"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:44:32 GMT, "Sorcerer"

| wrote:
|
|
| "Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:03:22 GMT, "Sorcerer"
|
|
|
| | |
| | | Have Paul Andersen's famous tick fairies been niggling at you?
| |
| | Not me, I understand more physics than you or the Tusselad
| | between you ever will.
| | Toss a ball in the air, it comes to a complete stop before falling
back.
| | Toss balls at one a second and they'll come to a complete
| | stop once a second, UNLESS they have differing velocities.
| | You are right, a high laser fires 0.4um pulses of light towards
| | the ground at a rate of 1 per second, they will reach the ground at
| | the same rate of 1 per second, but wrong if you think that is
| | redshift and wrong if you think the velocity is constant.
| | The correct answer to gravitational redshift is that the light
| | is slowed.
| |
| | Light is slowed when leaving a planet. It is blue shifted when flling
| towardsa
| | a planet.
|
| Ok...and when leaving a star, too.
| Getting drunk already? You've moved the 'a' in 'falling' to the end of
the
| line.
|
| The computer did that, not I.

Gawd... drunk the next day as well.


|
| But anyway, we agree light falls.
| Starlight will bend toward the sun, too, just as any massive object will,
| and
| the amount of bending can be used a measure of its speed.
| Now... what does that tell us about the nature of mass?
|
| Not much, actually.


Ok, my error, let me rephrase, I wouldn't expect a dumb wabo to think.
Now... what does that tell me about the nature of mass?


| | ****ing obvious for someone that understands c+at.
| | You DO understand v = at?
| | It doesn't get more basic than that.
| |
| | You couldn't eve work out how much light accelerates when it falls..
|
| You ARE drunk. The acceleration is 9.8 metres per second squared.
| 100,000 metres to the top of the atmosphere, t =333 usec, gain in
| velocity is 3 millimetres per second.
| Measured speed of light:
| 299,792.4562 kilometers per second, plus or minus 1.1 meters per second
| The gain is a fraction of the tolerance and therefore not measurable.
|
| The effect they are claiming is around 4 parts in 10^10.

Who the **** are "they", the lying ****s up in the pulpit or the
congregation wandering around lost in the nave and aisles of the Holey
Church of Relativity?

| It is mesurable.

When I measured it the time error was 0 parts in a googolplex, and
I measured it the same way "they" did.
The 'a' on your keyboard sticks or you have a drunken left pinky finger
like Dork Van de merde who 'tinks' he [anip]s, although in his case it's
stupidity, not inebriation. It is measureable.

|
| Hence the ****wit Perry is spouting the usual bull**** that all
relativists
| do.
| Tell him I said so.
|
| Now, Mr. Engineer, try calculating the change in light speed from a GPS
clock
| in orbit about 26000 kms from the Earth's centre. I hope you learnt how to
| perform simple integrations.

What, through ionosphere? Through turbulent atmosphere?
In the jet stream or out of it? Alaska in Winter or Oz in summer?
You must be ****in' *roaring* drunk if you think I'd consider
gravity was significant.

For simplicity and given:
all sats are at altitude r = 26,000 km
all sats have a reliable clock
the receiver has a broken clock, do not use.

Sat_A says it's at 90° 00' 00.00"N, 00° 00' 00.00"E, at time 0.0
Sat_B says it's at 30° 00' 00.00"S, 00° 00' 00.00"E, at time 0.0
Sat_C says it's at 30° 00' 00.00"N, 00° 00' 00.00"E, at time
0.000086726665272239762249227670859584 seconds.

Where's the receiver, calculated from the data given?
It doesn't get any easier or more basic than that.

This is just a tad harder.
Sat_A says it's at 40° 00' 00.00"N, 00° 00' 00.00"E, at time 0.0
Sat_B says it's at 10° 00' 00.00"N, 00° 00' 00.00"E, at time 0.0
Sat_C says it's at 30° 00' 00.00"N, 00° 00' 00.00"E,
at time 0.0000033356409720092216249702950330609 seconds

Where's the receiver (two possible positions)?
How could a fourth satellite resolve the two positions?
Without a fourth satellite, how could a second reading
one minute later resolve the two positions?
Why would you care about the second position anyway?

