NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS

On May 18, 2:53*pm, PD wrote:
On May 17, 7:09*pm, NoEinstein wrote:









On May 16, 5:06*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On May 16, 1:28*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
[...]

Dear Jerry: *You are obviously mentally ill. *You wish to "harp" like
an expert, but your mind is closed to the "perfection" of anything.
Bubble levels are quite accurate enough for my "yes or no"
experiment. *Make your own interferometer and see if you can get it
into the Smithsonian for contributing anything to science. *—
NoEinstein —

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! *— NE —

Oh dear.
The best carpenter's levels attain a precision of 0.5 mm per meter,
according to manufacturers, about 1 part in 2000. But that is not to
an offset grid marking -- that precision is about a factor of 4-8
worse -- it is what a sharp eye can possible detect. Given that John
Armistead's vision is shot (ask him about the difficulty he has
reading the screen), it's not likely he'd be able to accomplish this.
Secondly, the Stanley levels are not of this class.
Third, the precision one would obtain would depend on the length of
the level as well as the length and straightness of the surface
against which the level would be applied. Given that the lever arm of
the apparatus he touts is nowhere near a meter, let alone 6'-8", he
can't quote the precision of 1 part in 1200 that he has here.

PD, the Dunce, is undeserving of a reply. — NE —

On May 18, 7:34*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On May 18, 2:53*pm, PD wrote:









On May 17, 7:09*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On May 16, 5:06*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On May 16, 1:28*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
[...]

Dear Jerry: *You are obviously mentally ill. *You wish to "harp" like
an expert, but your mind is closed to the "perfection" of anything.
Bubble levels are quite accurate enough for my "yes or no"
experiment. *Make your own interferometer and see if you can get it
into the Smithsonian for contributing anything to science. *—
NoEinstein —

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! *— NE —

Oh dear.
The best carpenter's levels attain a precision of 0.5 mm per meter,
according to manufacturers, about 1 part in 2000. But that is not to
an offset grid marking -- that precision is about a factor of 4-8
worse -- it is what a sharp eye can possible detect. Given that John
Armistead's vision is shot (ask him about the difficulty he has
reading the screen), it's not likely he'd be able to accomplish this.
Secondly, the Stanley levels are not of this class.
Third, the precision one would obtain would depend on the length of
the level as well as the length and straightness of the surface
against which the level would be applied. Given that the lever arm of
the apparatus he touts is nowhere near a meter, let alone 6'-8", he
can't quote the precision of 1 part in 1200 that he has here.

PD, the Dunce, is undeserving of a reply. *— NE —

I wasn't talking to you. I was talking ABOUT you to others.

On May 18, 9:45*pm, PD wrote:
On May 18, 7:34*pm, NoEinstein wrote:









On May 18, 2:53*pm, PD wrote:

On May 17, 7:09*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On May 16, 5:06*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On May 16, 1:28*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
[...]

Dear Jerry: *You are obviously mentally ill. *You wish to "harp" like
an expert, but your mind is closed to the "perfection" of anything.
Bubble levels are quite accurate enough for my "yes or no"
experiment. *Make your own interferometer and see if you can get it
into the Smithsonian for contributing anything to science. *—
NoEinstein —

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! *— NE —

Oh dear.
The best carpenter's levels attain a precision of 0.5 mm per meter,
according to manufacturers, about 1 part in 2000. But that is not to
an offset grid marking -- that precision is about a factor of 4-8
worse -- it is what a sharp eye can possible detect. Given that John
Armistead's vision is shot (ask him about the difficulty he has
reading the screen), it's not likely he'd be able to accomplish this.
Secondly, the Stanley levels are not of this class.
Third, the precision one would obtain would depend on the length of
the level as well as the length and straightness of the surface
against which the level would be applied. Given that the lever arm of
the apparatus he touts is nowhere near a meter, let alone 6'-8", he
can't quote the precision of 1 part in 1200 that he has here.

PD, the Dunce, is undeserving of a reply. *— NE —

I wasn't talking to you. I was talking ABOUT you to others.

PD, the Dunce, is undeserving of a reply. — NE —

On May 19, 3:45*am, PD wrote:
On May 18, 7:34*pm, NoEinstein wrote:









On May 18, 2:53*pm, PD wrote:

On May 17, 7:09*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On May 16, 5:06*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On May 16, 1:28*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
[...]

