| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Surfer" |
| Date: |
29 Apr 2007 01:49:55 PM |
| Object: |
Has Shtyrkov falsified SR? |
Professor Eugene Shtyrkov has excellent credentials.
Double winner of the State Premium of the USSR in the field of
science:
1982 - for a set of scientific works (1970-1981) on a resonant dynamic
holography;
1988 - for discovery and research of an oriented crystallization of
semiconductors under operation of laser light (laser annealing).
He has more than 180 scientific publications and 20 inventions in the
field of a quantum electronics, non-linear optics and microelectronics
to his name.
http://bourabai.georisk.kz/shtyrkov
His credibility and competence would seem beyond question.
So I wonder what people think of his paper:
Observation of Ether Drift in Experiments with Geostationary
Satellites
http://bourabai.georisk.kz/shtyrkov/shtyrkov.pdf
This seems to clearly falsify SR, but does it falsify SR beyond doubt?
-- Surfer
.
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Shtyrkov falsified SR? |
29 Apr 2007 02:52:50 PM |
|
|
On Apr 29, 10:49 am, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
Professor Eugene Shtyrkov has excellent credentials.
Double winner of the State Premium of the USSR in the field of
science:
1982 - for a set of scientific works (1970-1981) on a resonant dynamic
holography;
1988 - for discovery and research of an oriented crystallization of
semiconductors under operation of laser light (laser annealing).
He has more than 180 scientific publications and 20 inventions in the
field of a quantum electronics, non-linear optics and microelectronics
to his name.http://bourabai.georisk.kz/shtyrkov
His credibility and competence would seem beyond question.
In applying and using quantum theory, yes.
So I wonder what people think of his paper:
Observation of Ether Drift in Experiments with Geostationary
Satelliteshttp://bourabai.georisk.kz/shtyrkov/shtyrkov.pdf
This seems to clearly falsify SR, but does it falsify SR beyond doubt?
Clearly? You didn't even get past the TITLE of the paper. The TITLE of
the paper is "Observation of Ether Drift in Experiments with
Geostationary Satellites*" - Notice the phrase "geostationary
satellites"? That means it is an observation contingent on a
gravitational effect, ergo, NOT SPECIAL RELATIVITY.
About the paper itself...
A ~29km/s ether drift velocity in an age where experiments peg the
ether drift many orders of magnitude below that? An "ether drift" that
_coincidently_ is almost exactly the same as Earth's orbital velocity
about the Sun? Yea, ok.
Teehee...subtle irony...they measure their position with GPS, a system
built on the assumption that relativity is correct...
This paper is crap. Their experimental setup is measuring abberation
of light - and they discovered the Earth's motion around the Sun. The
paper's only two references are Dayton Miller [lol] and a repeat of
the MMX in 1929.
Why did you post this here?
-- Surfer
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Shtyrkov falsified SR? |
29 Apr 2007 02:55:51 PM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1177876370.749359.242090@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 29, 10:49 am, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
Professor Eugene Shtyrkov has excellent credentials.
Double winner of the State Premium of the USSR in the field of
science:
1982 - for a set of scientific works (1970-1981) on a resonant dynamic
holography;
1988 - for discovery and research of an oriented crystallization of
semiconductors under operation of laser light (laser annealing).
He has more than 180 scientific publications and 20 inventions in the
field of a quantum electronics, non-linear optics and microelectronics
to his name.http://bourabai.georisk.kz/shtyrkov
His credibility and competence would seem beyond question.
In applying and using quantum theory, yes.
So I wonder what people think of his paper:
Observation of Ether Drift in Experiments with Geostationary
Satelliteshttp://bourabai.georisk.kz/shtyrkov/shtyrkov.pdf
This seems to clearly falsify SR, but does it falsify SR beyond doubt?
Clearly? You didn't even get past the TITLE of the paper. The TITLE of
the paper is "Observation of Ether Drift in Experiments with
Geostationary Satellites*" - Notice the phrase "geostationary
satellites"? That means it is an observation contingent on a
gravitational effect, ergo, NOT SPECIAL RELATIVITY.
About the paper itself...
A ~29km/s ether drift velocity in an age where experiments peg the
ether drift many orders of magnitude below that? An "ether drift" that
_coincidently_ is almost exactly the same as Earth's orbital velocity
about the Sun? Yea, ok.
Teehee...subtle irony...they measure their position with GPS, a system
built on the assumption that relativity is correct...
This paper is crap. Their experimental setup is measuring abberation
of light - and they discovered the Earth's motion around the Sun. The
paper's only two references are Dayton Miller [lol] and a repeat of
the MMX in 1929.
Why did you post this here?
Because his name is Reginald Cahill and Usenet is the only place
where people still interact with him :-)
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Shtyrkov falsified SR? |
29 Apr 2007 03:00:35 PM |
|
|
On Apr 29, 11:55 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1177876370.749359.242090@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 29, 10:49 am, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
Professor Eugene Shtyrkov has excellent credentials.
Double winner of the State Premium of the USSR in the field of
science:
1982 - for a set of scientific works (1970-1981) on a resonant dynamic
holography;
1988 - for discovery and research of an oriented crystallization of
semiconductors under operation of laser light (laser annealing).
He has more than 180 scientific publications and 20 inventions in the
field of a quantum electronics, non-linear optics and microelectronics
to his name.http://bourabai.georisk.kz/shtyrkov
His credibility and competence would seem beyond question.
In applying and using quantum theory, yes.
So I wonder what people think of his paper:
Observation of Ether Drift in Experiments with Geostationary
Satelliteshttp://bourabai.georisk.kz/shtyrkov/shtyrkov.pdf
This seems to clearly falsify SR, but does it falsify SR beyond doubt?
Clearly? You didn't even get past the TITLE of the paper. The TITLE of
the paper is "Observation of Ether Drift in Experiments with
Geostationary Satellites*" - Notice the phrase "geostationary
satellites"? That means it is an observation contingent on a
gravitational effect, ergo, NOT SPECIAL RELATIVITY.
About the paper itself...
