Education Forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:22 pm Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
 |
|
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 05:35:25 -0700 (PDT), Eric Gisse
<jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 15, 10:35 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
"Odysseus" <odysseus1479...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote in message
news:odysseus1479-at-807A1B.20280215072008@news.telus.net...
| In article <rcgo74tt2u118cun89bku36qquvcne0...@4ax.com>,
| hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat wrote:
|
| <snip
|
| > Take out the speedometer from your car,
| > paint the windows black,
| > (let somebody drive or remote control the vehicle)
|
| > Then tell me how you determine your speed.
|
| From the volume & frequency distributions of the engine, wind & road
| sounds?
|
Much easier than that, Inertial Navigation has been around for years.
Three accelerometers, integrate to get speed, integrate speed to get
position. Nowadays the GPS does it all for you, saving you the
trouble. That's typical Wabnigga, can't see past the end of his nose.
Androcles doesn't know the difference between inertial navigation and
the global positioning system. The list of things Androcles does not
know is pretty impressive.
|
Andro is right with integrating accelerometers,
only the original poster did not know.
w. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Eric Gisse
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:33 pm Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On Jul 16, 7:22 am, hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat wrote:
| Quote: |
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 05:35:25 -0700 (PDT), Eric Gisse
jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 15, 10:35 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
"Odysseus" <odysseus1479...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote in message
news:odysseus1479-at-807A1B.20280215072008@news.telus.net...
| In article <rcgo74tt2u118cun89bku36qquvcne0...@4ax.com>,
| hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat wrote:
|
| <snip
|
| > Take out the speedometer from your car,
| > paint the windows black,
| > (let somebody drive or remote control the vehicle)
|
| > Then tell me how you determine your speed.
|
| From the volume & frequency distributions of the engine, wind & road
| sounds?
|
Much easier than that, Inertial Navigation has been around for years.
Three accelerometers, integrate to get speed, integrate speed to get
position. Nowadays the GPS does it all for you, saving you the
trouble. That's typical Wabnigga, can't see past the end of his nose.
Androcles doesn't know the difference between inertial navigation and
the global positioning system. The list of things Androcles does not
know is pretty impressive.
Andro is right with integrating accelerometers,
|
Yes, but that's not how GPS works.
| Quote: |
only the original poster did not know.
w. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Golden California Girls
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:06 pm Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
Odysseus wrote:
| Quote: |
In article <rcgo74tt2u118cun89bku36qquvcne0tj4@4ax.com>,
hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat wrote:
snip
Take out the speedometer from your car,
paint the windows black,
(let somebody drive or remote control the vehicle)
Then tell me how you determine your speed.
From the volume & frequency distributions of the engine, wind & road
sounds?
|
Gyroscope and integrate. Childs play. Most every aircraft has one, they call
it INS. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
BURT
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:12 pm Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On Jul 14, 10:23 pm, hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 20:29:09 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com
wrote:
- Show quoted text -
Relativity is a failure. It is just an appearence theory.
Each object has its own motion through space. It is not absolutely
necessary to appeal to something external to discover your motion
through space.
Acceleration creates motion. A clock and a scale can measure your
acceleration and therefore your final motion. Motion is detectable at
the point of its creation.
MItch Raemsch
Take out the speedometer from your car,
paint the windows black,
(let somebody drive or remote control the vehicle)
Then tell me how you determine your speed.
w.
--
German "Ramsch" = junk
|
Even if your enclosed in a box you can determine your change in
motion.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Androcles
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:57 am Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b97d57dc-58d5-4a21-99df-d21d46d8aeda@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 16, 1:07 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e670bbf2-5d0b-4bd0-abf4-d4d8555f32fd@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 14, 4:53 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 14, 4:02 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Why is SR still controversial?
It's no more controversial than evolution or the Apollo moon landing.
I cannot dispute evolution with logical argument, but SR can be
strongly invalidated by the twin’s paradox, and the Apollo moon
landing hoax can easily be exposed by examining the amount of
radiation from the Van Allen Belts to the moon.
There are ALWAYS people who are more willing to believe in conspiracy,
even if it makes no real sense to do so.
It is a cheap shot conjuring up the conspiracy accusation. <shrug
The same argument can be applied to your conspiracy whenever you do
not believe in a certain God. <shrug
It should ALWAYS be subject to empirical test. And it is, still today.