If you can give the right answer you'll understand GPS.
If you can give the algorithm and know radio and computer
electronics you can build your own receiver.
Being a mere physicist you'd be lost, go no further than
Sydney or rely on engineers, navigators and road signs.
You couldn't find your way by the stars, which is all GPS really is
and used by Cook to find Botany Bay and his way home again.
For help, see
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS.htm
Androcles

On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 03:22:36 GMT, "Sorcerer"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
.. .
| On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:44:32 GMT, "Sorcerer"

| wrote:
|
|
| "Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:03:22 GMT, "Sorcerer"
|
|
|
| | |
| | | Have Paul Andersen's famous tick fairies been niggling at you?
| |
| | Not me, I understand more physics than you or the Tusselad
| | between you ever will.
| | Toss a ball in the air, it comes to a complete stop before falling
back.
| | Toss balls at one a second and they'll come to a complete
| | stop once a second, UNLESS they have differing velocities.
| | You are right, a high laser fires 0.4um pulses of light towards
| | the ground at a rate of 1 per second, they will reach the ground at
| | the same rate of 1 per second, but wrong if you think that is
| | redshift and wrong if you think the velocity is constant.
| | The correct answer to gravitational redshift is that the light
| | is slowed.
| |
| | Light is slowed when leaving a planet. It is blue shifted when flling
| towardsa
| | a planet.
|
| Ok...and when leaving a star, too.
| Getting drunk already? You've moved the 'a' in 'falling' to the end of
the
| line.
|
| The computer did that, not I.

Gawd... drunk the next day as well.


|
| But anyway, we agree light falls.
| Starlight will bend toward the sun, too, just as any massive object will,
| and
| the amount of bending can be used a measure of its speed.
| Now... what does that tell us about the nature of mass?
|
| Not much, actually.


Ok, my error, let me rephrase, I wouldn't expect a dumb wabo to think.
Now... what does that tell me about the nature of mass?

Nothing really.

So tell ME. What does it tell YOU?

| | ****ing obvious for someone that understands c+at.
| | You DO understand v = at?
| | It doesn't get more basic than that.
| |
| | You couldn't eve work out how much light accelerates when it falls..
|
| You ARE drunk. The acceleration is 9.8 metres per second squared.
| 100,000 metres to the top of the atmosphere, t =333 usec, gain in
| velocity is 3 millimetres per second.
| Measured speed of light:
| 299,792.4562 kilometers per second, plus or minus 1.1 meters per second
| The gain is a fraction of the tolerance and therefore not measurable.
|
| The effect they are claiming is around 4 parts in 10^10.

Who the **** are "they", the lying ****s up in the pulpit or the
congregation wandering around lost in the nave and aisles of the Holey
Church of Relativity?

| It is mesurable.

When I measured it the time error was 0 parts in a googolplex, and
I measured it the same way "they" did.
The 'a' on your keyboard sticks or you have a drunken left pinky finger
like Dork Van de merde who 'tinks' he [anip]s, although in his case it's
stupidity, not inebriation. It is measureable.

|
| Hence the ****wit Perry is spouting the usual bull**** that all
relativists
| do.
| Tell him I said so.
|
| Now, Mr. Engineer, try calculating the change in light speed from a GPS
clock
| in orbit about 26000 kms from the Earth's centre. I hope you learnt how to
| perform simple integrations.

What, through ionosphere? Through turbulent atmosphere?
In the jet stream or out of it? Alaska in Winter or Oz in summer?
You must be ****in' *roaring* drunk if you think I'd consider
gravity was significant.

For simplicity and given:
all sats are at altitude r = 26,000 km
all sats have a reliable clock
the receiver has a broken clock, do not use.

Sat_A says it's at 90° 00' 00.00"N, 00° 00' 00.00"E, at time 0.0
Sat_B says it's at 30° 00' 00.00"S, 00° 00' 00.00"E, at time 0.0
Sat_C says it's at 30° 00' 00.00"N, 00° 00' 00.00"E, at time
0.000086726665272239762249227670859584 seconds.

Where's the receiver, calculated from the data given?
It doesn't get any easier or more basic than that.

This is just a tad harder.
Sat_A says it's at 40° 00' 00.00"N, 00° 00' 00.00"E, at time 0.0
Sat_B says it's at 10° 00' 00.00"N, 00° 00' 00.00"E, at time 0.0
Sat_C says it's at 30° 00' 00.00"N, 00° 00' 00.00"E,
at time 0.0000033356409720092216249702950330609 seconds

Where's the receiver (two possible positions)?
How could a fourth satellite resolve the two positions?
Without a fourth satellite, how could a second reading
one minute later resolve the two positions?
Why would you care about the second position anyway?

