During the middle of the Eocene, about 40 million years ago...

On Nov 18, 12:46*am, oriel36 wrote:

This piece sounds impressive until I ask you what the equatorial speed
of the Earth is and,giving the incorrect answer,you set off a chain
reaction which leads to some really nasty conclusions.

Whether one is measuring the effect of centrifugal force at the
Earth's equator on the period of a pendulum clock, or the even more
subtle relativistic effects, we find that only the 23 hour, 56 minute,
and 4 second period for the Earth's rotation gives the right answers.

Now, I'll agree that a Schwarzschild metric tensor can be pretty nasty
to someone who doesn't even understand basic algebra, this stuff isn't
nasty in the sense you're using the term.

John Savard

Androcles wrote:
"Bill Owen" wrote in message
...
| Quadibloc wrote:
| On Nov 17, 3:20 pm, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
| Which goes on the rubbish heap, Savard, time dilation or
| NIST's perfect light speed?
|
| Relativity is correct. It is accepted by the legitimate scientific
| community....
|
| More to the point, GR is shown to be correct to 1 part in 10^5

Is that the best you can manage?

At the moment, yes. It's not easy to measure anything to 13 digits, but
the good folks who run the Deep Space Network do it daily.

Better to the point, Newtonian Mechanics is shown to be correct to 1 part in
10^googol.

No. Newtonian mechanics is good to only 8 digits. After that it fails.
We have verified GR to one part in 10^5 as I explained earlier.

Anything you can bluster, I can bluster better.
Show me a logical or mathematical error in this, Owen:

The error below is neither a mathermatical error nor a logical one in
the strict sense of Aristotle. Rather, it's a case of faulty
assumptions leading logically to an incorrect conclusion.

You are making an implicit assumption when you write "a universal
constant" that space and time behave in a Newtonian (better, Galilean)
fashion. If that were indeed the case, then yes, your logic would be
unassailable: different clock readings would disprove the constancy of c.

Our universe does not follow the Galilean model. A second on top of the
Burj Khalifa is not necessarily "the same as" a second at sea level. A
second in January, when the earth is at perihelion, is not the same as a
second in July. An observer well outside the solar system could in
principle watch our atomic clocks and verify this. We can certainly see
its effects in our radio data.

Because the length of a meter and the duration of a second are not
constant, it is possible for the speed of light (in a vacuum) to be
constant.

I don't pretend to understand why relativity works. All I know is that
it does.

Having said my piece, I shall now hold my peace.

-- Bill

Test of GR.

Synchronize two vacuum enclosed identical horizontal light clocks
side-by-side and leave to run for 6 months in two identical chest
freezers (for environmental control). Note any relative drift.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/lightclock.gif

Place one horizontal light clock at the top of the Burj Khalifa
http://www.burjkhalifa.ae/
and leave the other at the base. Leave to run for 6 months.
Bring the clocks together again, note any relative drift.

If the clocks DO read the same count (with drift allowed) then NIST
got it wrong, there was no time dilation due to altitude difference.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminum-atomic-clock_092310.cfm

If the clocks do NOT read the same count (with drift allowed) due to
time dilation then NIST got it wrong, the speed of light cannot be a
universal constant.
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c

Either way, NIST are useless North American ******s and WRONG.

In article ,
Bill Owen wrote:
Androcles wrote:
| More to the point, GR is shown to be correct to 1 part in 10^5

Is that the best you can manage?

At the moment, yes. It's not easy to measure anything to 13 digits, but
the good folks who run the Deep Space Network do it daily.

Better to the point, Newtonian Mechanics is shown to be correct to 1 part in
10^googol.

No. Newtonian mechanics is good to only 8 digits. After that it fails.
We have verified GR to one part in 10^5 as I explained earlier.

And the errors percolate up.

On the much debated case of GPS precision Newtonian calculations can only
give precision within around 70 meters. That is 0.07 km / ca 60.000 km, or
around 1:1E6


Anything you can bluster, I can bluster better.
Show me a logical or mathematical error in this, Owen:

The error below is neither a mathermatical error nor a logical one in
the strict sense of Aristotle. Rather, it's a case of faulty
assumptions leading logically to an incorrect conclusion.