Yes, however these empirical tests should be performed without bias.
Is that too much to ask?
A related question is
Why do SR proponents often react violently?
I think you confuse violence with scorn.
I think you are not aware of the same religious inquisition during the
renaissance. Back then, if you do not believe in the God proclaimed
by the State, you will be physically prosecuted. Today, if you are an
academics find fallacy in SR, you are ridiculed to where you will not
achieve anymore advancement in your career.
Scorn is directed at those who
- are not aware of the bulk of the experimental work that has been
done to date, and are too lazy to look it up;
How about the ones who are too lazy to understand these experiments?
- think that falsifiability of a scientific theory can be satisfied
with confrontation with common sense;
Yes, that should be the case. Somehow, the twin’s paradox fell
through the crack. Oops!
- confuse complete lack of understanding of what special relativity
actually says with legitimate grounds for doubt.
What SR preaches is very elementary. It is somewhat embarrassing that
the academics have failed to understand that in 100 years.
Fortunately, all three of these grounds for scorn are readily
corrected.
No, it is not easy to go against the state religion. Have you not
paying any attention to history?
Further scorn is heaped upon those who show no interest in
correcting them.
Yes, indeed. The ones who BELIEVE IN SR do not even try to UNDERSTAND
SR. <shrug
Of course, that brings up the Orwellian education one again where:
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** FAITH IS THEORY
** LYING IS TEACHING
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
All of the above apply very appropriately to Aether.
|
In your dreams. <shrug>
All of your aetherial dreams are pipe dreams (opium, marijuana or crack).
I'd shrug but
it would be wasted on a fuckhead who has no clue how Sagnac works. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Eric Gisse
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 1:52 am Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On Jul 16, 5:37 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.org> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 13:59:34 -0700 (PDT), Burger
d...@count.com> wrote:
On Jul 14, 10:32 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.org> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 04:27:53 -0700 (PDT), Eric Gisse
jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 14, 1:02 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
[Luttgens]
Why is SR still controversial?
[Eric Gisse]
It isn't. The scientific community accepted SR decades ago.
[Hammond]
Correct Eric!
[Eric Gisse]
Don't confuse people who don't understand relativity [you] for the
existence of an actual controversy.
[Hammond]
Correct again Eric!
[Hammond]
The reason it is "controversial" is because Relativity is
the root scientific mechanism of the common perceptual
phenomena known as "God" (Hammond 2003).
[Burger]
No, [Hammond 2oo3] was brain growth deficit, SPoG
[Hammond]
No, the "brain growth deficit" is the [...]
|
....rantings of a crazy person. How long has it been since you were
last committed, George? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Tom Roberts
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:06 am Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
Raghar wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 15, 4:44 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
On Jul 15, 6:20 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
For example, the GPS uses the Earth Centered Inertial Frame, which is
accurately inertial in the region near the earth (clocks are corrected
for their altitudes). The success of the GPS shows that this is a valid
approximation. But don't try to use the GPS to measure positions of
lunar or solar probes.
[...]
So GPS is not a proof of a SR.
|
You don't understand how the GPS _ACTUALLY_ works. Yes, you might in
principle be able to design a system that has some features in common
with the GPS without using relativity. But without various relativistic
corrections you would have a VERY difficult engineering problem to
distribute ENORMOUS corrections throughout the system.
The actual GPS did use GR in its design, and does include relativistic
corrections in its software. As result, the daily corrections uploaded
to satellites are small (typically a few ns per day, dominated by clock
drift).
Besides, I was not using this as "proof" of SR (which is, of course,
impossible). I was using this as an example of a system for which the
APPROXIMATION of a locally inertial frame is valid (responding to
Luttgens's claim that such frames don't exist).
Tom Roberts |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Androcles
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:15 am Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:0jufk.5083$np7.4098@flpi149.ffdc.sbc.com...
| Raghar wrote:
| > On Jul 15, 4:44 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
| >> mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
| >>> On Jul 15, 6:20 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
| >> For example, the GPS uses the Earth Centered Inertial Frame, which is
| >> accurately inertial in the region near the earth (clocks are corrected
| >> for their altitudes). The success of the GPS shows that this is a valid
| >> approximation. But don't try to use the GPS to measure positions of
| >> lunar or solar probes.
| > [...]
| > So GPS is not a proof of a SR.
|
| You don't understand how the GPS _ACTUALLY_ works.