If you can give the right answer you'll understand GPS.
If you can give the algorithm and know radio and computer
electronics you can build your own receiver.
Being a mere physicist you'd be lost, go no further than
Sydney or rely on engineers, navigators and road signs.
You couldn't find your way by the stars, which is all GPS really is
and used by Cook to find Botany Bay and his way home again.
For help, see
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS.htm
Androcles


Don't rave. Answer the question, her engineer.

How much does light accelerate in falling from 26000 kms to ground level?

Hint: how much does a lump of lead fired at the Earth at c accelerate?


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter's product doesn't fall apart till AFTER the sale.

On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 19:08:13 -0500, "Len Gaasenbeek"
wrote:

To all,

The rate (frequency) at which the pebbles are dropped and the rate at which
they reach their target remains the same as long as all the pebbles are
exposed to the same gravitational force over the same path length.

However the speed at which they hit the earth gets greater the higher the
distance from which the pebbles are dropped. But since whatever happens to
any one pebble happens to all the others, the frequency at which they hit
the target remains the same. That is to say, if one pebble is released each
second, one pebble will hit the earth each second.

The above is based on simple logic, 'relativity' doesn't come into it.

Relativists never heard of logic, Len.


Len Gaasenbeek.
.............................................
"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:44:32 GMT, "Sorcerer"

wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
.. .
| On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:03:22 GMT, "Sorcerer"



| |
| | Have Paul Andersen's famous tick fairies been niggling at you?
|
| Not me, I understand more physics than you or the Tusselad
| between you ever will.
| Toss a ball in the air, it comes to a complete stop before falling
back.
| Toss balls at one a second and they'll come to a complete
| stop once a second, UNLESS they have differing velocities.
| You are right, a high laser fires 0.4um pulses of light towards
| the ground at a rate of 1 per second, they will reach the ground at
| the same rate of 1 per second, but wrong if you think that is
| redshift and wrong if you think the velocity is constant.
| The correct answer to gravitational redshift is that the light
| is slowed.
|
| Light is slowed when leaving a planet. It is blue shifted when flling
towardsa
| a planet.

Ok...and when leaving a star, too.
Getting drunk already? You've moved the 'a' in 'falling' to the end of
the
line.

The computer did that, not I.

But anyway, we agree light falls.
Starlight will bend toward the sun, too, just as any massive object will,
and
the amount of bending can be used a measure of its speed.
Now... what does that tell us about the nature of mass?

Not much, actually.

| ****ing obvious for someone that understands c+at.
| You DO understand v = at?
| It doesn't get more basic than that.
|
| You couldn't eve work out how much light accelerates when it falls..

You ARE drunk. The acceleration is 9.8 metres per second squared.
100,000 metres to the top of the atmosphere, t =333 usec, gain in
velocity is 3 millimetres per second.
Measured speed of light:
299,792.4562 kilometers per second, plus or minus 1.1 meters per second
The gain is a fraction of the tolerance and therefore not measurable.

The effect they are claiming is around 4 parts in 10^10. It is mesurable.

Hence the ****wit Perry is spouting the usual bull**** that all
relativists
do.
Tell him I said so.

Now, Mr. Engineer, try calculating the change in light speed from a GPS
clock
in orbit about 26000 kms from the Earth's centre. I hope you learnt how to
perform simple integrations.

Androcles



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the
latter's product doesn't fall apart till AFTER the sale.



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter's product doesn't fall apart till AFTER the sale.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
| On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 03:22:36 GMT, "Sorcerer"

| wrote:
|
|
| "Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:44:32 GMT, "Sorcerer"
|
| | wrote:
| |
| |
| | "Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
| | .. .
| | | On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:03:22 GMT, "Sorcerer"
| |
| |
| |
| | | |
| | | | Have Paul Andersen's famous tick fairies been niggling at you?
| | |
| | | Not me, I understand more physics than you or the Tusselad
| | | between you ever will.
| | | Toss a ball in the air, it comes to a complete stop before falling
| back.
| | | Toss balls at one a second and they'll come to a complete
| | | stop once a second, UNLESS they have differing velocities.
| | | You are right, a high laser fires 0.4um pulses of light towards
| | | the ground at a rate of 1 per second, they will reach the ground at
| | | the same rate of 1 per second, but wrong if you think that is
| | | redshift and wrong if you think the velocity is constant.
| | | The correct answer to gravitational redshift is that the light
| | | is slowed.
| | |
| | | Light is slowed when leaving a planet. It is blue shifted when
flling
| | towardsa
| | | a planet.
| |
| | Ok...and when leaving a star, too.
| | Getting drunk already? You've moved the 'a' in 'falling' to the end of
| the
| | line.
| |
| | The computer did that, not I.
|
| Gawd... drunk the next day as well.
|
|
| |
| | But anyway, we agree light falls.
| | Starlight will bend toward the sun, too, just as any massive object
will,
| | and
| | the amount of bending can be used a measure of its speed.
| | Now... what does that tell us about the nature of mass?
| |
| | Not much, actually.
|
|
| Ok, my error, let me rephrase, I wouldn't expect a dumb wabo to think.
| Now... what does that tell me about the nature of mass?
|
| Nothing really.
|
| So tell ME. What does it tell YOU?

