| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Keith Stein" |
| Date: |
13 May 2004 01:33:44 PM |
| Object: |
That's the one i'd choose eh! |
Frames of reference exist only in the mind, and although
they can be represented on a map, we all know they ain't
really there eh! So frames of reference can be any shape
we choose. Could be Einstein's curved Space-Time, or
the flat Galilean 3D Space with Newton's Universal Time.
keith stein
.
|
|
| User: "Keith Stein" |
|
| Title: Re: That's the one i'd choose eh! |
14 May 2004 06:50:40 AM |
|
|
"Keith Stein" wrote
Frames of reference exist only in the mind, and although
they can be represented on a map, we all know they ain't
really there eh! So frames of reference can be any shape
we choose. Could be Einstein's curved Space-Time, or
the flat Galilean 3D Space with Newton's Universal Time.
Michael Weiss <in the Physics FAQ> writes:
" Relativity here pays the price of permissiveness. It says to us,
"Pick whichever frame you like to describe your results, or
use spacetime diagrams and don't choose a reference frame at all.
They're all equivalent......"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keith Stein" |
|
| Title: Re: That's the one i'd choose eh! |
15 May 2004 06:37:08 PM |
|
|
"Keith Stein" <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:go2pc.259$J_7.107@front-1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Keith Stein" wrote
Re: That's the one i'd choose eh!
Frames of reference exist only in the mind, and although
they can be represented on a map, we all know they ain't
really there eh! So frames of reference can be any shape
we choose. Could be Einstein's curved Space-Time, or
the flat Galilean 3D Space with Newton's Universal Time.
That's the one i'd choose eh!
Michael Weiss <in the Physics FAQ> writes:
" Relativity here pays the price of permissiveness. It says to us,
"Pick whichever frame you like to describe your results, or
use spacetime diagrams and don't choose a reference frame at all.
They're all equivalent......"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: That's the one i'd choose eh! |
13 May 2004 05:12:50 PM |
|
|
"Keith Stein" <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9cPoc.7169$h87.1657@front-1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Frames of reference exist only in the mind, and although
they can be represented on a map, we all know they ain't
really there eh! So frames of reference can be any shape
we choose. Could be Einstein's curved Space-Time, or
the flat Galilean 3D Space with Newton's Universal Time.
Euclid got first dibs on flat geomtery. Trying navigating the globe with
it ...eh.
Phil Holman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keith Stein" |
|
| Title: Re: That's the one i'd choose eh! |
14 May 2004 05:11:28 AM |
|
|
"Phil Holman" <philjud@earthlink.not> wrote in message
news:CpSoc.19160$Hs1.2011@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Keith Stein" <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9cPoc.7169$h87.1657@front-1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Frames of reference exist only in the mind, and although
they can be represented on a map, we all know they ain't
really there eh! So frames of reference can be any shape
we choose. Could be Einstein's curved Space-Time, or
the flat Galilean 3D Space with Newton's Universal Time.
Euclid got first dibs on flat geomtery. Trying navigating the globe with
it ...eh.
If you think it is "trying" using Euclidian geometry, Mr.Holman
can i suggest you try using Einstein's curved Space-Time
to navigate the globe eh! :-)
keith stein
Phil Holman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: That's the one i'd choose eh! |
14 May 2004 01:17:01 PM |
|
|
"Keith Stein" <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<hX0pc.236$J_7.18@front-1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
"Phil Holman" <philjud@earthlink.not> wrote in message
news:CpSoc.19160$Hs1.2011@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Keith Stein" <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9cPoc.7169$h87.1657@front-1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Frames of reference exist only in the mind, and although
they can be represented on a map, we all know they ain't
really there eh! So frames of reference can be any shape
we choose. Could be Einstein's curved Space-Time, or
the flat Galilean 3D Space with Newton's Universal Time.
Euclid got first dibs on flat geomtery. Try navigating the globe with
it ...eh.
If you think it is "trying" using Euclidian geometry, Mr.Holman
can i suggest you try using Einstein's curved Space-Time
to navigate the globe eh! :-)
I certainly don't need that level of accuracy at the speed I travel
but then this justs leads into your favorite topic. UA is making
*forward progress* towards an answer to his, what about yours eh?
Phil Holman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keith Stein" |
|
| Title: Re: That's the one i'd choose eh! |
14 May 2004 01:39:48 PM |
|
|
"Phil Holman" <philjud@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7a4a1cb1.0405141017.45c11fc2@posting.google.com...
