|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS
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 ------------------- |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS
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 ------------------- |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS
I asked them, rhetorically, because
I know that they are indoctrinated about "rocks o'light." |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS
.... 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." |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS | Koobee Wublee | Astronomy Misc | 347 | May 23rd 11 03:59 AM |
NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS | PD | Astronomy Misc | 0 | May 18th 11 07:53 PM |
NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS | Eric Gisse | Astronomy Misc | 0 | May 14th 11 02:07 AM |