A ~29km/s ether drift velocity in an age where experiments peg the
ether drift many orders of magnitude below that? An "ether drift" that
_coincidently_ is almost exactly the same as Earth's orbital velocity
about the Sun? Yea, ok.
Teehee...subtle irony...they measure their position with GPS, a system
built on the assumption that relativity is correct...
This paper is crap. Their experimental setup is measuring abberation
of light - and they discovered the Earth's motion around the Sun. The
paper's only two references are Dayton Miller [lol] and a repeat of
the MMX in 1929.
Why did you post this here?
Because his name is Reginald Cahill and Usenet is the only place
where people still interact with him :-)
He has a professorship. Why does he have to bother sci.physics/
sci.physics.relativity?
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Shtyrkov falsified SR? |
29 Apr 2007 03:06:42 PM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1177876835.407914.199780@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 29, 11:55 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1177876370.749359.242090@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 29, 10:49 am, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
Professor Eugene Shtyrkov has excellent credentials.
Double winner of the State Premium of the USSR in the field of
science:
1982 - for a set of scientific works (1970-1981) on a resonant dynamic
holography;
1988 - for discovery and research of an oriented crystallization of
semiconductors under operation of laser light (laser annealing).
He has more than 180 scientific publications and 20 inventions in the
field of a quantum electronics, non-linear optics and microelectronics
to his name.http://bourabai.georisk.kz/shtyrkov
His credibility and competence would seem beyond question.
In applying and using quantum theory, yes.
So I wonder what people think of his paper:
Observation of Ether Drift in Experiments with Geostationary
Satelliteshttp://bourabai.georisk.kz/shtyrkov/shtyrkov.pdf
This seems to clearly falsify SR, but does it falsify SR beyond doubt?
Clearly? You didn't even get past the TITLE of the paper. The TITLE of
the paper is "Observation of Ether Drift in Experiments with
Geostationary Satellites*" - Notice the phrase "geostationary
satellites"? That means it is an observation contingent on a
gravitational effect, ergo, NOT SPECIAL RELATIVITY.
About the paper itself...
A ~29km/s ether drift velocity in an age where experiments peg the
ether drift many orders of magnitude below that? An "ether drift" that
_coincidently_ is almost exactly the same as Earth's orbital velocity
about the Sun? Yea, ok.
Teehee...subtle irony...they measure their position with GPS, a system
built on the assumption that relativity is correct...
This paper is crap. Their experimental setup is measuring abberation
of light - and they discovered the Earth's motion around the Sun. The
paper's only two references are Dayton Miller [lol] and a repeat of
the MMX in 1929.
Why did you post this here?
Because his name is Reginald Cahill and Usenet is the only place
where people still interact with him :-)
He has a professorship. Why does he have to bother sci.physics/
sci.physics.relativity?
Yes, a Flinders Professorship.
Loneliness?
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Shtyrkov falsified SR? |
29 Apr 2007 03:24:26 PM |
|
|
On Apr 29, 12:06 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1177876835.407914.199780@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 29, 11:55 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1177876370.749359.242090@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 29, 10:49 am, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
Professor Eugene Shtyrkov has excellent credentials.
Double winner of the State Premium of the USSR in the field of
science:
1982 - for a set of scientific works (1970-1981) on a resonant dynamic
holography;
1988 - for discovery and research of an oriented crystallization of
semiconductors under operation of laser light (laser annealing).
He has more than 180 scientific publications and 20 inventions in the
field of a quantum electronics, non-linear optics and microelectronics
to his name.http://bourabai.georisk.kz/shtyrkov
His credibility and competence would seem beyond question.
In applying and using quantum theory, yes.
So I wonder what people think of his paper:
Observation of Ether Drift in Experiments with Geostationary
Satelliteshttp://bourabai.georisk.kz/shtyrkov/shtyrkov.pdf
This seems to clearly falsify SR, but does it falsify SR beyond doubt?
Clearly? You didn't even get past the TITLE of the paper. The TITLE of
the paper is "Observation of Ether Drift in Experiments with
Geostationary Satellites*" - Notice the phrase "geostationary
satellites"? That means it is an observation contingent on a
gravitational effect, ergo, NOT SPECIAL RELATIVITY.
About the paper itself...
A ~29km/s ether drift velocity in an age where experiments peg the
ether drift many orders of magnitude below that? An "ether drift" that
_coincidently_ is almost exactly the same as Earth's orbital velocity
about the Sun? Yea, ok.
Teehee...subtle irony...they measure their position with GPS, a system
built on the assumption that relativity is correct...
This paper is crap. Their experimental setup is measuring abberation
of light - and they discovered the Earth's motion around the Sun. The
paper's only two references are Dayton Miller [lol] and a repeat of
the MMX in 1929.
Why did you post this here?
Because his name is Reginald Cahill and Usenet is the only place
where people still interact with him :-)
He has a professorship. Why does he have to bother sci.physics/
sci.physics.relativity?
Yes, a Flinders Professorship.
Loneliness?
Dirk Vdm
Well, I am assuming he hasn't been rightfully ostracized yet. Is he
tenured?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Shtyrkov falsified SR? |
29 Apr 2007 04:25:33 PM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1177878266.030893.93760@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 29, 12:06 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1177876835.407914.199780@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 29, 11:55 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1177876370.749359.242090@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 29, 10:49 am, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
Professor Eugene Shtyrkov has excellent credentials.
Double winner of the State Premium of the USSR in the field of
science:
1982 - for a set of scientific works (1970-1981) on a resonant dynamic
holography;
1988 - for discovery and research of an oriented crystallization of
semiconductors under operation of laser light (laser annealing).
He has more than 180 scientific publications and 20 inventions in the
field of a quantum electronics, non-linear optics and microelectronics
to his name.http://bourabai.georisk.kz/shtyrkov
His credibility and competence would seem beyond question.
In applying and using quantum theory, yes.
So I wonder what people think of his paper:
Observation of Ether Drift in Experiments with Geostationary
Satelliteshttp://bourabai.georisk.kz/shtyrkov/shtyrkov.pdf
This seems to clearly falsify SR, but does it falsify SR beyond doubt?
