Androcles wrote:
[snip crap]

Hey stooopid - tell us the GPS system does not work.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076.pdf
http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html


--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

eleaticus wrote:
[snip crap]

Hey stooopid - tell us the GPS system does not work.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076.pdf
http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html



--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

eleaticus wrote:
[snip crap]

Hey stooopid - tell us the GPS system does not work.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076.pdf
http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html


--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

Androcles wrote:
[snip crap]

Hey stooopid - tell us the GPS system does not work.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076.pdf
http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html


--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

"RP" wrote in message
...


Androcles wrote:
"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...


Hey stooopid - tell us the GPS system does not work.


Hey stooopid - tell us the velocity of light is always c when we walk
toward a light and away from a different one.

Androcles.

Relativity of simultaneity. It's a matter of the time t_0 that you define
the photon to have been emitted, and of the distance away that you define
the source to have been at t_o. Given the premise of empty space you can
define these values as you so chose, since it is in fact impossible to
directly measure OWLS in empty space. That's how constancy of light speed
is accomplished.

LOL! too funny. I could have summarize the whole thing with
(c+v)/(1+v/c) = (c-v)/(1-v/c), which represents Einstein's stooopid method
of adding velocities.
I'll tell you how I define the time tau_0 that the photons were emitted.
It is 0. I define the time tau_1 when the first photon reaches me
as the distance divided by its velocity, which is x' divided by (c o v),
where 'o' is the composition of velocity operator such that (c o v) =
(c+v)/(1+v/c)
Thus tau_0 = tau_1 - x'/(c o v) = 0.
I'm the one moving between two light sources so that it is my clock that
runs slow.
As for t_0, that's easy.
tau_0 = (t_0-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Of course I'd have to define x, wouldn't I?
Well, that's not quite so easy, because I can only measure xi, my ruler
shrinks
as I move. It's called Lorentz contraction. Fortunately the distance to the
source
shrinks as well, so I still get the correct measurement.
xi = (x-vt ) / sqrt (1-v^2/c^2)
Using the Andersen Transforms,
"That is, we can reverse the directions of the frames
which is the same as interchanging the frames,
which - as I have told you a LOT of times,
OBVIOUSLY will lead to the transform:
t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
or:
tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen

The time t_0 = (tau_0 - xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
and since x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2),

t_0 = (tau_0 - (x + vt_0)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

As I proved, tau_0 is zero. Do not forget t_0 is a coordinate.
But anyway, since I'm moving away from one source and toward
another, I'll solve for v.
Now, the light is coming toward me from the front and from behind
me from the rear, meeting in the middle, and I only have one velocity v.
So the light from the front has velocity -1 (I want v as a fraction of c)
and the light from behind has velocity +1.

Now, Einstein says (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c.
Carefully, let us enter values.

(-c + v)/(1 + v/-c) = (c+v)/(1+v/c),
Since c = 1,
(-1+v)/(1-v) = (1+v)/(1+v)

And look, conveniently (1+v)/(1+v) = 1,
so
(-1+v)/(1-v) = 1
Multiplying by 1 - v,
-1+v = 1-v
Adding 1,
v = 2-v.
adding v
2v = 2,
dividing by 2,
v = 1.
I'm approaching one source at c and leaving the other at -c.

That's why Al Schwartz is stooopid, and so was Einstein and all his
disciples.
No one has spotted Einstein's divide-by-zero in 100 years, except me.
Want to know why?
They don't look for it. They prefer to believe in fairy tales.
Here it is, buried in he
1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))

You'll need to look carefully to find it.

OTOH, space isn't in reality empty, as special relativity
presupposes it to be.

Reality? We are not dealing in reality. We are dealing in assumption.
"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body"
Reference :
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Space really is empty, my friend, except for some stars as planets
and bit of dust and gas dotted around.


