NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS

it was a rhetorical device, simply put
by stating well-known properties of light:
what is the difference between massive particles,
and massless "particles?..." the broad hint is,
momemtum;
a kind of a ball supposedly in your court,
with your alleged proof of KE = momentum = force, or
what ever ... seems to change a little.

I mean, know-one around here has been able
to tell it from a rock; that could be a problem
for a Theory of Everything.

see, poeple like me are into math,
which is actually at least four subjects. and,
we might try to improve upon Liebniz, but
would not set out on an absurd paradigm
of "disproving vis viva" and/or E=mcc (although
that is not the best form for comprehension
of the only difference between massive and
massless particles, or whatever isn't waving
in the quanta of light.

On May 19, 6:34*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 19, 2:05*pm, NoEinstein wrote:









On May 18, 8:12*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On May 18, 1:07*am, (Michael Moroney)
wrote:

NoEinstein writes:
On May 16, 5:06 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

What would you say the accuracy of a bubble level is, in terms of
degrees?
Eric: I used a Stanley carpenters level. *Most door frames must be
plumb to within 1/16" in 6'-8" of height. *You calculate the angle, if
you can. *Ha, ha, HA! *

Stanley carpenters level? *Only 1/16" in 6'8" accuracy? *Oh good grief,
what a joke.

Dear Michael: *Are you another "Jerry" who believes everything is
invalid unless to .99999 percent accuracy? *Michelson's handmade
Berlin interferometer was more than accurate enough to indicate that
there are zero observed fringe shifts in 360 degrees of instrument
rotation. *My more precise X, Y & Z interferometer, squared with a
carpenters level, was more than accurate enough to detect over a
thousand fringe shifts due solely to Earth's velocity vector variance
in the Cosmos. *Do the identical experiment with a more accurate level
and see which experiment, mine or yours, gets into the Smithsonian.
— *NoEinstein —

Correction: *Make that 99.9999% accuracy!

Do some research. The Michelson-Morely experiment has been repeated
many times over the years.

Your result is simply not done properly, just like every other
experiment you have ran.

....have ran? Ha, ha, HA! — NE —

On May 19, 11:18*pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:
it was a rhetorical device, simply put
by stating well-known properties of light:
what is the difference between massive particles,
and massless "particles?..." *the broad hint is,
momemtum;
a kind of a ball supposedly in your court,
with your alleged proof of KE = momentum = force, or
what ever ... seems to change a little.

1tree is like a broken 78 rpm record: He keeps repeating the same
nothings over and over! — NE —

On May 19, 11:34*pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:
I mean, know-one around here has been able
to tell it from a rock; that could be a problem
for a Theory of Everything.

see, poeple like me are into math,
which is actually at least four subjects. *and,
we might try to improve upon Liebniz, but
would not set out on an absurd paradigm
of "disproving vis viva" and/or E=mcc (although
that is not the best form for comprehension
of the only difference between massive and
massless particles, or whatever isn't waving
in the quanta of light.

....if you say so... not! — NE —

I asked you a complete question,
what is the physical difference between particles
that have mass, and massless "particles" of light,
in terms of momentum?

maybe, you don't even know what monetum is ...
not saying that I do, either;
that's not how I operate.

On May 21, 11:31*pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:
I asked you a complete question,
what is the physical difference between particles
that have mass, and massless "particles" of light,
in terms of momentum?

maybe, you don't even know what monetum is ...
not saying that I do, either;
that's not how I operate.

1tree: Photons, which are MASSLESS (They're just packets of energy
INCAPABLE of giving off the requisite photon required to 'have' mass.)
have ZERO momentum. Also, all masses must be capable of slowing, but
not stopping, the flow of ether THROUGH the mass. Photons, because of
their small size and shape, only allow the ether to flow around the
photons (in ether-less ZONES that stay that way to allow the photon
trains to keep coming without resistance). The ether NURTURES the
light, because tangles of IOTAs, or smallest energy units of the
ether, is what photons are composed of. — NoEinstein —

that is not too much of a theory. yopu fail to comprehend that
"massless" means "nonparticulate," because there never has
been any theoretical need for such "rocks o'light, iff
the "medium of space" is adequate for lightwave transmission.

(what electrons do, do. on the other hand,
what property of light could you possibly do,
with your little theory?)

*Photons, which are MASSLESS (They're just packets of energy
INCAPABLE of giving off the requisite photon required to 'have' mass.)
have ZERO momentum. *Also, all masses must be capable of slowing, but
not stopping, the flow of ether THROUGH the mass. *Photons, because of
their small size and shape, only allow the ether to flow around the
photons (in ether-less ZONES that stay that way to allow the photon
trains to keep coming without resistance). *The ether NURTURES the
light, because tangles of IOTAs, or smallest energy units of the
ether, is what photons are composed of.