Understand something. This is deep ****. You won't find this in
any text book, but Ritz was mighty close.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/paradigm
3 : a philosophical and theoretical framework of a scientific school or
discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the
experiments performed in support of them are formulated; broadly : a
philosophical or theoretical framework of any kind

My views require a paradigm shift, as they do with c+v vs Einstein.


Tell me how you measure mass first and I'll explain it in terms you
can understand. The Bohr atom is mostly empty space. There is
force going on, but not much else.




|
| | | ****ing obvious for someone that understands c+at.
| | | You DO understand v = at?
| | | It doesn't get more basic than that.
| | |
| | | You couldn't eve work out how much light accelerates when it falls..
| |
| | You ARE drunk. The acceleration is 9.8 metres per second squared.
| | 100,000 metres to the top of the atmosphere, t =333 usec, gain in
| | velocity is 3 millimetres per second.
| | Measured speed of light:
| | 299,792.4562 kilometers per second, plus or minus 1.1 meters per
second
| | The gain is a fraction of the tolerance and therefore not measurable.
| |
| | The effect they are claiming is around 4 parts in 10^10.
|
| Who the **** are "they", the lying ****s up in the pulpit or the
| congregation wandering around lost in the nave and aisles of the Holey
| Church of Relativity?
|
| | It is mesurable.
|
| When I measured it the time error was 0 parts in a googolplex, and
| I measured it the same way "they" did.
| The 'a' on your keyboard sticks or you have a drunken left pinky finger
| like Dork Van de merde who 'tinks' he [anip]s, although in his case it's
| stupidity, not inebriation. It is measureable.
|
| |
| | Hence the ****wit Perry is spouting the usual bull**** that all
| relativists
| | do.
| | Tell him I said so.
| |
| | Now, Mr. Engineer, try calculating the change in light speed from a GPS
| clock
| | in orbit about 26000 kms from the Earth's centre. I hope you learnt how
to
| | perform simple integrations.
|
| What, through ionosphere? Through turbulent atmosphere?
| In the jet stream or out of it? Alaska in Winter or Oz in summer?
| You must be ****in' *roaring* drunk if you think I'd consider
| gravity was significant.
|
| For simplicity and given:
| all sats are at altitude r = 26,000 km
| all sats have a reliable clock
| the receiver has a broken clock, do not use.
|
| Sat_A says it's at 90° 00' 00.00"N, 00° 00' 00.00"E, at time 0.0
| Sat_B says it's at 30° 00' 00.00"S, 00° 00' 00.00"E, at time 0.0
| Sat_C says it's at 30° 00' 00.00"N, 00° 00' 00.00"E, at time
| 0.000086726665272239762249227670859584 seconds.
|
| Where's the receiver, calculated from the data given?
| It doesn't get any easier or more basic than that.
|
| This is just a tad harder.
| Sat_A says it's at 40° 00' 00.00"N, 00° 00' 00.00"E, at time 0.0
| Sat_B says it's at 10° 00' 00.00"N, 00° 00' 00.00"E, at time 0.0
| Sat_C says it's at 30° 00' 00.00"N, 00° 00' 00.00"E,
| at time 0.0000033356409720092216249702950330609 seconds
|
| Where's the receiver (two possible positions)?
| How could a fourth satellite resolve the two positions?
| Without a fourth satellite, how could a second reading
| one minute later resolve the two positions?
| Why would you care about the second position anyway?
|
| If you can give the right answer you'll understand GPS.
| If you can give the algorithm and know radio and computer
| electronics you can build your own receiver.
| Being a mere physicist you'd be lost, go no further than
| Sydney or rely on engineers, navigators and road signs.
| You couldn't find your way by the stars, which is all GPS really is
| and used by Cook to find Botany Bay and his way home again.
| For help, see
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS.htm
| Androcles
|
|
| Don't rave. Answer the question, her engineer.