You are making an implicit assumption when you write "a universal
constant" that space and time behave in a Newtonian (better, Galilean)
fashion. If that were indeed the case, then yes, your logic would be
unassailable: different clock readings would disprove the constancy of c.

Our universe does not follow the Galilean model. A second on top of the
Burj Khalifa is not necessarily "the same as" a second at sea level. A
second in January, when the earth is at perihelion, is not the same as a
second in July. An observer well outside the solar system could in
principle watch our atomic clocks and verify this. We can certainly see
its effects in our radio data.

Because the length of a meter and the duration of a second are not
constant, it is possible for the speed of light (in a vacuum) to be
constant.

I don't pretend to understand why relativity works. All I know is that
it does.

Having said my piece, I shall now hold my peace.

Yes, space and time itself is affected by GR.

-- mrr

"Bill Owen" wrote in message
...
| Androcles wrote:
| "Bill Owen" wrote in message
| ...
| | Quadibloc wrote:
| | On Nov 17, 3:20 pm, "Androcles"
| | wrote:
| |
| | Which goes on the rubbish heap, Savard, time dilation or
| | NIST's perfect light speed?
| |
| | Relativity is correct. It is accepted by the legitimate scientific
| | community....
| |
| | More to the point, GR is shown to be correct to 1 part in 10^5
|
| Is that the best you can manage?
|
| At the moment, yes. It's not easy to measure anything to 13 digits, but
| the good folks who run the Deep Space Network do it daily.

The good fellow Einstein could do it with nothing more than a slide rule,
his trusty astrolabe and a set of log tables with his eyes closed, he needed
no electronic calculator.

Mercury's perihelion, 43 arc secs per century.

100 orbits of the Sun for Earth,
415 for Mercury
360 degrees per orbit
3600 arc secs per degree

100 * 415 * 360 * 3600 = 53784000000

43 / 53784000000 = 7.995E-10

Better than one part in 1,250,790,698

How come you can only manage one part in 100,000 ?



|
| Better to the point, Newtonian Mechanics is shown to be correct to 1
part in
| 10^googol.
|
| No. Newtonian mechanics is good to only 8 digits. After that it fails.

Yeah, of course. Le Verrier was way off using Newton Mechanics.
Einstein is a god, not even an astronomer. A world war couldn't stop him.
And guess what? When he'd studied the position of Mercury's perihelion
for 100 years it fitted his theory to a far greater accuracy than Le Verrier
could manage. One could say it fitted EXACTLY.
As Einstein himself wrote, "If the facts don't fit MY theory, change the
facts".
But being modest, he later changed it to
"If the facts don't fit THE theory, change the facts".


| We have verified GR to one part in 10^5 as I explained earlier.

Not really good enough, old chap.
It has to be one part in 1,250,790,698 to distinguish it from NM,
as I've explained above. Your explanation was "Because I say so".
Newtonian Mechanics is shown to be correct to 1 part in 10^googol.
I said "SHOWN TO BE", so that settles it.


| Anything you can bluster, I can bluster better.
| Show me a logical or mathematical error in this, Owen:
|
| The error below is neither a mathermatical error nor a logical one in
| the strict sense of Aristotle. Rather, it's a case of faulty
| assumptions leading logically to an incorrect conclusion.

Mathermatical? Not in the dictionary, old chap. Are you drunk or insane?
I agree there is a faulty assumption, which is why I was careful not
to make any assumptions and use only the data I was given by NIST,
citing the source of the faulty assumption.

Mind you, Rabbi Saint Ayatollah Einstein made a few faulty assumptions
himself, but being god his assumptions can't be faulty.

1) But it is not possible without further ASSUMPTION to compare, in respect
of time, an event at A with an event at B.
2) We ASSUME that this definition of synchronism is free from
contradictions, and possible for any number of points;
3) In agreement with experience we further ASSUME the quantity 2AB/(t'A-tA)
= c
4) Current kinematics tacitly ASSUMES that the lengths determined by these
two operations are precisely equal
5) and where for brevity it is ASSUMED that at the origin of k, tau = 0,
when t=0.
6) If no ASSUMPTION whatever be made as to the initial position of the
moving system and as to the zero point of tau
7) We now have to prove that any ray of light, measured in the moving
system, is propagated with the velocity c, if, as we have ASSUMED, this is
the case in the stationary system
8) If we ASSUME that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid
for a continuously curved line,
9) and our equations ASSUME the form
10) When phi = 0 the equation ASSUMES the perspicuous form
11) the equation for phi' ASSUMES the form
12) for the law of motion of which we ASSUME as follows
13) we may and will ASSUME that the electron, at the moment when we give it
our attention
14) From the above ASSUMPTION, in combination with the principle of
relativity

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/


| You are making an implicit assumption when you write "a universal
| constant" that space and time behave in a Newtonian (better, Galilean)
| fashion.