Clearly? You didn't even get past the TITLE of the paper. The TITLE of
the paper is "Observation of Ether Drift in Experiments with
Geostationary Satellites*" - Notice the phrase "geostationary
satellites"? That means it is an observation contingent on a
gravitational effect, ergo, NOT SPECIAL RELATIVITY.
About the paper itself...
A ~29km/s ether drift velocity in an age where experiments peg the
ether drift many orders of magnitude below that? An "ether drift" that
_coincidently_ is almost exactly the same as Earth's orbital velocity
about the Sun? Yea, ok.
Teehee...subtle irony...they measure their position with GPS, a system
built on the assumption that relativity is correct...
This paper is crap. Their experimental setup is measuring abberation
of light - and they discovered the Earth's motion around the Sun. The
paper's only two references are Dayton Miller [lol] and a repeat of
the MMX in 1929.
Why did you post this here?
Because his name is Reginald Cahill and Usenet is the only place
where people still interact with him :-)
He has a professorship. Why does he have to bother sci.physics/
sci.physics.relativity?
Yes, a Flinders Professorship.
Loneliness?
Dirk Vdm
Well, I am assuming he hasn't been rightfully ostracized yet. Is he
tenured?
Maybe he's the only engineer they've got.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Shtyrkov falsified SR? |
29 Apr 2007 06:58:43 PM |
|
|
On Apr 29, 12:55 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1177876370.749359.242090@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 29, 10:49 am, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
Professor Eugene Shtyrkov has excellent credentials.
Double winner of the State Premium of the USSR in the field of
science:
1982 - for a set of scientific works (1970-1981) on a resonant dynamic
holography;
1988 - for discovery and research of an oriented crystallization of
semiconductors under operation of laser light (laser annealing).
He has more than 180 scientific publications and 20 inventions in the
field of a quantum electronics, non-linear optics and microelectronics
to his name.http://bourabai.georisk.kz/shtyrkov
His credibility and competence would seem beyond question.
In applying and using quantum theory, yes.
So I wonder what people think of his paper:
Observation of Ether Drift in Experiments with Geostationary
Satelliteshttp://bourabai.georisk.kz/shtyrkov/shtyrkov.pdf
This seems to clearly falsify SR, but does it falsify SR beyond doubt?
Clearly? You didn't even get past the TITLE of the paper. The TITLE of
the paper is "Observation of Ether Drift in Experiments with
Geostationary Satellites*" - Notice the phrase "geostationary
satellites"? That means it is an observation contingent on a
gravitational effect, ergo, NOT SPECIAL RELATIVITY.
About the paper itself...
A ~29km/s ether drift velocity in an age where experiments peg the
ether drift many orders of magnitude below that? An "ether drift" that
_coincidently_ is almost exactly the same as Earth's orbital velocity
about the Sun? Yea, ok.
Teehee...subtle irony...they measure their position with GPS, a system
built on the assumption that relativity is correct...
This paper is crap. Their experimental setup is measuring abberation
of light - and they discovered the Earth's motion around the Sun. The
paper's only two references are Dayton Miller [lol] and a repeat of
the MMX in 1929.
Why did you post this here?
Because his name is Reginald Cahill and Usenet is the only place
where people still interact with him :-)
Dirk Vdm
I think that HER name is Kristy Kitto (and he recently married the old
goat, look at the Flinders U list, Kristy Kitto has become.....Kristy
Cahill).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Shtyrkov falsified SR? |
30 Apr 2007 11:03:31 AM |
|
|
<karandash2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1177891123.769030.130480@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 29, 12:55 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1177876370.749359.242090@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 29, 10:49 am, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
Professor Eugene Shtyrkov has excellent credentials.
Double winner of the State Premium of the USSR in the field of
science:
1982 - for a set of scientific works (1970-1981) on a resonant dynamic
holography;
1988 - for discovery and research of an oriented crystallization of
semiconductors under operation of laser light (laser annealing).
He has more than 180 scientific publications and 20 inventions in the
field of a quantum electronics, non-linear optics and microelectronics
to his name.http://bourabai.georisk.kz/shtyrkov
His credibility and competence would seem beyond question.
In applying and using quantum theory, yes.
So I wonder what people think of his paper:
Observation of Ether Drift in Experiments with Geostationary
Satelliteshttp://bourabai.georisk.kz/shtyrkov/shtyrkov.pdf
This seems to clearly falsify SR, but does it falsify SR beyond doubt?
Clearly? You didn't even get past the TITLE of the paper. The TITLE of
the paper is "Observation of Ether Drift in Experiments with
Geostationary Satellites*" - Notice the phrase "geostationary
satellites"? That means it is an observation contingent on a
gravitational effect, ergo, NOT SPECIAL RELATIVITY.
About the paper itself...
A ~29km/s ether drift velocity in an age where experiments peg the
ether drift many orders of magnitude below that? An "ether drift" that
_coincidently_ is almost exactly the same as Earth's orbital velocity
about the Sun? Yea, ok.
Teehee...subtle irony...they measure their position with GPS, a system
built on the assumption that relativity is correct...
This paper is crap. Their experimental setup is measuring abberation
of light - and they discovered the Earth's motion around the Sun. The
paper's only two references are Dayton Miller [lol] and a repeat of
the MMX in 1929.
Why did you post this here?
Because his name is Reginald Cahill and Usenet is the only place
where people still interact with him :-)
Dirk Vdm
I think that HER name is Kristy Kitto (and he recently married the old
goat, look at the Flinders U list, Kristy Kitto has become.....Kristy
Cahill).
Yes, good hunting.
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/postgrad/kitto_k/index.html
Too bad there's no picture :-(
More:
http://www.google.com/search?q=kitto+cahill+site%3aflinders%2eedu%2eau
Can't find the string "Kristy Calhill" though.
O.t.o.h, on
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics.html
we see:
Dr. Christopher Klinger
Dr Kirsty Kitto
Dr Lance McCarthy
and, tada....