I prefer
"Herr Hexenmeister Androcles Dumbledore BA., M.Sc. Ph.D, Headmaster,
hogwarts.physics"
for my title if you want to be formal, otherwise "Androcles" will do, her
physicist.


| How much does light accelerate in falling from 26000 kms to ground level?

There is no such animal as 26000 kms or even 1 kms, ****ing senile old wabo.
I've already told you, 9.8 metres/sec^2.

| Hint: how much does a lump of lead fired at the Earth at c accelerate?
|
**** off, I don't heed or need your dumb hints.
9.8 metres/sec^2, found empirically.
What does that tell *me* (an engineer), about a physicist?

Hint: It tells me he's ****in' senile or ****in' drunk.
ROFL!
Androcles

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 19:08:13 -0500, "Len Gaasenbeek"
| wrote:
|
| To all,
|
| The rate (frequency) at which the pebbles are dropped and the rate at
which
| they reach their target remains the same as long as all the pebbles are
| exposed to the same gravitational force over the same path length.
|
| However the speed at which they hit the earth gets greater the higher the
| distance from which the pebbles are dropped. But since whatever happens
to
| any one pebble happens to all the others, the frequency at which they hit
| the target remains the same. That is to say, if one pebble is released
each
| second, one pebble will hit the earth each second.
|
| The above is based on simple logic, 'relativity' doesn't come into it.
|
| Relativists never heard of logic, Len.

At least Lenny agrees with me, even though Lenny has never read my
"Selected Papers" that I selected.

Sorcerer Androcles Dumbledore B.A., M.Sc., Ph.D., Headmaster,
hogwarts.physics
school for zauberlehrlings.
"One muggle's magic is another sorcerer's engineering"

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

|
|
| Len Gaasenbeek.
| .............................................
| "Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
| .. .
| On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:44:32 GMT, "Sorcerer"
|
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:03:22 GMT, "Sorcerer"
|
|
|
| | |
| | | Have Paul Andersen's famous tick fairies been niggling at you?
| |
| | Not me, I understand more physics than you or the Tusselad
| | between you ever will.
| | Toss a ball in the air, it comes to a complete stop before falling
| back.
| | Toss balls at one a second and they'll come to a complete
| | stop once a second, UNLESS they have differing velocities.
| | You are right, a high laser fires 0.4um pulses of light towards
| | the ground at a rate of 1 per second, they will reach the ground at
| | the same rate of 1 per second, but wrong if you think that is
| | redshift and wrong if you think the velocity is constant.
| | The correct answer to gravitational redshift is that the light
| | is slowed.
| |
| | Light is slowed when leaving a planet. It is blue shifted when
flling
| towardsa
| | a planet.
|
| Ok...and when leaving a star, too.
| Getting drunk already? You've moved the 'a' in 'falling' to the end of
| the
| line.
|
| The computer did that, not I.
|
| But anyway, we agree light falls.
| Starlight will bend toward the sun, too, just as any massive object
will,
| and
| the amount of bending can be used a measure of its speed.
| Now... what does that tell us about the nature of mass?
|
| Not much, actually.
|
| | ****ing obvious for someone that understands c+at.
| | You DO understand v = at?
| | It doesn't get more basic than that.
| |
| | You couldn't eve work out how much light accelerates when it falls..
|
| You ARE drunk. The acceleration is 9.8 metres per second squared.
| 100,000 metres to the top of the atmosphere, t =333 usec, gain in
| velocity is 3 millimetres per second.
| Measured speed of light:
| 299,792.4562 kilometers per second, plus or minus 1.1 meters per
second
| The gain is a fraction of the tolerance and therefore not measurable.
|
| The effect they are claiming is around 4 parts in 10^10. It is
mesurable.
|
| Hence the ****wit Perry is spouting the usual bull**** that all
| relativists
| do.
| Tell him I said so.
|
| Now, Mr. Engineer, try calculating the change in light speed from a GPS
| clock
| in orbit about 26000 kms from the Earth's centre. I hope you learnt how
to
| perform simple integrations.
|
| Androcles
|
|
|
| HW.
| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
|
| The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the
| latter's product doesn't fall apart till AFTER the sale.
|
|
|
| HW.
| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
|
| The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the
latter's product doesn't fall apart till AFTER the sale.

On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 06:42:28 GMT, "Sorcerer"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
.. .
| On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 03:22:36 GMT, "Sorcerer"

| wrote:

| So tell ME. What does it tell YOU?