"and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently
irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in
empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of
motion of the emitting body. " -- Einstein.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

speed of light in vacuum


Value 299 792 458 m s-1

Standard uncertainty (exact)

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c


You are making an implicit assumption that I'm Einstein.



| If that were indeed the case, then yes, your logic would be
| unassailable: different clock readings would disprove the constancy of c.

Very good. My logic is unassailable, I used light clocks.



| Our universe does not follow the Galilean model.

Yes, I know. That's why Einstein is god. Either that or your logic is
assailable
and I shall assault it.
Newtonian Mechanics is shown to be correct to 1 part in 10^googol.



A second on top of the
| Burj Khalifa is not necessarily "the same as" a second at sea level.

So what? The speed of light on top of the Burj Khalifa is not
necessarily "the same as" the speed of light at sea level and my
logic is unassailable, so NIST are a bunch of yankee ******s.
I'm not necessarily Einstein, but your logic is necessarily assailable.

| A
| second in January, when the earth is at perihelion, is not the same as a
| second in July.

Are you saying July on top of the Burj Khalifa is January at sea level?
I suppose that might be possible in Einstein's universe that does not
follow the Galilean model.


| An observer well outside the solar system could in
| principle watch our atomic clocks and verify this. We can certainly see
| its effects in our radio data.

Ah, but I didn't use an observer well outside the solar system as
he wouldn't be able to see the Burj Khalifa without the Hubble Space
Telescope, and that got left behind in Earth orbit. You are drunk, right?


|
| Because the length of a meter and the duration of a second are not
| constant, it is possible for the speed of light (in a vacuum) to be
| constant.

I didn't mention any metres or seconds. You are totally spaced out
on cocaine, right?

|
| I don't pretend to understand why relativity works. All I know is that
| it does.

I do pretend to understand why relativity fails. It contains assumptions
and Einstein was no mathematician. Neither are you.

|
| Having said my piece, I shall now hold my peace.
|
| -- Bill
And place your head firmly up Einstein's arse where all you'll see is his
**** and you'll call it "science".
Is that jpl.nasa.gov in your email address for real, or are you the janitor
there?

|
| Test of GR.
|
| Synchronize two vacuum enclosed identical horizontal light clocks
| side-by-side and leave to run for 6 months in two identical chest
| freezers (for environmental control). Note any relative drift.
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/lightclock.gif
|
| Place one horizontal light clock at the top of the Burj Khalifa
| http://www.burjkhalifa.ae/
| and leave the other at the base. Leave to run for 6 months.
| Bring the clocks together again, note any relative drift.
|
| If the clocks DO read the same count (with drift allowed) then NIST
| got it wrong, there was no time dilation due to altitude difference.
|
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminum-atomic-clock_092310.cfm
|
| If the clocks do NOT read the same count (with drift allowed) due to
| time dilation then NIST got it wrong, the speed of light cannot be a
| universal constant.
| http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c
|
| Either way, NIST are useless North American ******s and WRONG.
|

On Nov 18, 8:54*pm, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Bill Owen" wrote in message

...| Androcles wrote:

| "Bill Owen" wrote in message
| ...
| | Quadibloc wrote:
| | On Nov 17, 3:20 pm, "Androcles"
| | wrote:
| |
| | Which goes on the rubbish heap, Savard, time dilation or
| | NIST's perfect light speed?
| |
| | Relativity is correct. It is accepted by the legitimate scientific
| | community....
| |
| | More to the point, GR is shown to be correct to 1 part in 10^5
|
| Is that the best you can manage?
|
| At the moment, yes. *It's not easy to measure anything to 13 digits, but
| the good folks who run the Deep Space Network do it daily.

The good fellow Einstein could do it with nothing more than a slide rule,
his trusty astrolabe and a set of log tables with his eyes closed, he needed
no electronic calculator.