"Pete Brown at Mountain Man Graphics has generously
hosted a compilation of Process Physics papers."
and we have a match to tat "Peter" we had here a while ago.
Interesting.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Shtyrkov falsified SR? |
29 Apr 2007 09:10:31 PM |
|
|
On Apr 29, 3:58 pm, wrote:
On Apr 29, 12:55 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1177876370.749359.242090@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 29, 10:49 am, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
Professor Eugene Shtyrkov has excellent credentials.
Double winner of the State Premium of the USSR in the field of
science:
1982 - for a set of scientific works (1970-1981) on a resonant dynamic
holography;
1988 - for discovery and research of an oriented crystallization of
semiconductors under operation of laser light (laser annealing).
He has more than 180 scientific publications and 20 inventions in the
field of a quantum electronics, non-linear optics and microelectronics
to his name.http://bourabai.georisk.kz/shtyrkov
His credibility and competence would seem beyond question.
In applying and using quantum theory, yes.
So I wonder what people think of his paper:
Observation of Ether Drift in Experiments with Geostationary
Satelliteshttp://bourabai.georisk.kz/shtyrkov/shtyrkov.pdf
This seems to clearly falsify SR, but does it falsify SR beyond doubt?
Clearly? You didn't even get past the TITLE of the paper. The TITLE of
the paper is "Observation of Ether Drift in Experiments with
Geostationary Satellites*" - Notice the phrase "geostationary
satellites"? That means it is an observation contingent on a
gravitational effect, ergo, NOT SPECIAL RELATIVITY.
About the paper itself...
A ~29km/s ether drift velocity in an age where experiments peg the
ether drift many orders of magnitude below that? An "ether drift" that
_coincidently_ is almost exactly the same as Earth's orbital velocity
about the Sun? Yea, ok.
Teehee...subtle irony...they measure their position with GPS, a system
built on the assumption that relativity is correct...
This paper is crap. Their experimental setup is measuring abberation
of light - and they discovered the Earth's motion around the Sun. The
paper's only two references are Dayton Miller [lol] and a repeat of
the MMX in 1929.
Why did you post this here?
Because his name is Reginald Cahill and Usenet is the only place
where people still interact with him :-)
Dirk Vdm
I think that HER name is Kristy Kitto (and he recently married the old
goat, look at the Flinders U list, Kristy Kitto has become.....Kristy
Cahill).
hahahahahahahahahahhahahahaha
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Surfer" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Shtyrkov falsified SR? |
30 Apr 2007 10:30:21 AM |
|
|
On 29 Apr 2007 12:52:50 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:
The TITLE of
the paper is "Observation of Ether Drift in Experiments with
Geostationary Satellites*" - Notice the phrase "geostationary
satellites"? That means it is an observation contingent on a
gravitational effect,
That is not really relevant. The positions of satellites can be
calculated to sufficient precision using Newtonian gravity.
Teehee...subtle irony...they measure their position with GPS, a system
built on the assumption that relativity is correct...
Since GPS works in practice, SR and GR are correct so far as the GPS
is concerned.
But so is the following...
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0309016
"It is shown that a new quantum-foam in flow theory of gravity is
mathematically equivalent to the General Relativity theory of gravity
for the operation of the Global Positioning System (GPS)."
Their experimental setup is measuring abberation
of light - and they discovered the Earth's motion around the Sun.
It has long been known that the motion of the earth can be calculated
by measuring the abberation of starlight.
However according to SR, abberation requires relative motion. When
source and receiver are moving together, SR predicts zero abberation.
In Shryrkov's experiment, the satellite and radio telescope were
moving together as a single apparatus. The rotation about the earths
axis would have produced a constant offset, but if SR were corrrect,
no further aberration should have been seen.
Instead, the observed aberration was sufficiently large to allow
calculation of the earths orbital velocity.
This suggests the aberration must have been due to motion of the
telescope relative to a medium of propagation.
Why did you post this here?
It looks like a significant experiment with relevance to SR. It would
be good to get some expert opinions about it.
-- Surfer
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Shtyrkov falsified SR? |
30 Apr 2007 11:09:20 AM |
|
|
On Apr 30, 7:30 am, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
On 29 Apr 2007 12:52:50 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
The TITLE of
the paper is "Observation of Ether Drift in Experiments with
Geostationary Satellites*" - Notice the phrase "geostationary
satellites"? That means it is an observation contingent on a
gravitational effect,
That is not really relevant. The positions of satellites can be
calculated to sufficient precision using Newtonian gravity.
WOOSH! Point fly over head!
Special relativity is a gravitation-free theory.
Teehee...subtle irony...they measure their position with GPS, a system
built on the assumption that relativity is correct...
Since GPS works in practice, SR and GR are correct so far as the GPS
is concerned.
Since his position is contingent on relativity, it makes the already
idiotic "analysis" that much more amusing.
But so is the following...
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0309016
"It is shown that a new quantum-foam in flow theory of gravity is
mathematically equivalent to the General Relativity theory of gravity
for the operation of the Global Positioning System (GPS)."
How is that even remotely relevant?
Their experimental setup is measuring abberation
of light - and they discovered the Earth's motion around the Sun.
It has long been known that the motion of the earth can be calculated
by measuring the abberation of starlight.
However according to SR, abberation requires relative motion. When
source and receiver are moving together, SR predicts zero abberation.
STUPID!
What was my entire point at the beginning of my reply? The satellite
is an explicitly gravity-influenced environment. The satellite is
experiencing non-inertial motion and is way beyond SR's domain of
applicability. Any conclusions drawn have no bearing on special
relativity for this very reason.
In Shryrkov's experiment, the satellite and radio telescope were
moving together as a single apparatus. The rotation about the earths
axis would have produced a constant offset, but if SR were corrrect,
no further aberration should have been seen.
The satellite is in ORBIT, dude.
Instead, the observed aberration was sufficiently large to allow
calculation of the earths orbital velocity.
That's because the satellite is in ORBIT.
This suggests the aberration must have been due to motion of the
telescope relative to a medium of propagation.
No, this suggests that the discovered aberration has something to do
with the fact both the satellite and the Earth are orbiting bodies.