"Keith Stein" <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<hX0pc.236$J_7.18@front-1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
"Phil Holman" <philjud@earthlink.not> wrote in message
news:CpSoc.19160$Hs1.2011@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Keith Stein" <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9cPoc.7169$h87.1657@front-1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Frames of reference exist only in the mind, and although
they can be represented on a map, we all know they ain't
really there eh! So frames of reference can be any shape
we choose. Could be Einstein's curved Space-Time, or
the flat Galilean 3D Space with Newton's Universal Time.
Euclid got first dibs on flat geomtery. Try navigating the globe with
it ...eh.
If you think it is "trying" using Euclidian geometry, Mr.Holman
can i suggest you try using Einstein's curved Space-Time
to navigate the globe eh! :-)
I certainly don't need that level of accuracy at the speed I travel
but then this justs leads into your favorite topic. UA is making
*forward progress* towards an answer to his, what about yours eh?
Phil Holman
My answer Mr Holman is that sometimes in order to make progress
it is necessary to go back. Relativity is a dead end.......
Physics needs to go back to Maxwell....
"A Medium Necessary" eh!
keith stein
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: That's the one i'd choose eh! |
13 May 2004 04:09:07 PM |
|
|
Keith Stein wrote:
Frames of reference exist only in the mind,
[snip]
1) Gravity Probe B
2) Any accelerometer - gyro, pendulum, silicon microcantilever,
laser ring.
3) You are an empirical idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keith Stein" |
|
| Title: Re: That's the one i'd choose eh! |
14 May 2004 05:48:57 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:40A3E3F3.E83F4344@hate.spam.net...
Keith Stein wrote:
Frames of reference exist only in the mind,
[snip]
1) Gravity Probe B
If NASA wants to check on the accuracy of Einstein's
theories of relativity then
this is what they should do Uncle:
1. Synchronise two clocks
2. Take one to the International Space Station.
3. D days later take up the other.
4. Compare the two clocks on the ISS.
2) Any accelerometer - gyro, pendulum, silicon microcantilever,
laser ring.
NO accelerometer - gyro, pendulum, silicon microcantilever,
laser ring, EVER FOUND your " Frame of reference " Uncle,
or mine eh! :-)
3) You are an empirical idiot
And you Uncle
keith stein
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: That's the one i'd choose eh! |
15 May 2004 11:00:25 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Keith Stein
<ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote
on Fri, 14 May 2004 11:48:57 +0100
<pu1pc.244$J_7.177@front-1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:40A3E3F3.E83F4344@hate.spam.net...
Keith Stein wrote:
Frames of reference exist only in the mind,
[snip]
1) Gravity Probe B
If NASA wants to check on the accuracy of Einstein's
theories of relativity then
this is what they should do Uncle:
1. Synchronise two clocks
2. Take one to the International Space Station.
3. D days later take up the other.
4. Compare the two clocks on the ISS.
And what would that show that's different from the required
adjustments on GPS satellites today?
2) Any accelerometer - gyro, pendulum, silicon microcantilever,
laser ring.
NO accelerometer - gyro, pendulum, silicon microcantilever,
laser ring, EVER FOUND your " Frame of reference " Uncle,
or mine eh! :-)
Frames of reference cannot be found. They are hypothetical concepts
to explain real-world observations.
[rest snipped]
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keith Stein" |
|
| Title: Re: That's the one i'd choose eh! |
15 May 2004 02:56:06 PM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:p5phn1-nm5.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
In sci.physics, Keith Stein
<ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote
on Fri, 14 May 2004 11:48:57 +0100
<pu1pc.244$J_7.177@front-1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:40A3E3F3.E83F4344@hate.spam.net...
Keith Stein wrote:
Frames of reference exist only in the mind,
[snip]
1) Gravity Probe B
If NASA wants to check on the accuracy of Einstein's
theories of relativity then
this is what they should do Uncle:
1. Synchronise two clocks
2. Take one to the International Space Station.
3. D days later take up the other.
4. Compare the two clocks on the ISS.
And what would that show that's different from the required
adjustments on GPS satellites today?
I don't doubt that it would show that the two clocks had no significant
difference in elapsed time, which would show that claimed relativistic
time dilations are *****, which they obviously are, since their
derivations are ***** eh!
2) Any accelerometer - gyro, pendulum, silicon microcantilever,
laser ring.
NO accelerometer - gyro, pendulum, silicon microcantilever,
laser ring, EVER FOUND your " Frame of reference " Uncle,
or mine eh! :-)
Frames of reference cannot be found. They are hypothetical concepts
to explain real-world observations.
That's what i said:
" Frames of reference exist only in the mind "
keith stein
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: That's the one i'd choose eh! |
16 May 2004 03:01:45 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Keith Stein
<ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote
on Sat, 15 May 2004 20:56:06 +0100
<jBupc.500$n42.190@nurse.blueyonder.net>:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:p5phn1-nm5.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
In sci.physics, Keith Stein
<ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote
on Fri, 14 May 2004 11:48:57 +0100
<pu1pc.244$J_7.177@front-1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:40A3E3F3.E83F4344@hate.spam.net...
