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

Light propagating at c falls out of Maxwell's equation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_Light

 

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Relativity

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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>

 

You are refuting jack shit. Stop masturbating, it will get you blind
and dumb.Oh, wait, you are already born dumb.

 

<< 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...

 

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.

 

A $30B+ industry, applying relativity to create a global
infrastructure benefiting people all over the world got
your goat, eh Potter (Willy Lowman).

 

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.

 

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)?

 

In Message-ID:<e6bcpr$d0p$> posted on Fri, 9 Jun 2006

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.

 

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...

 

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:<e6bhgj$g3m$> posted on Fri, 9 Jun 2006

'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.

 

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, 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.

 

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