Why did you post this here?
It looks like a significant experiment with relevance to SR. It would
be good to get some expert opinions about it.
You don't even know when you can apply SR.
-- Surfer
.
|
|
|
| User: "Surfer" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Shtyrkov falsified SR? |
30 Apr 2007 12:16:34 PM |
|
|
On 30 Apr 2007 09:09:20 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:
What was my entire point at the beginning of my reply? The satellite
is an explicitly gravity-influenced environment. The satellite is
experiencing non-inertial motion and is way beyond SR's domain of
applicability. Any conclusions drawn have no bearing on special
relativity for this very reason.
Every SR experiment that has ever been done on the surface of planet
earth has been done in a "gravity-influenced environment".
If the surface of planet earth is suitable for such experiments, a
geostationary satellite (where gravity is a little weaker!) is surely
no less suitable.
The motion of such a satellite is exactly the same as if supported by
an imaginary pole.
It may sway a little due to various influences, but if these are known
they can be taken into account.
Eg Shtyrkov writes:
"For geostationary satellites with small inclination, the force of
radiation pressure from the Sun becomes the main cause of small
diurnal deviation of its geocentric longitude and latitude about the
equilibrium point. The unit vector s specifying this is considered
together with the velocity vectors in order to show time relation
between actual (geometric) and apparent (due to aberration)
contributions to satellite longitude and latitude. "
He seems to have such things well sorted out.
-- Surfer
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Shtyrkov falsified SR? |
30 Apr 2007 09:21:11 PM |
|
|
On Apr 30, 9:16 am, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
On 30 Apr 2007 09:09:20 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
What was my entire point at the beginning of my reply? The satellite
is an explicitly gravity-influenced environment. The satellite is
experiencing non-inertial motion and is way beyond SR's domain of
applicability. Any conclusions drawn have no bearing on special
relativity for this very reason.
Every SR experiment that has ever been done on the surface of planet
earth has been done in a "gravity-influenced environment".
SR is a LOCAL theory - do you know what LOCAL means?
Experiments on the surface of the Earth are in an LOCAL environment.
Experiments that traverse the surface of the Earth to a satellite
orbiting around the Earth does NOT qualify as local.
If the surface of planet earth is suitable for such experiments, a
geostationary satellite (where gravity is a little weaker!) is surely
no less suitable.
WOOSH! POINT FLY OVERTH HEAD!
Even in the weak field limit of GR, there are measurable differences
between flat space and curved space. You cannot apply SR to non
inertial frames.
The motion of such a satellite is exactly the same as if supported by
an imaginary pole.
Jesus fucking christ.
That is so wrong. Geostationary means it has its' orbital velocity
such that it is stationary with respect to a specific position on the
Earth. That does _NOT_ mean you can treat a geostationary satellite as
if it were actually stationary.
Who are you? Seriously.
It may sway a little due to various influences, but if these are known
they can be taken into account.
Yea - by relativity. Kind of hard to be self-consistent when you are
using relativistic corrections.
Eg Shtyrkov writes:
"For geostationary satellites with small inclination, the force of
radiation pressure from the Sun becomes the main cause of small
diurnal deviation of its geocentric longitude and latitude about the
equilibrium point. The unit vector s specifying this is considered
together with the velocity vectors in order to show time relation
between actual (geometric) and apparent (due to aberration)
contributions to satellite longitude and latitude. "
Shtyrkov is an idiot for that, and so are you for using it as an
argument. Radiation pressure has ***** all to do with this.
He seems to have such things well sorted out.
Only in the eyes of someone who doesn't understand enough relativity
to grok the meaning behind "local".
-- Surfer
.
|
|
|
| User: "Surfer" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Shtyrkov falsified SR? |
01 May 2007 09:24:27 AM |
|
|
On 30 Apr 2007 19:21:11 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:
Experiments on the surface of the Earth are in an LOCAL environment.
Experiments that traverse the surface of the Earth to a satellite
orbiting around the Earth does NOT qualify as local.
In some cases that would be true. However astronomers have long been
able to relate variations of stellar aberration to variations in the
earths orbital velocity. They have been able to do this without
resorting to GR.
Eg:
Stellar aberration
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-05/2-05.htm
Even in the weak field limit of GR, there are measurable differences
between flat space and curved space. You cannot apply SR to non
inertial frames.
It depends on what you are dealing with and the required precision.
The ultrahigh precision of GPS clocks requires GR, but in the case of
stellar aberration, non of the papers I can find seem to use GR.
Geostationary means it has its' orbital velocity
such that it is stationary with respect to a specific position on the
Earth. That does _NOT_ mean you can treat a geostationary satellite as
if it were actually stationary.
Of course not. It rotates synchronously with the earth.
Radiation pressure has ***** all to do with this.
Whatever. His comments about radiation pressure just show he taken
great care to minimize sources of error.
-- Surfer
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Shtyrkov falsified SR? |
01 May 2007 01:57:46 PM |
|
|
On May 1, 6:24 am, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
On 30 Apr 2007 19:21:11 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Experiments on the surface of the Earth are in an LOCAL environment.
Experiments that traverse the surface of the Earth to a satellite
orbiting around the Earth does NOT qualify as local.
In some cases that would be true. However astronomers have long been
able to relate variations of stellar aberration to variations in the
earths orbital velocity. They have been able to do this without
resorting to GR.
_STELLAR_ aberration. The stars are far away and not significantly
affected by Earth's gravity.
Eg:
Stellar aberrationhttp://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-05/2-05.htm
Even in the weak field limit of GR, there are measurable differences
between flat space and curved space. You cannot apply SR to non
inertial frames.
It depends on what you are dealing with and the required precision.
The ultrahigh precision of GPS clocks requires GR, but in the case of
stellar aberration, non of the papers I can find seem to use GR.
The stars are sufficiently far away. They are not in orbit around the
Earth. That may have something to do with it.
Geostationary means it has its' orbital velocity
such that it is stationary with respect to a specific position on the
Earth. That does _NOT_ mean you can treat a geostationary satellite as
if it were actually stationary.