HAHAHAHA!
Roberts calling the kettle black!
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
George Hammond
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:37 am Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 13:59:34 -0700 (PDT), Burger
<dti8@count.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 14, 10:32 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.org> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 04:27:53 -0700 (PDT), Eric Gisse
jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 14, 1:02 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
[Luttgens]
Why is SR still controversial?
[Eric Gisse]
It isn't. The scientific community accepted SR decades ago.
[Hammond]
Correct Eric!
[Eric Gisse]
Don't confuse people who don't understand relativity [you] for the
existence of an actual controversy.
[Hammond]
Correct again Eric!
[Hammond]
The reason it is "controversial" is because Relativity is
the root scientific mechanism of the common perceptual
phenomena known as "God" (Hammond 2003).
[Burger]
No, [Hammond 2oo3] was brain growth deficit, SPoG
[Hammond] |
No, the "brain growth deficit" is the SOURCE TERM in the
field equation describing GOD as a curvature of SUBJECTIVE
SPACETIME:
GOD = G_uv = k (brain growth deficit) [Hammond, 2003]
this is mathematically isomorphic to Einstein's equation
describing the curvature of OBJECTIVE SPACETIME::
GRAVITY = Guv = k (mass density) [Einstein, 1915]
Therefore:
1. God is scientifically proven to exist.
2. The Biblical God is proven to be Relativistic..
3. God is a curvature of "subjective" spacetime.
4. God has been measured to 3 significant figures.
5. All of the miracles reported in the Bible are true.
| Quote: |
The root scientific mechanism of the common perceptual
phenomena known as "God" is [Hammond 2007], CPPKaG
The "controversy" arises because the defenders of
Relativity DON'T HAVE A CLUE that this is so, while the
adversaries of Relativity are hysterical least their worst
fears be realized...... which turns out to be the case.
|
[Hammond]
Shrug, shudder, ....yawn....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Eric Gisse
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:52 am Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On Jul 16, 7:43 pm, Odysseus <odysseus1479...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote:
| Quote: |
In article
d83a66b4-695f-41ee-a7b0-34cd8f3ad...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 15, 6:28 pm, Odysseus <odysseus1479...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote:
In article <rcgo74tt2u118cun89bku36qquvcne0...@4ax.com>,
hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat wrote:
snip
Take out the speedometer from your car,
paint the windows black,
(let somebody drive or remote control the vehicle)
Then tell me how you determine your speed.
From the volume & frequency distributions of the engine, wind & road
sounds?
The correct answer is "you can't".
Sure I could: since my car has a standard transmission, I'm in the habit
of paying attention to such things. Put me in someone else's car,
though, and I'd be at a loss.
--
Odysseus
|
...and that's the only reason you can tell: through engine noises.
There is no physical difference between a frame traveling at an
arbitrary but constant speed, and a frame at rest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Mitch Raemsch
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:54 am Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On Jul 16, 9:54 pm, "Tom Potter" <t...@hotsheet.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:d2c65f43-4bd2-480f-8d18-866efafa8dcc@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 15, 10:35 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
"Odysseus" <odysseus1479...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote in message
news:odysseus1479-at-807A1B.20280215072008@news.telus.net...
| In article <rcgo74tt2u118cun89bku36qquvcne0...@4ax.com>,
| hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat wrote:
|
| <snip
|
| > Take out the speedometer from your car,
| > paint the windows black,
| > (let somebody drive or remote control the vehicle)
|
| > Then tell me how you determine your speed.
|
| From the volume & frequency distributions of the engine, wind & road
| sounds?
|
Much easier than that, Inertial Navigation has been around for years.
Three accelerometers, integrate to get speed, integrate speed to get
position. Nowadays the GPS does it all for you, saving you the
trouble. That's typical Wabnigga, can't see past the end of his nose.
Androcles doesn't know the difference between inertial navigation and
the global positioning system. The list of things Androcles does not
know is pretty impressive.
What are you implying here Gisse?
Considering that:
"The list of things <Mentally healthy people recognize that they
do no tknow is pretty impressive.",
Are you implying that what you and God
don't know is nominal?
Have you talked to a professional about this?
