The relation between refractive index and dielectric constant ?

"Double-A" wrote in message
ups.com...

Tom Potter wrote:
"Double-A" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:

Double-A is right about one thing.

If you want to design a worm hole, or a time machine,
or rubber rulers and clocks,
General Relativity is the way to go.

How about a GPS satellite system?

"Double-A" raises a good point that
it might be of value to people ignorant of the technologies that
went into the GPS system to examine
what the relative contributions
of some of the technologies were.

Semiconductor technology - 30%
Rocket technology - 30%
Communications technology - 15%
Software technology 13%
Information theory - 10%
Antenna technology - 1%
The Galileo effect - 1%
General Relativity - 0%
Jesus - 0%
Moses - 0%
Astrology - 0%

Of course, it may be that the "contribution" of General Relativity
was a negative, as the GTR Gurus used 13 complicated, time-consuming,
hacks of GTR to account for the desired frequency offset in the orbiting
oscillators,
when it could be done with one, simple equation
determined by Galileo over 3000 years ago.

Uh...?

As can be seen,
the European community named their GPS system
the Galileo system in honor of Galileo's works.

So when do you think Maxwell lived?

It is interesting to see that the GTR Guru's
don't seem to comprehend why the frequency offset
is DESIRABLE but not essential
to the operation of the GPS system,
and they don't seem to know that the output frequency
of an oscillator can be scaled up or down electronically.

They should have stuck with that 3000 year old math, huh?

In other what is important is the stability of the oscillators,
not the absolute frequency, which can be, AND IS,
adjusted to the desired values.

Close enough for government work, huh?

Double-A makes a good point,
when he points out that the maths
developed over the centuries
have served man well.

I was disappointed to see that Double-A
confused "stability" with "proximity".

As I pointed out,
the "stability" of the oscillators
used in the GPS system is the key factor,
NOT the "proximity" of the output frequency
to some desired frequency,

as one can adjust the frequency of
a "stable" oscillator to another value,
with the use of frequency multipliers and dividers.

Also as I point out,
the OBSERVED frequency of an oscillator
is a function of many things, including:

distance - Hubble Effect
velocity - Doppler Effect.
acceleration - Galileo Effect

Of course, these effects were taken into consideration
by the people who designed the GPS system,
and they are taken into account by the
technicians, engineers, and users of the system.

For example as the acceleration "g",
is a function of the distance a body is from the Earth,
the designers took the Galileo Effect into account
when designing the GPS system.

It is interesting to see that General Relativity
lumps all of these effects into one extremely difficult to solve equation,
and then in order to use the results has to
break out, and account for all of the effects
such as the Hubble Effect, the Doppler Effect, the Galileo Effect, etc.

In other words,
when you have a set of orthogonal properties,
it is more simple, more clear, and more practical,
more time expedient, and less costly,
to attack each orthogonal property separately,
than it is to mix them all together,
and then resort them out again later.

Using GTR to solve these problems
is like making sausage, and then
separating out the components to
find the weight of the end product.

In other words,
while it would take a layman a few minutes to determine
the observed frequency of a moving body
using the combined Hubble, Doppler, and Galileo effects,
it would take a GTR Guru days to determine it using GTR.

Time is a terrible thing to waste.

--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Tom Potter wrote:
[...snip evasion...]

So what are the 13 hacks of general relativity, crackpotter? You keep
talking about them but you seem oddly incapable of explaining *what
they are*.

Eric Gisse wrote:
Tom Potter wrote:
[...snip evasion...]

So what are the 13 hacks of general relativity, crackpotter? You keep
talking about them but you seem oddly incapable of explaining *what
they are*.

Also as I have pointed out,
the OBSERVED frequency of an oscillator
is a function of many things, including:

distance - Hubble Effect
velocity - Doppler Effect.
acceleration - Galileo Effect
jerk - Gisse Effect

Of course, these effects were taken into consideration
by the people who designed the GPS system,
and they are taken into account by the
technicians, engineers, and users of the system.

For example as the acceleration "g",
is a function of the distance a body is from the Earth,
the designers took the Galileo Effect into account
when designing the GPS system.

It is interesting to see that General Relativity
lumps all of these effects (And more)
into one extremely difficult to solve equation,
and then in order to use the results has to
break out, and account for all of the effects
such as the Hubble Effect, the Doppler Effect, the Galileo Effect, etc.


When you have a set of orthogonal properties,
it is more simple, more clear, and more practical,
more time expedient, and less costly,
to attack each orthogonal property separately,
than it is to mix them all together,
and then resort them out again later.

Using GTR to solve these problems
is like making sausage, and then
separating out the components to
find the weight of the end product.

In other words,
while it would take a layman a few minutes to determine
the observed frequency of a moving body
using the combined Hubble, Doppler, and Galileo effects,
it would take a GTR Guru days to determine it using GTR.

And of course, some GTR Gurus on the taxpayer dole
lump up to 13 real and imagined effects into the GTR model,
and make some real serious sausage, that accounts for
frequency variations far beyond man's capacity
to measure, or even compute.

Considering that the GTR gang claim to
possess powerful, esoteric knowledge,
I wonder when they will go into the private sector,
like the Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Motorola, Google, Yahoo people did,
and make billions of dollars?

Time is a terrible thing to waste.