Understand something. This is deep ****. You won't find this in
any text book, but Ritz was mighty close.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/paradigm
3 : a philosophical and theoretical framework of a scientific school or
discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the
experiments performed in support of them are formulated; broadly : a
philosophical or theoretical framework of any kind

My views require a paradigm shift, as they do with c+v vs Einstein.


Tell me how you measure mass first and I'll explain it in terms you
can understand. The Bohr atom is mostly empty space. There is
force going on, but not much else.

Mass and 'fields' are much the same thing.


|
| For simplicity and given:
| all sats are at altitude r = 26,000 km
| all sats have a reliable clock
| the receiver has a broken clock, do not use.
|
| Sat_A says it's at 90° 00' 00.00"N, 00° 00' 00.00"E, at time 0.0
| Sat_B says it's at 30° 00' 00.00"S, 00° 00' 00.00"E, at time 0.0
| Sat_C says it's at 30° 00' 00.00"N, 00° 00' 00.00"E, at time
| 0.000086726665272239762249227670859584 seconds.
|
| Where's the receiver, calculated from the data given?
| It doesn't get any easier or more basic than that.
|
| This is just a tad harder.
| Sat_A says it's at 40° 00' 00.00"N, 00° 00' 00.00"E, at time 0.0
| Sat_B says it's at 10° 00' 00.00"N, 00° 00' 00.00"E, at time 0.0
| Sat_C says it's at 30° 00' 00.00"N, 00° 00' 00.00"E,
| at time 0.0000033356409720092216249702950330609 seconds
|
| Where's the receiver (two possible positions)?
| How could a fourth satellite resolve the two positions?
| Without a fourth satellite, how could a second reading
| one minute later resolve the two positions?
| Why would you care about the second position anyway?
|
| If you can give the right answer you'll understand GPS.
| If you can give the algorithm and know radio and computer
| electronics you can build your own receiver.
| Being a mere physicist you'd be lost, go no further than
| Sydney or rely on engineers, navigators and road signs.
| You couldn't find your way by the stars, which is all GPS really is
| and used by Cook to find Botany Bay and his way home again.
| For help, see
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS.htm
| Androcles
|
|
| Don't rave. Answer the question, her engineer.

I prefer
"Herr Hexenmeister Androcles Dumbledore BA., M.Sc. Ph.D, Headmaster,
hogwarts.physics"
for my title if you want to be formal, otherwise "Androcles" will do, her
physicist.


| How much does light accelerate in falling from 26000 kms to ground level?

There is no such animal as 26000 kms or even 1 kms, ****ing senile old wabo.
I've already told you, 9.8 metres/sec^2.

| Hint: how much does a lump of lead fired at the Earth at c accelerate?
|
**** off, I don't heed or need your dumb hints.
9.8 metres/sec^2, found empirically.
What does that tell *me* (an engineer), about a physicist?

Listen you stupid old drunken pommie *******, the acceleration due to gravity
is NOT anything like 9.8 m/s2 at 20000 kms from Earth.

I think you should join geesey in his first year physics course....

Hint: It tells me he's ****in' senile or ****in' drunk.
ROFL!

Geez, you'll be embarrassed by this crap when you sober up....

Androcles



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter's product doesn't fall apart till AFTER the sale.

To all,

Let us suppose that A stands on top of a tower and drops pebbles to B who
stands at the bottom of the tower. Next let us suppose that it takes 1/2
second for each pebble to travel from A to B.
At noon A drops the first pebble which reaches B 1/2 second later.
At one second after noon A drops the second pebble which reaches B at 1 1/2
seconds after noon.
At two seconds after noon A drops the third pebble which reaches B at 2 1/2
seconds after noon and so on.

You will notice from the above that A drops a pebble at one second intervals
and that B receives a pebble at one second intervals. Q.E.D.

Len Gaasenbeek.
.................................................. .............

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 06:42:28 GMT, "Sorcerer"

wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
.. .
| On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 03:22:36 GMT, "Sorcerer"

| wrote:

| So tell ME. What does it tell YOU?

Understand something. This is deep ****. You won't find this in
any text book, but Ritz was mighty close.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/paradigm
3 : a philosophical and theoretical framework of a scientific school or
discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the
experiments performed in support of them are formulated; broadly : a
philosophical or theoretical framework of any kind

My views require a paradigm shift, as they do with c+v vs Einstein.


Tell me how you measure mass first and I'll explain it in terms you
can understand. The Bohr atom is mostly empty space. There is
force going on, but not much else.