IOW, the distance of the source at t can be compared
to some nearby physical marker, perhaps another clock that has been
synchronized with the observer's clock and is comoving with him. The
measurement becomes a simple matter of comparing time readings on the two
clocks and their permanent spatial separation. Not a very complicated
experiment in theory. When taking absorption/emission of photons in a
media into account, Fizeau's experiments are already a form of that very
experiment, and show conclusively that Galilean velocity addition is
empirically supportable in the case of light propagation. Surely by now
you've seen my mathematical proof of this statement?

Can't say I have, we've not corresponded much.

The bottom line is that logical premises have no bearing whatsoever on
reality, only on ones interpretation of it.

Let us not pretend Einstein's premises are logical.

Our every thoughts are a
superficial symbolic form of reality, a progression of data through many
subjective filters, of what may well be uite beyond our natural system of
logic to ever produce a one-to-one correspondence to. Thus we are
constrained to perpetually obtain an unsatisfactory logic conclusion about
reality, even if it happens to also be practical. Practical, because
one-to-one correspondence isn't necessary for the completion of our rather
simplistic (by comparison to nature) endeavors. Just consider for a moment
how much detail of nature you must actually observe in order to carry out
your daily activities. Virtually none by comparison. We live and breath
and have our very being in what is not even reality, but just a
statistical pattern of behaviors within it. Those patterns being our
reality. Our very existence, i.e. the "idea" of our existence itself,
requires a statistical perspective.
Richard Perry

Well, that is all very philosophical, Richard, but I'm quite practical and
I believe empirical data. I interpret it somewhat differently to the rest of
the world, though. The vector addition of velocities is sacrosanct, the
composition of velocities is nonsense, and the evidence can be found
in the stars.
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder....ctual_data.htm

In the upper diagram, the speed of light is constant and the spacing
between the lines occurs at transmission, whereas in the lower diagram the
speed of light is added to the speed of the source, the spacing between the
lines occurs only at the position of the observer. Either way, the observer
sees the same effect, but must invoke general relativity's time dilation for
the upper diagram. See
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laurea...or-lecture.pdf
Whereas it is intuitive to believe what we see, it is also intuitive (and
axiomatic) to add velocities. When we look out into space, these two
intuitions conflict with each other, for both cannot be correct. If we add
velocities, the lower diagram is correct and the interval between the pulses
is regular at transmission, but is seen to be irregular, but if we believe
what we see then the pulses are transmitted irregularly.

You'll find the diagrams at the bottom of the page.
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder....ekerinTime.htm
I'm challenging a Nobel laureate here, not the stooopid idiot Schwartz.

Androcles.

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"eleaticus" wrote in message
news
Galilean/Newtonian Invariance

Webster, you are an idiot.
We already know.
No need to remind.

And the vitriol continues...........

Androcles wrote:
"RP" wrote in message
...


Androcles wrote:

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...



Hey stooopid - tell us the GPS system does not work.


Hey stooopid - tell us the velocity of light is always c when we walk
toward a light and away from a different one.

Androcles.

Relativity of simultaneity. It's a matter of the time t_0 that you define
the photon to have been emitted, and of the distance away that you define
the source to have been at t_o. Given the premise of empty space you can
define these values as you so chose, since it is in fact impossible to
directly measure OWLS in empty space. That's how constancy of light speed
is accomplished.


LOL! too funny. I could have summarize the whole thing with
(c+v)/(1+v/c) = (c-v)/(1-v/c), which represents Einstein's stooopid method
of adding velocities.
I'll tell you how I define the time tau_0 that the photons were emitted.
It is 0. I define the time tau_1 when the first photon reaches me
as the distance divided by its velocity, which is x' divided by (c o v),
where 'o' is the composition of velocity operator such that (c o v) =
(c+v)/(1+v/c)
Thus tau_0 = tau_1 - x'/(c o v) = 0.
I'm the one moving between two light sources so that it is my clock that
runs slow.
As for t_0, that's easy.
tau_0 = (t_0-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Of course I'd have to define x, wouldn't I?
Well, that's not quite so easy, because I can only measure xi, my ruler
shrinks
as I move. It's called Lorentz contraction. Fortunately the distance to the
source
shrinks as well, so I still get the correct measurement.
xi = (x-vt ) / sqrt (1-v^2/c^2)
Using the Andersen Transforms,
"That is, we can reverse the directions of the frames
which is the same as interchanging the frames,
which - as I have told you a LOT of times,
OBVIOUSLY will lead to the transform:
t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
or:
tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen

The time t_0 = (tau_0 - xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
and since x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2),

t_0 = (tau_0 - (x + vt_0)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

As I proved, tau_0 is zero. Do not forget t_0 is a coordinate.
But anyway, since I'm moving away from one source and toward
another, I'll solve for v.
Now, the light is coming toward me from the front and from behind
me from the rear, meeting in the middle, and I only have one velocity v.
So the light from the front has velocity -1 (I want v as a fraction of c)
and the light from behind has velocity +1.

Now, Einstein says (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c.
Carefully, let us enter values.

(-c + v)/(1 + v/-c) = (c+v)/(1+v/c),
Since c = 1,
(-1+v)/(1-v) = (1+v)/(1+v)

And look, conveniently (1+v)/(1+v) = 1,
so
(-1+v)/(1-v) = 1
Multiplying by 1 - v,
-1+v = 1-v
Adding 1,
v = 2-v.
adding v
2v = 2,
dividing by 2,
v = 1.
I'm approaching one source at c and leaving the other at -c.

That's why Al Schwartz is stooopid, and so was Einstein and all his
disciples.
No one has spotted Einstein's divide-by-zero in 100 years, except me.
Want to know why?
They don't look for it. They prefer to believe in fairy tales.
Here it is, buried in he
1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))

You'll need to look carefully to find it.

If v = c then the division by zero is apparent. OTOH, this is why
Einstein called c a limiting velocity, in that allowing
v = c leads to undefined or imaginary or outcomes. c isn't a valid
relative velocity between two frames. When you come to a division by
zero you need to back up and take a different route, else you will
indeed derive contradictions. But that's not the real problem here. If
you'll compare your premise with the actual relativistic velocity
composition formula, you'll immediately see your error; you've omitted a
term.



OTOH, space isn't in reality empty, as special relativity
presupposes it to be.


Reality? We are not dealing in reality. We are dealing in assumption.
"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body"
Reference :
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Not an assumption, it is a "definition". There is a substantial
difference between the two.


Space really is empty, my friend, except for some stars as planets
and bit of dust and gas dotted around.

Without those stars and dust etc. lying around, there would be no
space. Thus "empty space" is as meaningless as "dimensionless extended
objects"





IOW, the distance of the source at t can be compared
to some nearby physical marker, perhaps another clock that has been
synchronized with the observer's clock and is comoving with him. The
measurement becomes a simple matter of comparing time readings on the two
clocks and their permanent spatial separation. Not a very complicated
experiment in theory. When taking absorption/emission of photons in a
media into account, Fizeau's experiments are already a form of that very
experiment, and show conclusively that Galilean velocity addition is
empirically supportable in the case of light propagation. Surely by now
you've seen my mathematical proof of this statement?


Can't say I have, we've not corresponded much.

It's just Galilean average speed "composition", that happens to agree
equally as well with Fizeau's measurements.


The bottom line is that logical premises have no bearing whatsoever on
reality, only on ones interpretation of it.


Let us not pretend Einstein's premises are logical.

They are logically consistent even though illogically originated.