Keith Stein wrote:
Frames of reference exist only in the mind,
[snip]
1) Gravity Probe B
If NASA wants to check on the accuracy of Einstein's
theories of relativity then
this is what they should do Uncle:
1. Synchronise two clocks
2. Take one to the International Space Station.
3. D days later take up the other.
4. Compare the two clocks on the ISS.
And what would that show that's different from the required
adjustments on GPS satellites today?
I don't doubt that it would show that the two clocks had no significant
difference in elapsed time, which would show that claimed relativistic
time dilations are *****, which they obviously are, since their
derivations are ***** eh!
So why do the GPS units have to be detuned in order to properly operate?
2) Any accelerometer - gyro, pendulum, silicon microcantilever,
laser ring.
NO accelerometer - gyro, pendulum, silicon microcantilever,
laser ring, EVER FOUND your " Frame of reference " Uncle,
or mine eh! :-)
Frames of reference cannot be found. They are hypothetical concepts
to explain real-world observations.
That's what i said:
" Frames of reference exist only in the mind "
keith stein
And you're right, for that particular subproblem. Of course, there
is the little issue of getting the frame right for the actual
measurement.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keith Stein" |
|
| Title: Re: That's the one i'd choose eh! |
16 May 2004 04:18:51 AM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:207jn1-e86.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
In sci.physics, Keith Stein
<ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote
on Sat, 15 May 2004 20:56:06 +0100
<jBupc.500$n42.190@nurse.blueyonder.net>:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:p5phn1-nm5.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
In sci.physics, Keith Stein
<ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote
on Fri, 14 May 2004 11:48:57 +0100
<pu1pc.244$J_7.177@front-1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:40A3E3F3.E83F4344@hate.spam.net...
Keith Stein wrote:
Frames of reference exist only in the mind,
[snip]
1) Gravity Probe B
If NASA wants to check on the accuracy of Einstein's
theories of relativity then
this is what they should do Uncle:
1. Synchronise two clocks
2. Take one to the International Space Station.
3. D days later take up the other.
4. Compare the two clocks on the ISS.
And what would that show that's different from the required
adjustments on GPS satellites today?
I don't doubt that it would show that the two clocks had no significant
difference in elapsed time, which would show that claimed relativistic
time dilations are *****, which they obviously are, since their
derivations are ***** eh!
So why do the GPS units have to be detuned in order to properly operate?
The GPS clocks are NOT PERFECT, and indeed the proper operation of the
GPS does NOT REQUIRE PERFECT CLOCKS. For the GPS utilises 'feedback'
so that if the coordinates of Paris start to drift up towards London say,
then
GPS operating software can be relied on to put in the appropriate correction
factor
to bring Paris back to it's proper place eh!
No relativity needed for GPS to operate properly, Ghost, just a bit of
feedback eh!
keith stein
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: That's the one i'd choose eh! |
16 May 2004 03:00:11 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Keith Stein
<ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote
on Sun, 16 May 2004 10:18:51 +0100
<SlGpc.9130$J_7.4301@front-1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:207jn1-e86.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
In sci.physics, Keith Stein
<ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote
on Sat, 15 May 2004 20:56:06 +0100
<jBupc.500$n42.190@nurse.blueyonder.net>:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:p5phn1-nm5.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
In sci.physics, Keith Stein
<ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote
on Fri, 14 May 2004 11:48:57 +0100
<pu1pc.244$J_7.177@front-1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:40A3E3F3.E83F4344@hate.spam.net...
Keith Stein wrote:
Frames of reference exist only in the mind,
[snip]
1) Gravity Probe B
If NASA wants to check on the accuracy of Einstein's
theories of relativity then
this is what they should do Uncle:
1. Synchronise two clocks
2. Take one to the International Space Station.
3. D days later take up the other.
4. Compare the two clocks on the ISS.
And what would that show that's different from the required
adjustments on GPS satellites today?
I don't doubt that it would show that the two clocks had no significant
difference in elapsed time, which would show that claimed relativistic
time dilations are *****, which they obviously are, since their
derivations are ***** eh!
So why do the GPS units have to be detuned in order to properly operate?
The GPS clocks are NOT PERFECT, and indeed the proper operation of the
GPS does NOT REQUIRE PERFECT CLOCKS.
For every nanosecond of variance one gets 30 cm of inaccuracy. They'd
better be darned good clocks.
For the GPS utilises 'feedback' so that if the coordinates of Paris
start to drift up towards London say, then GPS operating software can
be relied on to put in the appropriate correction factor
to bring Paris back to it's proper place eh!