Mass and 'fields' are much the same thing.


|
| For simplicity and given:
| all sats are at altitude r = 26,000 km
| all sats have a reliable clock
| the receiver has a broken clock, do not use.
|
| Sat_A says it's at 90° 00' 00.00"N, 00° 00' 00.00"E, at time 0.0
| Sat_B says it's at 30° 00' 00.00"S, 00° 00' 00.00"E, at time 0.0
| Sat_C says it's at 30° 00' 00.00"N, 00° 00' 00.00"E, at time
| 0.000086726665272239762249227670859584 seconds.
|
| Where's the receiver, calculated from the data given?
| It doesn't get any easier or more basic than that.
|
| This is just a tad harder.
| Sat_A says it's at 40° 00' 00.00"N, 00° 00' 00.00"E, at time 0.0
| Sat_B says it's at 10° 00' 00.00"N, 00° 00' 00.00"E, at time 0.0
| Sat_C says it's at 30° 00' 00.00"N, 00° 00' 00.00"E,
| at time 0.0000033356409720092216249702950330609 seconds
|
| Where's the receiver (two possible positions)?
| How could a fourth satellite resolve the two positions?
| Without a fourth satellite, how could a second reading
| one minute later resolve the two positions?
| Why would you care about the second position anyway?
|
| If you can give the right answer you'll understand GPS.
| If you can give the algorithm and know radio and computer
| electronics you can build your own receiver.
| Being a mere physicist you'd be lost, go no further than
| Sydney or rely on engineers, navigators and road signs.
| You couldn't find your way by the stars, which is all GPS really is
| and used by Cook to find Botany Bay and his way home again.
| For help, see
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS.htm
| Androcles
|
|
| Don't rave. Answer the question, her engineer.

I prefer
"Herr Hexenmeister Androcles Dumbledore BA., M.Sc. Ph.D, Headmaster,
hogwarts.physics"
for my title if you want to be formal, otherwise "Androcles" will do, her
physicist.


| How much does light accelerate in falling from 26000 kms to ground
level?

There is no such animal as 26000 kms or even 1 kms, ****ing senile old
wabo.
I've already told you, 9.8 metres/sec^2.

| Hint: how much does a lump of lead fired at the Earth at c accelerate?
|
**** off, I don't heed or need your dumb hints.
9.8 metres/sec^2, found empirically.
What does that tell *me* (an engineer), about a physicist?

Listen you stupid old drunken pommie *******, the acceleration due to
gravity
is NOT anything like 9.8 m/s2 at 20000 kms from Earth.

I think you should join geesey in his first year physics course....

Hint: It tells me he's ****in' senile or ****in' drunk.
ROFL!

Geez, you'll be embarrassed by this crap when you sober up....

Androcles



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the
latter's product doesn't fall apart till AFTER the sale.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
| On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 06:42:28 GMT, "Sorcerer"

| wrote:
|
|
| "Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 03:22:36 GMT, "Sorcerer"
|
| | wrote:
|
| | So tell ME. What does it tell YOU?
|
| Understand something. This is deep ****. You won't find this in
| any text book, but Ritz was mighty close.
|
| http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/paradigm
| 3 : a philosophical and theoretical framework of a scientific school or
| discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the
| experiments performed in support of them are formulated; broadly : a
| philosophical or theoretical framework of any kind
|
| My views require a paradigm shift, as they do with c+v vs Einstein.
|
|
| Tell me how you measure mass first and I'll explain it in terms you
| can understand. The Bohr atom is mostly empty space. There is
| force going on, but not much else.
|
| Mass and 'fields' are much the same thing.

Ok, so it DID tell YOU something.
Now tell me how you measure mass.


