly if the model wastes
time, money and minds, on such pursuits as
time travel, worm holes, gravitons, warped spaces,
rubber space and time, dragging space around, etc.

GTR is an auguring model that does not have a place
for intelligent beings who can affect their environment.

After Newton's model,
there were immediate and rapid advances
in mechanics, astronomy, etc.

After Maxwell's model
there were immediate and rapid advances
in chemistry, electricity, etc.

After Watson's and Crick's DNA model
there were immediate and rapid advances
in medicine, genetics, animal husbandry,
the history of the Earth and Mankind, etc.

Here we are, 100 years after General Relativity
and it continues to generate more hype and heat
than light and advances.

General Relativity is a Tower of Babel
that generates more heat than light,
and wastes time, money and minds.

I guarantee you this,
you will never make a dime using your knowledge of GTR
UNLESS you get it from taxpayers or gullible people.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Bye bye.

--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
 
Tom said:
No doubt, NASA system engineers knew,
as Galileo discovered several hundred years ago,
that oscillators were affected by gravity,
and no doubt they took Galileo's discovery into account
when they designed the GPS system.
Click to expand...

NASA is not part of the GPS picture.

What "oscillators" other than the pendulum did Galileo with?

GPS satellites are in Keplerian orbits and Einstein's
relativity is an integral part of the GPS design, not
just the orbiting atomic clock frequency offset.
 
I suggest:
1. The Bible.
2. General Relativity
3. Communism vs. free markets.
4. Liberal vs conservative
5. Action vs energy (As the unit of change)
6. ..
Click to expand...
6 - (Infinitiy -1). Tom's ego attempts to show everyone the light by
shooting in the dark vs. the heat his right hand generates

Since neither of those has chance of being sufficiently attenuated, the
scientific community is busy at work considering the inclusion of
Inifinity, its relationship either of the above play in this thread,
and why never reaching for it is a Good Thing....

<plonk>
 
Bhanwara said:
I am refuting the entire historical source of the "EM phenomena
propagate at c" superstition. So of course I will make different
predictions.

Now do you get it?
Click to expand...

You are refuting jack shit. Stop masturbating, it will get you blind
and dumb.Oh, wait, you are already born dumb.
 
Phineas T Puddleduck said:
Ditto GR. I've already admitted electronics aint my forte.
Click to expand...

This has become a fairly standard crank tactic. They want to argue about
(for example) GR and they have some (again, example) woodwork background so
they demand you explain how a circular lathe cuts a table piece (or
whatever). Any failure to do so, is then transferred into a lack of
understanding on (original, proper subject).

Potter takes this to a fine art. His screed is semi-intelligible at the best
of times and his normal response (when challenged or questioned) is to
branch out and demand answers to irrelevant questions.

Potter couldn't mathematics his way out of the toilet, let alone read the
equations you posted.
Click to expand...
 
<< Ah so its not just Einstein thats wrong, its Maxwell too? >>

"Wrong" may not be fair but the use of "displacement current"
instead of an effective coupling structure mischaracterises nearfield
energy exchange and therefor the nearfield speed of light.

Hertz was radiating while Maxwell was just sloshing liquid around.
Weber's equations were inherrently relativistic but had other
problelms.

Fitzpatrick (below) has an elegant trick to avoid getting into
complex impedance and he describes it in detail.


http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
"Retarded potential"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html

Observer dependent speed of light is, not surprisingly, a
function of material structures, not of magical clocks.

The magical clocks will apper on a plot of the near field
wave impedance.

Sue...
 
Phineas said:
Ah so its not just Einstein thats wrong, its Maxwell too?
Click to expand...

Huh? Of course not. Somehow I think I am failing to explain
the concept. To me it seems extremely simple and clear.

I think this was my best shot at explaining empty-space-propagation.

http://www.mukesh.ws/transmit2.html

Once this becomes clear, then the medium issue becomes
a non-issue, so the historical development can be viewed
in the proper perspective. From that, it's very easy
to get a different and simpler interpretation of Maxwell without
needing to do the "mysterious science" stuff.
 