Mercury's perihelion, 43 arc secs per century.


I dealt with logical inconsistency so effectively that it is rarely
mentioned nowadays,only one guy made the mistake of openly
acknowledging the very real inconsistency that would arise but I guess
this is the real 'scientific method' and how work gets done .An Usenet
warrior like yourself wouldn't be capable of understanding what is
astronomically wrong with this so-called perihelion advance solution
but in the ever diminishing values,the thing dissolves into
nothing.The determination of the orbital characteristics of Mercury is
made using Ra/Dec which effectively blocks out the orbital motion of
the Earth and shunts everything in daily rotational coordinates
projected in the celestial arena making the 'advance' a geocentric
perspective but in giving a value for Mercury obligates a value for
the Earth requiring the subtraction from the observed value of Mercury
-

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...9c06483a?hl=en

Poor things,the 60 thousand decimal place bunch always made much of
things which can't be challenged but when shown the blatant logical
inconsistencies they will run a mile.You,on the other hand,are just a
nuisance.

On Nov 18, 1:02*pm, oriel36 wrote:

... As nobody is openly versed in astronomy apart from me...

Your monstrous Ego has no bounds.

If I had a paltry dime for every one of your errors, I would be a very
wealthy man.

"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity."
- Frank Leahy

On Nov 18, 7:23*pm, palsing wrote:
On Nov 18, 1:02*pm, oriel36 wrote:

... As nobody is openly versed in astronomy apart from me...

Your monstrous Ego has no bounds.

Well, given the way he defines astronomy, his statement is the simple
truth. No one else purporting to be versed in astronomy so rejects the
mathematical and physical in favor of the intuitive.

There is a group of people who go around claiming that "Galileo was
Wrong: the Church was Right", and, amazingly enough, this apparently
isn't just a joke... but no one else out there currently alive takes
Oriel's position - Galileo was Right, Newton was Wrong. Yes, the Earth
does move, but not because of crass physical laws like gravity and
angular momentum.

Nobody.

Oriel is, as far as I know, one of a kind.

John Savard

On Nov 18, 9:47*pm, Quadibloc wrote:

Oriel is, as far as I know, one of a kind.

Yes, he is unique... just like everyone else...

;)

On Nov 19, 7:03*am, palsing wrote:
On Nov 18, 9:47*pm, Quadibloc wrote:

Oriel is, as far as I know, one of a kind.

Yes, he is unique... just like everyone else...

;)

And every*thing* else. Are any two subatomic particle the same?

If uniqueness were such a valued quality it would be in much greater
demand and therefore far too expensive to be wasted on the likes of
Kelleher!

We could sell his uniqueness on eBay and simultaneously put ourselves
out of our misery...?

Once we had sold off his uniqueness, we could sell all his other bits
as well. We could make a killing. :-)

On Nov 19, 2:23*am, palsing wrote:
On Nov 18, 1:02*pm, oriel36 wrote:

... As nobody is openly versed in astronomy apart from me...

Your monstrous Ego has no bounds.


The strain of empiricism that Newton introduced was based on self-
promotion and a level of deception the world has not known,try to
discuss what the 24 hour rotation and day/night cycle of February 29th
does in terms of separate daily and orbital motions with emphasis on
the fact of no more than a full 365 rotations every orbital year and
readers here simply turn up the empirical volume with impressive
decimal places attached. while the fundamental,and I mean
fundamental,astronomical and terrestrial facts get cut to pieces.

It is not the self-promoters that I address but those who can actually
make sense of those fundamental astronomical facts that do not take a
vacation because its suits people to ignore them and treat them like
trivia,those facts are that the Earth turns once in 24 hours with no
external reference for this rotation,there are 365 1/4 rotations in a
year and subsequently the cause of the day/night cycle is the rotation
of the Earth with no more than a full 365 days and nights in an
orbital year,the calendar convenience allows the extra rotation to
draw orbital motion back into sync with daily rotation and that
happens Feb 29th 2012.

The exotic novelties of stretching space ,warped space and all the
other meaningless junk just tires the imagination ,great if all you
are interested in is self-promotion but ultimately what point is there
to astronomy if people can't account for the leap day rotation.




If I had a paltry dime for every one of your errors, I would be a very
wealthy man.

"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity."
- Frank Leahy