Of course not. It rotates synchronously with the earth.
Radiation pressure has ***** all to do with this.
Whatever. His comments about radiation pressure just show he taken
great care to minimize sources of error.
Are you _KIDDING ME_?
Radiation pressure is a miniscule effect compared to everything - even
drag at that altitude. Furthermore, the satellite isn't in equilibrium
- folks have already mentioned station keeping and you have thusly
ignored it.
I can't help but wonder...does this guy have any data?
-- Surfer
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Shtyrkov falsified SR? |
30 Apr 2007 12:44:08 PM |
|
|
Surfer <surfer@no.spam.net> wrote in
news:6k7c33lbe3pq3kv01soqpcia8q9lrct0s8@4ax.com:
Every SR experiment that has ever been done on the surface of planet
earth has been done in a "gravity-influenced environment".
If the surface of planet earth is suitable for such experiments, a
geostationary satellite (where gravity is a little weaker!) is surely
no less suitable.
The motion of such a satellite is exactly the same as if supported by
an imaginary pole.
It may sway a little due to various influences, but if these are known
they can be taken into account.
Eg Shtyrkov writes:
"For geostationary satellites with small inclination, the force of
radiation pressure from the Sun becomes the main cause of small
diurnal deviation of its geocentric longitude and latitude about the
equilibrium point. The unit vector s specifying this is considered
together with the velocity vectors in order to show time relation
between actual (geometric) and apparent (due to aberration)
contributions to satellite longitude and latitude. "
He seems to have such things well sorted out.
I am not so sure.
There is circular logic involved.
1) the definition of geosyncronous depends on the satellite being
'stationary' against the backdrop of 'fixed stars'
2) the satellites position is adjusted to make it geosyncronous, to make it
stationary against the backdrop of fixed stars.
3) the backdrop of fixed stars are subject to aberration.
4) the satellite is stationary against the backdrop of fixed stars.
Do you see how something adjusted to be stationary against a backdrop that
shifts due to aberration might appear to also be subject to aberration????
Also, as far as I know, the geosync satellites undergo FREQUENT adjustments
of their exact positions, 'station keeping', on a 2 to 4 week basis. This
is one reason that they have a limited lifetime. The deltaV fuel gets used
up due to pertibation of the orbit.
google for
geosync satellite lifetime "station keeping"
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+spr@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Shtyrkov falsified SR? |
30 Apr 2007 09:23:06 PM |
|
|
On Apr 30, 9:44 am, bz <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
[....]
geosync satellite lifetime "station keeping"
Y'know - I had not even considered station keeping.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Shtyrkov falsified SR? |
30 Apr 2007 06:43:09 PM |
|
|
bz wrote:
1) the definition of geosyncronous depends on the satellite being
'stationary' against the backdrop of 'fixed stars'
Not true. In fact, completely wrong. Geosynchronous means just what its
obvious etymology implies -- synchronous with respect to the earth. A
geosynchronous satellite orbits the earth with a period equal to a
sidereal day, so from the rotating earth it appears to be motionless. It
therefore moves in a circle with respect to the fixed stars.
Also, as far as I know, the geosync satellites undergo FREQUENT adjustments
of their exact positions, 'station keeping', on a 2 to 4 week basis. This
is one reason that they have a limited lifetime. The deltaV fuel gets used
up due to pertibation of the orbit.
Yes.
Tom Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Shtyrkov falsified SR? |
30 Apr 2007 07:09:37 PM |
|
|
Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:oavZh.2422$tp5.1155@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net:
bz wrote:
1) the definition of geosyncronous depends on the satellite being
'stationary' against the backdrop of 'fixed stars'
Not true. In fact, completely wrong. Geosynchronous means just what its
obvious etymology implies -- synchronous with respect to the earth. A
geosynchronous satellite orbits the earth with a period equal to a
sidereal day, so from the rotating earth it appears to be motionless. It
therefore moves in a circle with respect to the fixed stars.
You are correct. I was wrong.
Also, as far as I know, the geosync satellites undergo FREQUENT
adjustments of their exact positions, 'station keeping', on a 2 to 4
week basis. This is one reason that they have a limited lifetime. The
deltaV fuel gets used up due to pertibation of the orbit.
Yes.
Tom Roberts
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+spr@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Shtyrkov falsified SR? |
01 May 2007 11:21:25 AM |
|
|
[I have not yet read his paper, and am responding only to what is quoted
below.]
Surfer wrote:
On 30 Apr 2007 09:09:20 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:
The satellite
is an explicitly gravity-influenced environment. The satellite is
experiencing non-inertial motion and is way beyond SR's domain of
applicability.
Every SR experiment that has ever been done on the surface of planet
earth has been done in a "gravity-influenced environment".
Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. The question is not: "is this system
inertial?", but rather: "How large of an error is made if one ignores
gravity and applies SR?"
For a typical tabletop optical experiment on earth, the relevant light
transit times are on the order of 100 ns or less. One could analyze the
system in a freely falling local inertial frame that is at rest relative
to the tabletop when the light is emitted -- during the transit time
such a frame falls by about 5*10^-14 meters, normal to the tabletop [#].
Even the best tabletop interferometers are unable to resolve that, so
the error in using SR is negligible. Note that some tabletop
experiments, such as fiber gyroscopes, can be sensitive enough to be
affected by the earth's rotation -- that is fundamentally different from
the gravitation, and is within SR's domain.
Similar considerations apply to elementary particle experiments
performed on the earth's surface -- the error made by ignoring gravity
and using SR is vastly smaller than the experimental resolutions.
[#] Exercise for the reader: what alternate local inertial
frame could be used to reduce this further? By how much?
If the surface of planet earth is suitable for such experiments, a
geostationary satellite (where gravity is a little weaker!) is surely
no less suitable.
See above. There is no such expectation -- one must COMPUTE how large
the error is.
The motion of such a satellite is exactly the same as if supported by
an imaginary pole.
But the "tabletop" is ENORMOUS....
Exercise for the reader: apply the above analysis to
this situation. Hint: first compute the light travel time.