Tom said:
GTR is an auguring model that does not have a place
for intelligent beings who can affect their environment.
Click to expand...

A $30B+ industry, applying relativity to create a global
infrastructure benefiting people all over the world got
your goat, eh Potter (Willy Lowman).
 
Sam said:
Light propagating at c falls out of Maxwell's equation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_Light
Click to expand...

Ok, maybe this is NOT as obvious to people as I thought.

Once you understand empty-space-propagation, it seems
obvious to me at least that "c" determines the velocity
of light wrt the em field its propagating in. It's a wave,
nothing more mysterious. The waves on the ocean have the
wave velocity wrt the ocean. Sound waves have their
velocity wrt the air they are travelling in. If you enclose
that air in a supersonic jet, the sound velocity wrt that
air still doesn't change.

I didn't think it would need spelling out, so perhaps I am
guilty of omission.
 
In Message-ID:<[email protected]> posted on Fri, 9 Jun 2006
No doubt, NASA system engineers knew,
as Galileo discovered several hundred years ago,
that oscillators were affected by gravity,
and no doubt they took Galileo's discovery into account
when they designed the GPS system.
Click to expand...

How much gravitational influence is experienced by an orbiting object,
that isn't offset by the centrifugal force of its trajectory?
I'm guessing there's about a zero net effect.
If other than zero, the SV is either heading spaceward or crashing.
 
Bhanwara said:
Huh? Of course not. Somehow I think I am failing to explain
the concept. To me it seems extremely simple and clear.

I think this was my best shot at explaining empty-space-propagation.

http://www.mukesh.ws/transmit2.html
Click to expand...

It takes at least two charges for an EM path.
Charges have infinite extent.
So where do you find the 'empty space' to apply such
an explanation?

Sue...
 
Bhanwara said:
Ok, maybe this is NOT as obvious to people as I thought.

Once you understand empty-space-propagation, it seems
obvious to me at least that "c" determines the velocity
of light wrt the em field its propagating in. It's a wave,
nothing more mysterious. The waves on the ocean have the
wave velocity wrt the ocean. Sound waves have their
velocity wrt the air they are travelling in. If you enclose
that air in a supersonic jet, the sound velocity wrt that
air still doesn't change.

I didn't think it would need spelling out, so perhaps I am
guilty of omission.
Click to expand...

All particles have wave-like properties
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality

A medium, in the classical sense, is not required for propagation
of photons (electromagnetic radiation).
 
In Message-ID:<[email protected]> posted on Fri, 9 Jun 2006
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Click to expand...

'waste' is a relative term,
seems your arcane musings have entertained you,
and in some measure other respondents here,
so I wouldn't be so quick to characterize any of it as 'waste.
 
Bhanwara said:
And you have blind faith that something in there MUST
refute my claim that GR is based upon SR (I assume
you have this faith even without reading what I wrote)?
Click to expand...

What you write out of ignorance has no bearing. A theory is only as
good as its agreement with empirical data. To date, there has not
been a prediction of SR or GTR that was contradicted by an observation.
 
Sam said:
All particles have wave-like properties
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality

A medium, in the classical sense, is not required for propagation
of photons (electromagnetic radiation).
Click to expand...

Sam, That's just parroting -- I don't think you are familiar with
the history of how that idea and "photons" and "duality" came
about, or how silly it all looks if you understand
empty-space-propagation
as well as the history of that thought development. (To see
the complete silliness of "duality", my electron-gun explanation
stuff helps too. But again, you have to know the history.)

And those who know and can understand that history, and can
understand why those ideas' silliness now stands exposed, and
who are authority figures to whom you would listen, aren't
interested in giving you any honest explanations.
 
Sam said:
What you write out of ignorance has no bearing. A theory is only as
good as its agreement with empirical data. To date, there has not
been a prediction of SR or GTR that was contradicted by an observation.
Click to expand...

But I thought you wanted to post a link that disproved
my assertion that GR is based upon SR?
 

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 70 (members: 0, guests: 70)
Back
Top