--
Tom Potter
http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.htmlhttp://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.comhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.comhttp://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotoshttp://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
The station doesn't feel any weight as the train comes to it by
accelerating through space.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Mitch Raemsch
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:21 am Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On Jul 16, 9:06 am, Golden California Girls <gldncag...@aol.com.mil>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Odysseus wrote:
In article <rcgo74tt2u118cun89bku36qquvcne0...@4ax.com>,
hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat wrote:
snip
Take out the speedometer from your car,
paint the windows black,
(let somebody drive or remote control the vehicle)
Then tell me how you determine your speed.
|
You need to measure your acceleration that created your speed. It is
that simple.
| Quote: |
From the volume & frequency distributions of the engine, wind & road
sounds?
Gyroscope and integrate. Childs play. Most every aircraft has one, they call
it INS. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Eric Gisse
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 8:23 am Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On Jul 16, 9:54 pm, "Tom Potter" <t...@hotsheet.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:d2c65f43-4bd2-480f-8d18-866efafa8dcc@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 15, 10:35 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
"Odysseus" <odysseus1479...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote in message
news:odysseus1479-at-807A1B.20280215072008@news.telus.net...
| In article <rcgo74tt2u118cun89bku36qquvcne0...@4ax.com>,
| hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat wrote:
|
| <snip
|
| > Take out the speedometer from your car,
| > paint the windows black,
| > (let somebody drive or remote control the vehicle)
|
| > Then tell me how you determine your speed.
|
| From the volume & frequency distributions of the engine, wind & road
| sounds?
|
Much easier than that, Inertial Navigation has been around for years.
Three accelerometers, integrate to get speed, integrate speed to get
position. Nowadays the GPS does it all for you, saving you the
trouble. That's typical Wabnigga, can't see past the end of his nose.
Androcles doesn't know the difference between inertial navigation and
the global positioning system. The list of things Androcles does not
know is pretty impressive.
What are you implying here Gisse?
|
Who knows! "Androcles doesn't know the difference between inertial
navigation and the global positioning system." could mean ANYTHING!
| Quote: |
Considering that:
"The list of things <Mentally healthy people recognize that they
do no tknow is pretty impressive.",
|
Quotes are for when someone _actually said something_. Your idiotic
editing resulted in something I did not say.
| Quote: |
Are you implying that what you and God
don't know is nominal?
|
Since I didn't bring it up but you did, probably not. Learn to read
for comprehension, crackpotter.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Odysseus
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 8:43 am Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
In article
<d83a66b4-695f-41ee-a7b0-34cd8f3adcab@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Eric Gisse <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 15, 6:28 pm, Odysseus <odysseus1479...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote:
In article <rcgo74tt2u118cun89bku36qquvcne0...@4ax.com>,
hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat wrote:
snip
Take out the speedometer from your car,
paint the windows black,
(let somebody drive or remote control the vehicle)
Then tell me how you determine your speed.
From the volume & frequency distributions of the engine, wind & road
sounds?
The correct answer is "you can't".
|
Sure I could: since my car has a standard transmission, I'm in the habit
of paying attention to such things. Put me in someone else's car,
though, and I'd be at a loss.
--
Odysseus |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Tom Potter
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 10:54 am Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message news:d2c65f43-4bd2-480f-8d18-866efafa8dcc@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
On Jul 15, 10:35 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
"Odysseus" <odysseus1479...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote in message
news:odysseus1479-at-807A1B.20280215072008@news.telus.net...
| In article <rcgo74tt2u118cun89bku36qquvcne0...@4ax.com>,
| hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat wrote:
|
| <snip
|
| > Take out the speedometer from your car,
| > paint the windows black,
| > (let somebody drive or remote control the vehicle)
|
| > Then tell me how you determine your speed.
|
| From the volume & frequency distributions of the engine, wind & road
| sounds?
|
Much easier than that, Inertial Navigation has been around for years.
Three accelerometers, integrate to get speed, integrate speed to get
position. Nowadays the GPS does it all for you, saving you the
trouble. That's typical Wabnigga, can't see past the end of his nose.
Androcles doesn't know the difference between inertial navigation and
the global positioning system. The list of things Androcles does not
know is pretty impressive.
|
What are you implying here Gisse?
Considering that:
"The list of things <Mentally healthy people recognize that they>
do no tknow is pretty impressive.",
Are you implying that what you and God
don't know is nominal?
Have you talked to a professional about this?
--
Tom Potter
http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
93 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