|
|
| |
| | For simplicity and given:
| | all sats are at altitude r = 26,000 km
| | all sats have a reliable clock
| | the receiver has a broken clock, do not use.
| |
| | Sat_A says it's at 90° 00' 00.00"N, 00° 00' 00.00"E, at time 0.0
| | Sat_B says it's at 30° 00' 00.00"S, 00° 00' 00.00"E, at time 0.0
| | Sat_C says it's at 30° 00' 00.00"N, 00° 00' 00.00"E, at time
| | 0.000086726665272239762249227670859584 seconds.
| |
| | Where's the receiver, calculated from the data given?
| | It doesn't get any easier or more basic than that.
| |
| | This is just a tad harder.
| | Sat_A says it's at 40° 00' 00.00"N, 00° 00' 00.00"E, at time 0.0
| | Sat_B says it's at 10° 00' 00.00"N, 00° 00' 00.00"E, at time 0.0
| | Sat_C says it's at 30° 00' 00.00"N, 00° 00' 00.00"E,
| | at time 0.0000033356409720092216249702950330609 seconds
| |
| | Where's the receiver (two possible positions)?
| | How could a fourth satellite resolve the two positions?
| | Without a fourth satellite, how could a second reading
| | one minute later resolve the two positions?
| | Why would you care about the second position anyway?
| |
| | If you can give the right answer you'll understand GPS.
| | If you can give the algorithm and know radio and computer
| | electronics you can build your own receiver.
| | Being a mere physicist you'd be lost, go no further than
| | Sydney or rely on engineers, navigators and road signs.
| | You couldn't find your way by the stars, which is all GPS really is
| | and used by Cook to find Botany Bay and his way home again.
| | For help, see
| | http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS.htm
| | Androcles
| |
| |
| | Don't rave. Answer the question, her engineer.
|
| I prefer
| "Herr Hexenmeister Androcles Dumbledore BA., M.Sc. Ph.D, Headmaster,
| hogwarts.physics"
| for my title if you want to be formal, otherwise "Androcles" will do, her
| physicist.
|
|
| | How much does light accelerate in falling from 26000 kms to ground
level?
|
| There is no such animal as 26000 kms or even 1 kms, ****ing senile old
wabo.
| I've already told you, 9.8 metres/sec^2.
|
| | Hint: how much does a lump of lead fired at the Earth at c accelerate?
| |
| **** off, I don't heed or need your dumb hints.
| 9.8 metres/sec^2, found empirically.
| What does that tell *me* (an engineer), about a physicist?
|
| Listen you stupid old drunken pommie *******, the acceleration due to
gravity
| is NOT anything like 9.8 m/s2 at 20000 kms from Earth.
|
| I think you should join geesey in his first year physics course....

No, you don't think.
What the **** is kms?

|
| Hint: It tells me he's ****in' senile or ****in' drunk.
| ROFL!
|
| Geez, you'll be embarrassed by this crap when you sober up....

I'm quite sober. What the **** is kms, you ****witted red-faced old ****pot?

Not relevant.

"Len Gaasenbeek" wrote in message
...
| To all,
|
| Let us suppose that A stands on top of a tower

Not relevant, you senile old fool. The subject is GPS for Wilson.

GPS stands for Global Positioning System, not Gaasenbeek's Petty Stupidity.

For simplicity and given:
all sats are at altitude r = 26,000 km
all sats have a reliable clock
the receiver has a broken clock, do not use.

Sat_A says it's at 90° 00' 00.00"N, 00° 00' 00.00"E, at time 0.0
Sat_B says it's at 30° 00' 00.00"S, 00° 00' 00.00"E, at time 0.0
Sat_C says it's at 30° 00' 00.00"N, 00° 00' 00.00"E, at time
0.000086726665272239762249227670859584 seconds.

Where's the receiver, calculated from the data given?
It doesn't get any easier or more basic than that.

This is just a tad harder.
Sat_A says it's at 40° 00' 00.00"N, 00° 00' 00.00"E, at time 0.0
Sat_B says it's at 10° 00' 00.00"N, 00° 00' 00.00"E, at time 0.0
Sat_C says it's at 30° 00' 00.00"N, 00° 00' 00.00"E,
at time 0.0000033356409720092216249702950330609 seconds

Where's the receiver (two possible positions)?
How could a fourth satellite resolve the two positions?
Without a fourth satellite, how could a second reading
one minute later resolve the two positions?
Why would you care about the second position anyway?

If you can give the right answer you'll understand GPS.
If you can give the algorithm and know radio and computer
electronics you can build your own receiver.
Being a mere physicist you'd be lost.
For help, see
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS.htm
Androcles

On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 06:29:30 -0500, "Len Gaasenbeek"
wrote:

To all,

Let us suppose that A stands on top of a tower and drops pebbles to B who
stands at the bottom of the tower. Next let us suppose that it takes 1/2
second for each pebble to travel from A to B.
At noon A drops the first pebble which reaches B 1/2 second later.
At one second after noon A drops the second pebble which reaches B at 1 1/2
seconds after noon.
At two seconds after noon A drops the third pebble which reaches B at 2 1/2
seconds after noon and so on.

You will notice from the above that A drops a pebble at one second intervals
and that B receives a pebble at one second intervals. Q.E.D.

Len Gaasenbeek.

You are wrong. To be precise, you are imprecise.

w.