Dear Jerry: *You are obviously mentally ill. *You wish to "harp" like
an expert, but your mind is closed to the "perfection" of anything.
Bubble levels are quite accurate enough for my "yes or no"
experiment. *Make your own interferometer and see if you can get it
into the Smithsonian for contributing anything to science. *—
NoEinstein —

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! *— NE —

Oh dear.
The best carpenter's levels attain a precision of 0.5 mm per meter,
according to manufacturers, about 1 part in 2000. But that is not to
an offset grid marking -- that precision is about a factor of 4-8
worse -- it is what a sharp eye can possible detect. Given that John
Armistead's vision is shot (ask him about the difficulty he has
reading the screen), it's not likely he'd be able to accomplish this.
Secondly, the Stanley levels are not of this class.
Third, the precision one would obtain would depend on the length of
the level as well as the length and straightness of the surface
against which the level would be applied. Given that the lever arm of
the apparatus he touts is nowhere near a meter, let alone 6'-8", he
can't quote the precision of 1 part in 1200 that he has here.

PD, the Dunce, is undeserving of a reply. *— NE —

I wasn't talking to you. I was talking ABOUT you to others.

-----------------
Parrot gangster

NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS -
NO REAL PHYSICS !! ......

you cant cheat every body forever !!

even if your income depends on it !!.....
y.p
-------------------

On May 20, 2:22*am, "Y.Porat" wrote:
On May 19, 3:45*am, PD wrote:



On May 18, 7:34*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On May 18, 2:53*pm, PD wrote:

On May 17, 7:09*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On May 16, 5:06*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On May 16, 1:28*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
[...]

Dear Jerry: *You are obviously mentally ill. *You wish to "harp" like
an expert, but your mind is closed to the "perfection" of anything.
Bubble levels are quite accurate enough for my "yes or no"
experiment. *Make your own interferometer and see if you can get it
into the Smithsonian for contributing anything to science. *—
NoEinstein —

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! *— NE —

Oh dear.
The best carpenter's levels attain a precision of 0.5 mm per meter,
according to manufacturers, about 1 part in 2000. But that is not to
an offset grid marking -- that precision is about a factor of 4-8
worse -- it is what a sharp eye can possible detect. Given that John
Armistead's vision is shot (ask him about the difficulty he has
reading the screen), it's not likely he'd be able to accomplish this.
Secondly, the Stanley levels are not of this class.
Third, the precision one would obtain would depend on the length of
the level as well as the length and straightness of the surface
against which the level would be applied. Given that the lever arm of
the apparatus he touts is nowhere near a meter, let alone 6'-8", he
can't quote the precision of 1 part in 1200 that he has here.

PD, the Dunce, is undeserving of a reply. *— NE —

I wasn't talking to you. I was talking ABOUT you to others.

-----------------
Parrot gangster

NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS -
NO REAL * PHYSICS !! *......

you cant cheat every body forever !!

even if your income depends on it !!.....

But it doesn't.

y.p
-------------------

that guy is the most illiterate in Engoish,
at least, to make any sort of sense. however,
you could -- either of you -- answere the question
that Neinstein won't touch;
what is the difference in terms of momentum,
between massy particles, and massless "particles
of light?"

of course, it's a trick question, but
I've mentioned it,before hereinat googlplex box.

On May 21, 11:33*pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:
that guy is the most illiterate in Engoish,
at least, to make any sort of sense. *however,
you could -- either of you -- answere the question
that Neinstein won't touch;
what is the difference in terms of momentum,
between massy particles, and massless "particles
of light?"

of course, it's a trick question, but
I've mentioned it,before hereinat googlplex box.

Your "question" is answered in the immediate preceding reply. — NE —

I asked them, rhetorically, because
I know that they are indoctrinated about "rocks o'light."

.... and, probably, the reason that none
of them will bother with more than
the occaisionaly, easy pot-shot at you,
which you often don't notice because of colloquialisms,
is because the adjusted header pretty much says,
what is wrong with your whole approach,
vainly "attacking" Liebniz and Coriolis and even God-am Sir Isaac
-- the officially unofficial 2nd Church of England, secular --
with a few silly misconceptions.

we should all give it "up."

On May 22, 11:03*pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:
... and, probably, the reason that none
of them will bother with more than
the occaisionaly, easy pot-shot at you,
which you often don't notice because of colloquialisms,
is because the adjusted header pretty much says,
what is wrong with your whole approach,
vainly "attacking" Liebniz and Coriolis and even God-am Sir Isaac
-- the officially unofficial 2nd Church of England, secular --
with a few *silly misconceptions.

we should all give it "up."

1tree: You first! — NE —