I repeat: physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. Your guesses are woefully
inadequate. And, of course, REAL geostationary satellites are not nearly
as "fixed" as you seem to think....
Eg Shtyrkov writes:
"For geostationary satellites with small inclination, the force of
radiation pressure from the Sun becomes the main cause of small
diurnal deviation of its geocentric longitude and latitude about the
equilibrium point. The unit vector s specifying this is considered
together with the velocity vectors in order to show time relation
between actual (geometric) and apparent (due to aberration)
contributions to satellite longitude and latitude. "
He seems to have such things well sorted out.
From this quote I am not at all convinced that he has "sorted things
out". In particular, geostationary satellites have no "equilibrium
point", and must be kept on station by using thrusters. But I need to
read his paper....
The only true equilibrium points are L4 and L5; obviously
there are no geostationary satellites there....
However astronomers have long been
able to relate variations of stellar aberration to variations in the
earths orbital velocity. They have been able to do this without
resorting to GR.
Hmmm. In all cases they must "resort" to using some theory, and whatever
theory they use is experimentally indistinguishable from GR for this
situation. So while they (and you) may not realize it, what they do is
_equivalent_ to using GR.
in the case of
stellar aberration, non of the papers I can find seem to use GR.
Of course not! GR is incredibly complicated, and Newtonian mechanics [@]
is much simpler and easier to use. Since they are indistinguishable for
this physical situation, one naturally computes using the simpler
theory. But they are _equivalent_.
[@] or in some cases SR.
Tom Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Shtyrkov falsified SR? |
01 May 2007 11:44:56 AM |
|
|
Tom Roberts wrote:
[I have not yet read his paper, and am responding only to what is quoted
below.]
Surfer wrote:
On 30 Apr 2007 09:09:20 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:
The satellite
is an explicitly gravity-influenced environment. The satellite is
experiencing non-inertial motion and is way beyond SR's domain of
applicability.
Every SR experiment that has ever been done on the surface of planet
earth has been done in a "gravity-influenced environment".
Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. The question is not: "is this system
inertial?", but rather: "How large of an error is made if one ignores
gravity and applies SR?"
For a typical tabletop optical experiment on earth, the relevant light
transit times are on the order of 100 ns or less. One could analyze the
system in a freely falling local inertial frame
Roberts Roberts you will never abandon this red herring. The "freely
falling local inertial frame" is not important Roberts Roberts; it
only confuses your zombies. The important frame was described by your
brother hypnotist Steve Carlip:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/ce3ac7c573c1acb0/38914329d47c551d#38914329d47c551d
"In this passage, Einstein is not talking about a freely falling
frame, but rather about a frame at rest relative to a source of
gravity. In such a frame, the speed of light can differ from c,
basically because of the effect of gravity (spacetime curvature) on
clocks and rulers."
Note Roberts Roberts that the "frame at rest relative to a source of
gravity", if distant enough from the source of gravity, is INERTIAL
Roberts Roberts. Now back to the problem you so hate Roberts Roberts:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/3691dbc83fe748b7/8fd4ced2db7a10e1#8fd4ced2db7a10e1
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Shtyrkov falsified SR? |
30 Apr 2007 10:41:12 AM |
|
|
On Apr 30, 8:30 am, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
On 29 Apr 2007 12:52:50 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
The TITLE of
the paper is "Observation of Ether Drift in Experiments with
Geostationary Satellites*" - Notice the phrase "geostationary
satellites"? That means it is an observation contingent on a
gravitational effect,
That is not really relevant. The positions of satellites can be
calculated to sufficient precision using Newtonian gravity.
Of course this is false. In the original deployment of GPS they tried
that and the trackers were missing by 10m, increasing to 20m,
increasing to...100m, until they realized that they cannot used
Newtonian physics and the switched on the GR and the SR corrections.
Teehee...subtle irony...they measure their position with GPS, a system
built on the assumption that relativity is correct...
Since GPS works in practice, SR and GR are correct so far as the GPS
is concerned.
But so is the following...
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0309016
"It is shown that a new quantum-foam in flow theory of gravity is
mathematically equivalent to the General Relativity theory of gravity
for the operation of the Global Positioning System (GPS)."
Kristy, Kristy
Back to sucking up tho Reg :-) ?
We went over this paper several times, your fresh husband has no clue
how to set up experiments, his detection of "Earth absolute motion" is
a hoax.
Their experimental setup is measuring abberation
of light - and they discovered the Earth's motion around the Sun.
It has long been known that the motion of the earth can be calculated
by measuring the abberation of starlight.
However according to SR, abberation requires relative motion. When
source and receiver are moving together, SR predicts zero abberation.
In Shryrkov's experiment, the satellite and radio telescope were
moving together as a single apparatus. The rotation about the earths
axis would have produced a constant offset, but if SR were corrrect,
no further aberration should have been seen.
Heh,heh, heh
Must be that Shitikov is taking lessons from Reg Cahill in terms of
how to falsify experiments. If Reg can do it why couldn't Shitikov?
Note that publisher? "NPA" (Natural Philosophy Alliance)? This is the
seal of approval of crackpottery.
Instead, the observed aberration was sufficiently large to allow
calculation of the earths orbital velocity.
Of course, Shitikov faked the results just the same way your dear
husband did in his "paper"
It looks like a significant experiment with relevance to SR. It would
be good to get some expert opinions about it.
-- Surfer
The expert opinion is that you are now sucking up to two crackpots
instead of one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Surfer" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Shtyrkov falsified SR? |
30 Apr 2007 11:38:09 AM |
|
|
On 30 Apr 2007 08:41:12 -0700, wrote:
On Apr 30, 8:30 am, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
On 29 Apr 2007 12:52:50 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
... The positions of satellites can be
calculated to sufficient precision using Newtonian gravity.
Of course this is false. In the original deployment of GPS they tried
that and the trackers were missing by 10m, increasing to 20m,
increasing to...100m, until they realized that they cannot used
Newtonian physics and the switched on the GR and the SR corrections.