No relativity needed for GPS to operate properly, Ghost, just a bit of
feedback eh!
Correct, no relativitity *required*. However, it *is* observed.
(Or would be if synchronization weren't done every hour.)
As it is, the clocks on the satellites are deliberately detuned
to 10.22999999545 MHz for some reason, so that ground-based receivers
will receive at 10.23 MHz -- a delta of 0.00455 Hz. Can you explain why?
A detuned clock will introduce a systemic error; this systemic error
will increase as time goes on, if not corrected. After an hour, just
before resynchronization, the detuned clock will have pulsed
36827999983.62 times, whereas the accurate clock will have pulsed
36828000000.00 times. That's about 16.38 pulses -- or 1.6 microseconds
or 4.8 km.
It is all well and good to synchronize every hour, but it's clear
that, absent the relativistic correction, it's not enough to
guarantee 10-foot (10 ns) ground-based positional accuracy.
keith stein
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Keith Stein" |
|
| Title: Re: That's the one i'd choose eh! |
16 May 2004 04:25:29 AM |
|
|
Of course, there
is the little issue of getting the frame right for the actual
measurement.
"Keith Stein" wrote
Frames of reference exist only in the mind, and although
they can be represented on a map, we all know they ain't
really there eh! So frames of reference can be any shape
we choose. Could be Einstein's curved Space-Time, or
the flat Galilean 3D Space with Newton's Universal Time.
Michael Weiss <in the Physics FAQ> writes:
" Relativity here pays the price of permissiveness. It says to us,
"Pick whichever frame you like to describe your results, or
use spacetime diagrams and don't choose a reference frame at all.
They're all equivalent......"
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:207jn1-e86.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
In sci.physics, Keith Stein
<ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote
on Sat, 15 May 2004 20:56:06 +0100
<jBupc.500$n42.190@nurse.blueyonder.net>:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:p5phn1-nm5.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
In sci.physics, Keith Stein
<ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote
on Fri, 14 May 2004 11:48:57 +0100
<pu1pc.244$J_7.177@front-1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:40A3E3F3.E83F4344@hate.spam.net...
Keith Stein wrote:
Frames of reference exist only in the mind,
[snip]
2) Any accelerometer - gyro, pendulum, silicon microcantilever,
laser ring.
NO accelerometer - gyro, pendulum, silicon microcantilever,
laser ring, EVER FOUND your " Frame of reference " Uncle,
or mine eh! :-)
Frames of reference cannot be found. They are hypothetical concepts
to explain real-world observations.
That's what i said:
" Frames of reference exist only in the mind "
keith stein
And you're right, for that particular subproblem. Of course, there
is the little issue of getting the frame right for the actual
measurement.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
HELP SMITHSONIAN CHOOSE ITS NEW LOGO -- Based on Its Scientific Integrity --
Why choose 1 as the standard?
---> VOTING UPDATE <--- HELP SMITHSONIAN CHOOSE A BRAND-NEW LOGO -- Based on Its Scientific Integrity -- Evolution -- Why, I'll Be a Uncle's Monkey!
Quantum Gravity 133.6: Why The Universe Would Choose a "Preferred Direction"
Quantum Gravity Via Expansion-Contraction 61.0: Why to Choose PI vs Nonstandard Analysis, Feynman Sum-Over-Paths vs Stat Mech
TIME DILATION AND EINSTEIN'S FREEDOM TO CHOOSE
The Outrageous Pretension that Physicists Comprehend the One and Only Possible Universe
Re: Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life: no one can come to the Father(God)(in Heaven), but by me." (John 14:6) This means that if you die without trusting in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour you will die in your sins and be foreve
| Moving Dimensions Theory!! Rock On!! Realizing this might have lead one of them to see that the fourth dimension is expanding at a rate of c relative to the three spatial dimensions.
Re: Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life: no one can come to the Father(God)(in Heaven), but by me." (John 14:6) This means that if you die without trusting in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour you will die in your sins and be foreve
One Of The Solutions That Might Prevent Hurricanes - Smart1234
Re: The Outrageous Pretension that Physicists Comprehend the One and Only Possible Universe
Re: Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life: no one can come to the Father(God)(in Heaven), but by me." (John 14:6) This means that if you die without trusting in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour you will die in your sins and be foreve
Re: Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life: no one can come to the Father(God)(in Heaven), but by me." (John 14:6) This means that if you die without trusting in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour you will die in your sins and be foreve
Your message is off topic in all but one of the newsgroups you've cross-posted to. If the Usenet participants wanted to read your spam they'd go to an appropriate newsgroup. If they're not reading you in a religious newsgroup that means they're not
|
|
|
