NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS

On May 11, 5:56*pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:
Einstein's formula is an obvious, once you see it, variation
or elaboration of Liebniz's *vis viva* idea. *but, if
kinetic energy really is momentum, mv, then
what other multitudinous theories of every thing are wrong,
thereby?

as for your proof, you didn't prove it to me, since
I insist that deformation is more important
than friction. *as far as I know,
onlu you, yourself & no einsteins think,
that is what a proof amounts to ... but,
most of us use Liebniz's definition.

or is momentum = to force, not equal to mass times acceleration?

I mean, that's a lot of reformation of physics,
for no stated reason.

1tree: KE measures the force deliver potential of accelerating
objects. That force, at any point in time, must include the object's
static mass. Momentum is the force delivery potential of objects
traveling at a particular velocity (not accelerating). At short
distances of fall—accelerating at ‘g‘—the effect of adding-in the
object's static weight is a major percentage of the results. — NE —

On May 11, 5:58*pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:
the Smithsonian -- you going to crack their dome with it?

1tree: Hang around long enough, and you will be able to see it inside
a glass case. — NE —

On 5/12/11 11:07 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
You weren't smart enough to
realize that M-M didn't have a CONTROL

The Michelson–Morley experiment was, like many scientific
instruments, designed to make a differential measurement.
John, a bit of self-education would benefit you greatly
before shooting off your mouth on USENET.

On May 12, 11:07*am, NoEinstein wrote:
On May 11, 7:07*am, Jerry wrote:

Dear Jerry: *My "Yes or No" experiment works perfectly well with the
long leg set vertically. *I would never advocate tilting that same
experiment to try to determine Earth's direction of motion.

You misunderstand.

I ***GUARANTEE*** that the axis of rotation of your Lazy Susan
was tilted enough to severely affect your results.

*Remember
guy, I majored in structural design. *When I need an experiment that
can be tilted off of vertical, it will have the needed bracing. *

I ***GUARANTEE*** that the axis of rotation of your Lazy Susan
was tilted enough that your unbraced vertical stand WOBBLED.

For
the record, you talk about "expensive" designs. *See if you can design
a Yes or No experiment for $2,000.00. *You weren't smart enough to
realize that M-M didn't have a CONTROL of unchanging light course.
So, harping about bracing is your only... "expertise", HA! *—

In high school, I -built- a Michelson-Morley interferometer. I
thoroughly understand the sensitivity of MMX to a non-plumb
vertical rotational axis...something that you refuse to
acknowledge.

Jerry

On May 12, 8:59*am, NoEinstein wrote:
On May 11, 2:38*am, Timo Nieminen wrote:









On May 11, 3:41*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

Dear Timo: *You suppose that I am at your beck and call to delve into
the niche of science that interests you at the moment. *I'm a very
busy generalist. *Let the graduate students do the tests. *You can
read their theses. *— NoEinstein —

I wasn't asking you to do the test. I was _offering_ to do the test
for you. A test of the niche of science that interests you. Rather
than providing the prediction that would make such a test useful, you
spew rudeness.

All the while claiming how wonderfully great your talents are, how
great your mathematical ability is. So it doesn't appear to be a lack
of capability that stops you from giving the prediction. Shouldn't
take long, either, as it's the type of thing that would take a halfway-
competent physicist about half an hour at most. How could possibly
take someone of your claimed ability more than 5 minutes? Yet you
spend more time than that complaining about not having enough time.

Timo: *You are free to perform any test you so choose. *If your
validated results run counter to anything my New Science says, more
power to you. *You don't have to discuss anything with me, before
hand. *— NE —

You are arguing what amounts to high school / freshman physics.

I note the implied 'you can run whatever test you want but I won't
change my opinion' subtext, as well.

On May 12, 9:07*am, NoEinstein wrote:

[...]

*You weren't smart enough to
realize that M-M didn't have a CONTROL of unchanging light course.
So, harping about bracing is your only... "expertise", HA! *—

Describe, in your own words, what an interferometer is and how it
functions.

[...]

On May 13, 1:59*am, NoEinstein wrote:
On May 11, 2:38*am, Timo Nieminen wrote:
On May 11, 3:41*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

Dear Timo: *You suppose that I am at your beck and call to delve into
the niche of science that interests you at the moment. *I'm a very
busy generalist. *Let the graduate students do the tests. *You can
read their theses. *— NoEinstein —

I wasn't asking you to do the test. I was _offering_ to do the test
for you. A test of the niche of science that interests you. Rather
than providing the prediction that would make such a test useful, you
spew rudeness.

