|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#281
|
|||
|
|||
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 — |
#282
|
|||
|
|||
NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS
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 — |
#283
|
|||
|
|||
NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS
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. |
#284
|
|||
|
|||
NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS
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 |
#285
|
|||
|
|||
NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS
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. |
#286
|
|||
|
|||
NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS
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. [...] |
#287
|
|||
|
|||
NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS
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? |
#288
|
|||
|
|||
NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS
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 |
#289
|
|||
|
|||
NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS
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. |
#290
|
|||
|
|||
NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS
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 — |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) and Doppler Theory of Gravity (DTG) | kenseto[_1_] | Astronomy Misc | 159 | March 17th 11 07:50 PM |
Improved Relativity Theory and Doppler Theory of Gravity | kenseto[_1_] | Astronomy Misc | 2 | February 12th 08 12:48 AM |
Improved Relativity Theory and Doppler Theory of Gravity | kenseto[_1_] | Astronomy Misc | 38 | October 23rd 07 11:07 PM |
#17 Replacing General Relativity by Dirac's Sea of Positrons; Does Cosmos have two Spaces?; new book: Growing-Solar-System theory via Dirac New-Radioactivity replaces Nebular-Dust-Cloud theory | a_plutonium[_1_] | Astronomy Misc | 4 | September 18th 07 12:31 PM |
A Question For Those Who Truly Understand The Theory of Relativity (Was: Einstein's GR as a Gauge Theory and Shipov's Torsion Field) | Larry Hammick | Astronomy Misc | 1 | February 26th 05 02:22 AM |