Our every thoughts are a
superficial symbolic form of reality, a progression of data through many
subjective filters, of what may well be uite beyond our natural system of
logic to ever produce a one-to-one correspondence to. Thus we are
constrained to perpetually obtain an unsatisfactory logic conclusion about
reality, even if it happens to also be practical. Practical, because
one-to-one correspondence isn't necessary for the completion of our rather
simplistic (by comparison to nature) endeavors. Just consider for a moment
how much detail of nature you must actually observe in order to carry out
your daily activities. Virtually none by comparison. We live and breath
and have our very being in what is not even reality, but just a
statistical pattern of behaviors within it. Those patterns being our
reality. Our very existence, i.e. the "idea" of our existence itself,
requires a statistical perspective.
Richard Perry


Well, that is all very philosophical, Richard, but I'm quite practical and
I believe empirical data. I interpret it somewhat differently to the rest of
the world, though. The vector addition of velocities is sacrosanct, the
composition of velocities is nonsense, and the evidence can be found
in the stars.
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder....ctual_data.htm

Again, I'm going to have to refer you to the Galilean "composition" of
speeds, in which it is shown that you are incorrect; even given a
Galilean context simple addition of velocities isn't necessarily going
to be the correct method. The problem is in the mistaken premise of
uniform velocity, which doesn't apply in every situation, Fizeau's being
one of those, since the light is absorbed and emitted, and thus moving
for a portion of the time at the same speed as the media (water).
Simply velocity addition doesn't apply to the values W, v, and w. The
latter of which, BTW, is the term that you omitted from your argument above.



In the upper diagram, the speed of light is constant and the spacing
between the lines occurs at transmission, whereas in the lower diagram the
speed of light is added to the speed of the source, the spacing between the
lines occurs only at the position of the observer. Either way, the observer
sees the same effect, but must invoke general relativity's time dilation for
the upper diagram. See
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laurea...or-lecture.pdf
Whereas it is intuitive to believe what we see, it is also intuitive (and
axiomatic) to add velocities. When we look out into space, these two
intuitions conflict with each other, for both cannot be correct. If we add
velocities, the lower diagram is correct and the interval between the pulses
is regular at transmission, but is seen to be irregular, but if we believe
what we see then the pulses are transmitted irregularly.

You'll find the diagrams at the bottom of the page.
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder....ekerinTime.htm
I'm challenging a Nobel laureate here, not the stooopid idiot Schwartz.

Androcles.

What is it that you think is moving ballistically? Do you believe
photons to be point particles?

Richard Perry

Androcles wrote:
[snip crap]

Hey stooopid - tell us how the GPS system doesn't work.

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/index.html
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf
Relativity in the GPS system


--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
eleaticus wrote:
[snip crap]

Hey stooopid - tell us the GPS system does not work.
To quote myself:

The facts about True Believer SR-cultists.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There are many more rotten fruit from the SR-tree to be buried before you
know the nature of their whole orchard. Look for other posts in this
series.

Focus well on negative 'responses'. Are they vicious ranting? Are the
replies actually responsive? Do they rant about gravity, or how Relativity
is proved correct a million times each day, or some other 'we are proved
right' rave that doesn't deal in details about the debunking done here? It
is typically General Relativity or items about the energy and mass of moving
objects that are being waved at you, and such items are completely
irrelevant to coordinate transformations and invariance..

Just ask them for a list of all the observations that have been made of the
shortening (contraction) of moving objects that Special Relativity says
always occurs.

Rarely, there is actually a response that has some relevance to the material
posted, and those are proofs of their Brain Death.

eleaticus

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
[snip crap]

Hey stooopid - tell us the GPS system does not work.
To quote myself:

The facts about True Believer SR-cultists.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There are many more rotten fruit from the SR-tree to be buried before you
know the nature of their whole orchard. Look for other posts in this
series.

Focus well on negative 'responses'. Are they vicious ranting? Are the
replies actually responsive? Do they rant about gravity, or how Relativity
is proved correct a million times each day, or some other 'we are proved
right' rave that doesn't deal in details about the debunking done here? It
is typically General Relativity or items about the energy and mass of moving
objects that are being waved at you, and such items are completely
irrelevant to coordinate transformations and invariance..

Just ask them for a list of all the observations that have been made of the
shortening (contraction) of moving objects that Special Relativity says
always occurs.

Rarely, there is actually a response that has some relevance to the material
posted, and those are proofs of their Brain Death.

eleaticus