All the while claiming how wonderfully great your talents are, how
great your mathematical ability is. So it doesn't appear to be a lack
of capability that stops you from giving the prediction. Shouldn't
take long, either, as it's the type of thing that would take a halfway-
competent physicist about half an hour at most. How could possibly
take someone of your claimed ability more than 5 minutes? Yet you
spend more time than that complaining about not having enough time.

Timo: *You are free to perform any test you so choose. *If your
validated results run counter to anything my New Science says, more
power to you. *You don't have to discuss anything with me, before
hand. *— NE —

I don't know what your New Science says well enough to be able to test
it.

You say that the temperature of the balls in a Cavendish experiment
will affect the force between the balls. By how much?

Without knowing how large the effect should be, how can one know
whether a particular experiment should be sensitive enough?

In sci.math Timo Nieminen wrote:
....
You say that the temperature of the balls in a Cavendish experiment
will affect the force between the balls. By how much?

Not exactly "New Science". But m = E/c^2, so there will be a very
small effect due to temperature.

Without knowing how large the effect should be, how can one know
whether a particular experiment should be sensitive enough?

--
You are now in the killfile.
[turns out not to be case]
Oh come on now. That little post should not have upset you so. I
only meant for you to ponder the future.
Lying? You can point out where I was lying? Then do so.
-- John Stafford (AKA A Moose In Love
), 21 Dec 2010 22:33:45 -0800

On May 12, 12:07*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On May 11, 7:07*am, Jerry wrote:

Dear Jerry: *My "Yes or No" experiment works perfectly well with the
long leg set vertically. *I would never advocate tilting that same
experiment to try to determine Earth's direction of motion. *Remember
guy, I majored in structural design. *When I need an experiment that
can be tilted off of vertical, it will have the needed bracing. *For
the record, you talk about "expensive" designs. *See if you can design
a Yes or No experiment for $2,000.00. *You weren't smart enough to
realize that M-M didn't have a CONTROL of unchanging light course.
So, harping about bracing is your only... "expertise", HA! *—
NoEinstein —









On May 11, 1:25*am, NoEinstein wrote:

On May 11, 2:05*am, Jerry wrote:
On May 11, 12:37*am, NoEinstein wrote:

On May 9, 11:36*pm, Jerry wrote:
NOT GOOD ENOUGH BY A LONG SHOT.

1) On conventional MMX systems, a fraction of a milliradian out
* *of plumb results in -easily- measurable systematic shifts.
* *Your weak and wobbly tower system, NOT EVEN CROSS-BRACED,
* *would be far more vulnerable to bending torques.
2) Lazy Susans are simply not built accurately enough to maintain
* *plumb to 1 mm over 40 cm over a complete rotation. You are
* *claiming an incredible degree of accuracy for a system not
* *designed for such a purpose.
3) Please describe to me precisely -how- you measured plumb.

Jerry

Jerry: *If I shoot a rabbit for my dinner using my trusty sling-shot,
you would claim that I could only have done that with a Manlicker
306. *Bracing was NOT an issue, because vibration was not a problem.

TILT is the problem.

And "accuracy" isn't an issue, because I was NOT counting the fringe
shifts! *

Imagine that your apparatus were mounted on a 30 degree slope.
What would happen to the assembly as you slowly rotated it? Can
you not imagine the optical parts swaying this way, then that way
as they dangled to the left, then to the right?

You claim to have been an architect, with an architect's vision.
CAN YOU NOT "SEE" THE DIFFERENTIAL WARPING THAT MUST OCCUR?

* * * * * * * */
* * * * * * */
* * * * * */
* * \ * */
* * * *\
* * * * * \

If you cannot "see" what would happen in the above scenario, you
were no architect.

My $2,000.00 experiment was solely for answering this
question: "Can Earth's velocity in the Cosmos be detected by an Earth
mounted instrument?" *As I've told you a dozen times, the answer is
YES! *Since the instrument rotation need to be 360 degrees, the
angular tilt should return to the same datum point as was the start.

On May 12, 12:35*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 5/12/11 11:07 AM, NoEinstein wrote:

You weren't smart enough to
realize that M-M didn't have a CONTROL

* *The Michelson–Morley experiment was, like many scientific
* *instruments, designed to make a differential measurement.
* *John, a bit of self-education would benefit you greatly
* *before shooting off your mouth on USENET.

Dear Dunce 2: ALL differential measurements using interferometers
count the fringe shifts at the target. Since the wrongly designed M-M
had no fringe shifts, such made ZERO differential measurements.
That's why M-M is called the greatest FAILED experiment of all time!
— NE —