--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com

wrote:

[snip boring rant]

And of course, some GTR Gurus on the taxpayer dole
lump up to 13 real and imagined effects into the GTR model,
and make some real serious sausage, that accounts for
frequency variations far beyond man's capacity
to measure, or even compute.

What might these 13 hacks of general relativity be, crackpotter?

How many times do you think I have asked you this question and you have
ignored or evaded it? It is a hell of a lot more than 13.

[...]

"Tom Potter" wrote in message
.. .
"hanson" wrote in message
news:92Jbh.17677$Uz.1539@trnddc05...
"Tom Potter" wrote in message
.. .
"Sorcerer" wrote in message
k...
| "Double-A" wrote in message
| oups.com...

[Tom in some argument with Andro & AA]
Don't be so naive "Sorcerer".
As you should know, Double-A is an Einstein worshipper,
and an apologist for Israel's crimes against humanity.

I am sure that hanson got the point I was making.

[hanson]
No, Tom, I didn't. What point are you talking about?

[Tom]
I am surprised to see that hanson did not
get the "point" that I was making,

[hanson]
..... ahahaha... But, Tom, you are laboring under some misapplied
and megaloamenaical notion & vision that I should and must follow
NG posts to "get" everyones' including your point.... AHAHAHA...
Let me set you at ease here, Tom. ... ... hanson is here to post
for fun and to wind up those many fanatics and self-aggrandizing
pseudo intellects who do really believe that national-, international,
science- and enviro POLICIES are made or influenced here on the
Usenet at/in these insane 27/7 cyber parties here...
hanson is a participant here as a bonviviant and commentator on all
walks of life. hanson doesn't care if you believe him or not... ahahaha..
ahahahaha...

[Tom]
and that was, that Double-A's
post of the poem by Maxwell
was not to praise Maxwell, but to bury him.
(With apologies to Shakespeare.)

And that Double-A wanted to "bury Maxwell",
because Maxwell's contributions to Physics
far outshine those of Einstein,
whom Double-A worships and promotes.

For example,
Maxwell introduced "Dimensional Analysis"
which is the standard
against which ALL physics models must be tested.

Equations are maths.
Units are politics.
Dimensional Analysis is physics.
( If a model doesn't fit Maxwell's Dimensions, it is not correct.)

Secondly, Maxwell established the framework for Quantum Mechanics
when he showed that statistics, rather than two-body math,
is required to model multi-body systems.

Thirdly, Maxwell established the framework for modern atomic theory
by postulating dimensionless points, and assembling the
points into atoms, molecules, and larger structures,
while leaving room for finer complex assembles of points
such as quarks and neutrinos.

Fourthly, Maxwell laid the ground work for the Bose-Einstein and
Fermi-Dirac distributions,
which are slight modifications of Maxwell's distribution
to account for the separation of matter into two classes, bosons and
fermions.

[hanson]
ahahaha... But Tom, I really do not care at the moment what issues
you have with AA... ahahaha... But you have made a fine exposé
of your scientific beliefs above, and it would interest me to see a
calculation (step by step equations & numbers, with/from specified
materials chosen by you) ***starting with Maxwell's curl equations
(& numeric values) and ... end it with telling me how many (#'s of)
windings it takes for a magnet to lift a 10 kg block of steel off the
ground, given a current and voltage selected by you.****

[Tom]
Fifthly, Einstein's much touted paper on Brownian movement
is a variation of Maxwell's more comprehensive treatment of the
velocity distribution of particles.

[hanson]
That is your view which I will not contest but add that, speculatively
though, it is quite possibe that Albert's work on Brownian movement
may have had the potential to lead physics into a very different
direction. Unfortunately after Einstein published in 1905 the
(in) famous SR manuscript of his 1st Christian wife's, Mileva Maric,
that (BM) route of scientific inquiry was derailed by the Zionists in
Germany who hijacked Einstein & his SR to prove the superiority
and grandeur of the Chosen/Jewish mind & intellect. Read he
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...19d92d18984b8c
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...17bb71e593ff8b
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...c0dda74adee07e

Because of the steamreoller effect of relativity which flattend all
other routes of inquiry... it took another 25 years until BM finally
made **the existence of atoms** to be an officially accepted fact
when Perrin got his Nobel for it in 1929 and elevated N_A,
Avogadro's Number to the rank of fundamental physical constants.

But still as of today Einstein Dingleberries, almost only active in
the USA and Israel, do still harp and whine loudly in the darkness of
the practically useless cul de sac of Relativity (which you, Tom, do
call with equal justification a tower of Babel, ... well a babble to be
more precise) since we could/should be by now **experimenting**
near or in the realm of Planck's domain at l_pl = sqrt (hbar*G/c^3),
t_pl = l_pl/c and m_pl = sqrt (hbar * c/G) which show clean & elegant
that 1 mole of l_pl equals exactly the Bohr radius of the H-atom via
r_H / l_pl = (N_A*pi*sqrt3) and how gravitation relates to charge
by l_pl = (e/c^2) * sqrt (G/a) or re-written as either e^2/G = m_pl^2/a
or as e^2/m_pl^2 = G/a .... and all of these relations were known
and are going back to 1899 with/from Max Planck's supreme insight
into physics when he said:
=== "Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our
=== disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." -- Max Planck
ahahahaha... ahahahanson