From:
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/node10.html
The difference between proper distance and coordinate distance, and
between the earth's surface and the radius of GPS satellites, is
approximately 6.3 mm.
-- Surfer
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Shtyrkov falsified SR? |
30 Apr 2007 11:51:47 AM |
|
|
On Apr 30, 8:41 am, wrote:
<continuing weaseling snipped>
You are looking at SECOND order effects. Why don't you scroll up and
look at FIRST order effects:
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/node5.html
This is what I was talking about when I pointed out the large errors
that would occur in GPS if SR/GR were neglected. GPS does NOT operate
without considering SR/GR. It is BASED on SR/GR.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Surfer" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Shtyrkov falsified SR? |
30 Apr 2007 12:57:15 PM |
|
|
On 30 Apr 2007 09:51:47 -0700, wrote:
You are looking at SECOND order effects. Why don't you scroll up and
look at FIRST order effects:
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/node5.html
This is what I was talking about when I pointed out the large errors
that would occur in GPS if SR/GR were neglected. GPS does NOT operate
without considering SR/GR. It is BASED on SR/GR.
Yes I appreciate that. SR/GR have been very useful theories.
-- Surfer
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Shtyrkov falsified SR? |
30 Apr 2007 01:28:26 PM |
|
|
On Apr 30, 10:57 am, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
On 30 Apr 2007 09:51:47 -0700, wrote:
You are looking at SECOND order effects. Why don't you scroll up and
look at FIRST order effects:
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashb...
This is what I was talking about when I pointed out the large errors
that would occur in GPS if SR/GR were neglected. GPS does NOT operate
without considering SR/GR. It is BASED on SR/GR.
Yes I appreciate that. SR/GR have been very useful theories.
-- Surfer
then why do you keep trying to ***** around with it based on forgeries?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Surfer" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Shtyrkov falsified SR? |
01 May 2007 03:03:14 AM |
|
|
On 30 Apr 2007 11:28:26 -0700, wrote:
On Apr 30, 10:57 am, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
On 30 Apr 2007 09:51:47 -0700, wrote:
You are looking at SECOND order effects. Why don't you scroll up and
look at FIRST order effects:
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashb...
This is what I was talking about when I pointed out the large errors
that would occur in GPS if SR/GR were neglected. GPS does NOT operate
without considering SR/GR. It is BASED on SR/GR.
Yes I appreciate that. SR/GR have been very useful theories.
-- Surfer
then why do you keep trying to ***** around with it based on forgeries?
Why so you want to pretend that a very useful theory, that is now
nearly a century old, perfectly models physical reality?
I am very happy that SR and GR model physical reality very well in
their domain of applicablity.
However, to believe that they perfectly model physical reality, you
would have to be a mathematical idealist.
Is that how you see yourself?
-- Surfer
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Shtyrkov falsified SR? |
02 May 2007 10:09:07 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics.relativity, Surfer
<surfer@no.spam.net>
wrote
on Tue, 01 May 2007 17:33:14 +0930
<cvrd33lh7th3tbtf9hvj16hp2kumgi8dnq@4ax.com>:
On 30 Apr 2007 11:28:26 -0700, wrote:
On Apr 30, 10:57 am, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
On 30 Apr 2007 09:51:47 -0700, wrote:
You are looking at SECOND order effects. Why don't you scroll up and
look at FIRST order effects:
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashb...
This is what I was talking about when I pointed out the large errors
that would occur in GPS if SR/GR were neglected. GPS does NOT operate
without considering SR/GR. It is BASED on SR/GR.
Yes I appreciate that. SR/GR have been very useful theories.
-- Surfer
then why do you keep trying to ***** around with it based on forgeries?
Why so you want to pretend that a very useful theory, that is now
nearly a century old, perfectly models physical reality?
It doesn't. Quantum Mechanics is occasionally used to fill in some
of the gaps at the microlevel.
I am very happy that SR and GR model physical reality very well in
their domain of applicablity.
However, to believe that they perfectly model physical reality, you
would have to be a mathematical idealist.
Is that how you see yourself?
25 places of pi are enough to calculate a circular orbit
1 AU out to the precision of a proton.
-- Surfer
--
#191,
Is it cheaper to learn Linux, or to hire someone
to fix your Windows problems?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Shtyrkov falsified SR? |
01 May 2007 02:07:33 PM |
|
|
On May 1, 1:03 am, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
On 30 Apr 2007 11:28:26 -0700, wrote:
On Apr 30, 10:57 am, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
On 30 Apr 2007 09:51:47 -0700, wrote:
You are looking at SECOND order effects. Why don't you scroll up and
look at FIRST order effects:
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashb...
This is what I was talking about when I pointed out the large errors
that would occur in GPS if SR/GR were neglected. GPS does NOT operate
without considering SR/GR. It is BASED on SR/GR.
Yes I appreciate that. SR/GR have been very useful theories.
-- Surfer
then why do you keep trying to ***** around with it based on forgeries?
Why so you want to pretend that a very useful theory, that is now
nearly a century old, perfectly models physical reality?
No, I am just exposing you as a unrepenting crackpot. Far from me to
pass judgement on SR, I am just exposing you as a retard that wants us
to go back to aether theory. This is all you do, you dredge the
internet for fakeries that support your point.
<irrelevant weaseling snipped>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Surfer" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Shtyrkov falsified SR? |
30 Apr 2007 12:27:29 PM |
|
|
On 30 Apr 2007 09:51:47 -0700, wrote:
On Apr 30, 8:41 am, wrote:
<continuing weaseling snipped>
You are looking at SECOND order effects. Why don't you scroll up and
look at FIRST order effects:
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/node5.html
This is what I was talking about when I pointed out the large errors
that would occur in GPS if SR/GR were neglected. GPS does NOT operate
without considering SR/GR. It is BASED on SR/GR.
Thats all about corrections that need to be made to atomic clocks in
GPS satellites.
These are not relevant to Shtyrkov's experiment. All he needs to know
is the position of the geostationary satellite (height, latitude,
longitude).
The anglular difference between that and the apparent position
(observed with the telescope) tells him the aberration.
-- Surfer
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
