Re: NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS
Koobee Wublee
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> > Nowhere in these links below, academic or industrial,
> > or govt, is there any word about relativity:
> > <http://www8.garmin.com/aboutGPS/>
> > <http://www.maps-gps-info.com/gps-accuracy.html>
> > <http://www.igage.com/mp/GPSAccuracy.htm>
> > <http://www.nasm.si.edu/gps/spheres.html>
> > <http://www.crunchgear.com/2011/01/04/new-gps-system-boosts-accuracy-t...>
> > <http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/02/enhancing-gps.html>
>
> None of them mention Newton's laws of motion, either.
Just how dumb can Peter get? Newton’s law is not in question here.
<shrug>
> Why would you think that a Garmin GPS brochure would talk about General
> Relativity?
If they applied relativity, they will mention it in their algorithm.
<shrug>
Their algorithm is very certainly covered in the “navigation equation”
section of the following link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS
If you possess knowledge in algebra, you should have no problem figure
out what it is saying. Notice there is no relativity coming into play
in the algorithm. <shrug>
> > Only some few papers written by kikes, make a big
> > deal about the vanishing to non-existent role that
> > SR/GR is supposed to play in GPS...
>
> Why didn't you Google "GPS relativity", if you wanted to find out who has
> written papers on this.
>
> When I do this, these are the first few links I get:
>
> http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
>
> Not Jewish.
>
> Professor of astronomy at Ohio State.
It is sad a professor would blindly repeat garbage like that without
investigating further and understanding the subject better. <shrug>
Is the Darb still in Ohio State?
> http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp
>
> Not Jewish.
>
> Physics Professor at Maryland U.
Oh, another self-styled physicist. <shrug>
> http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/writers/will.cfm
>
> Not Jewish.
>
> Physics professor at Washington Uni.
Yet another one who does not understand the GPS. <shrug>
Peter Webb
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a132bd32-0b15-41ee...@f31g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> > Nowhere in these links below, academic or industrial,
> > or govt, is there any word about relativity:
> > <http://www8.garmin.com/aboutGPS/>
> > <http://www.maps-gps-info.com/gps-accuracy.html>
> > <http://www.igage.com/mp/GPSAccuracy.htm>
> > <http://www.nasm.si.edu/gps/spheres.html>
> > <http://www.crunchgear.com/2011/01/04/new-gps-system-boosts-accuracy-t...>
> > <http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/02/enhancing-gps.html>
>
> None of them mention Newton's laws of motion, either.
Just how dumb can Peter get? Newton’s law is not in question here.
<shrug>
> Why would you think that a Garmin GPS brochure would talk about General
> Relativity?
If they applied relativity, they will mention it in their algorithm.
<shrug>
Their algorithm is very certainly covered in the “navigation equation”
section of the following link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS
_______________________________
Yes. And it mentions how Relativity is used. Just search for "Relativity" on
the page. Can't you read very well in English?
If you possess knowledge in algebra, you should have no problem figure
out what it is saying. Notice there is no relativity coming into play
in the algorithm. <shrug>
______________________________________
Yes there is. Here I quote from the article *you* posted:
"To achieve accuracy requirements, GPS uses principles of general relativity
to correct the satellites' atomic clocks."
> > Only some few papers written by kikes, make a big
> > deal about the vanishing to non-existent role that
> > SR/GR is supposed to play in GPS...
>
> Why didn't you Google "GPS relativity", if you wanted to find out who has
> written papers on this.
>
> When I do this, these are the first few links I get:
>
> http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
>
> Not Jewish.
>
> Professor of astronomy at Ohio State.
It is sad a professor would blindly repeat garbage like that without
investigating further and understanding the subject better. <shrug>
________________________
But this clearly proves your statement wrong.
> http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp
>
> Not Jewish.
>
> Physics Professor at Maryland U.
Oh, another self-styled physicist. <shrug>
________________________________
He is not "self styled". He holds a recognized academic qualification in
physics.
Are you a "self styled physicist, or do you have a recognised academic
qualification in physics?
> http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/writers/will.cfm
>
> Not Jewish.
>
> Physics professor at Washington Uni.
_____________________________
Again, proves you wrong.
Why did you post a Wikipedia article which quite clearly states that
Relativity is used in GPS as evidence that GPS doesn't use Relativity? Is it
an English language problem, or don't you read what you post, or are you
just stupid?
Koobee Wublee
Well, the only mention of relativity is in the section on “history”.
The rest of the article dealing with the exact workings of the GPS
never even references relativity as its application. Your analytical
skills must be totally lacking. <shrug>
You have been told through rigorous engineering analyses that the
clocks of the satellites and the ground do not have to be
synchronized. The rest of the article never even has attempted to
utter this issue as a requirement. So, where exactly is this
relativistic correction utilized in the GPS? <shrug>
Oh, the requirement only exists in the minds of retards like
yourself. <shrug>
> > Nowhere in these links below, academic or industrial,
> > or govt, is there any word about relativity:
> > <http://www8.garmin.com/aboutGPS/>
> > <http://www.maps-gps-info.com/gps-accuracy.html>
> > <http://www.igage.com/mp/GPSAccuracy.htm>
> > <http://www.nasm.si.edu/gps/spheres.html>
> > <http://www.crunchgear.com/2011/01/04/new-gps-system-boosts-accuracy-t...>
> > <http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/02/enhancing-gps.html>
>
> None of them mention Newton's laws of motion, either.
Just how dumb can Peter get? Newton’s law is not in question here.
<shrug>
> Why would you think that a Garmin GPS brochure would talk about General
> Relativity?
If they applied relativity, they will mention it in their algorithm.
<shrug>
Their algorithm is very certainly covered in the “navigation equation”
section of the following link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS
If you possess knowledge in algebra, you should have no problem figure
out what it is saying. Notice there is no relativity coming into play
in the algorithm. <shrug>
> > Only some few papers written by kikes, make a big
> > deal about the vanishing to non-existent role that
> > SR/GR is supposed to play in GPS...
>
> Why didn't you Google "GPS relativity", if you wanted to find out who has
> written papers on this.
>
> When I do this, these are the first few links I get:
>
> http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
>
> Not Jewish.
>
> Professor of astronomy at Ohio State.
It is sad a professor would blindly repeat garbage like that without
investigating further and understanding the subject better. <shrug>
Is the Darb still in Ohio State?
> http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp
>
> Not Jewish.
>
> Physics Professor at Maryland U.
Oh, another self-styled physicist. <shrug>
> http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/writers/will.cfm
>
> Not Jewish.
>
> Physics professor at Washington Uni.
Yet another one who does not understand the GPS. <shrug>
Peter Webb
> Why did you post a Wikipedia article which quite clearly states that
> Relativity is used in GPS as evidence that GPS doesn't use Relativity? Is
> it
> an English language problem, or don't you read what you post, or are you
> just stupid?
Well, the only mention of relativity is in the section on “history”.
_________________________
No, it is mentioned three times, including in the references. You posted
this as proof that GPS doesn't use Relativity, because it isn't mentioned on
the web page. it is, three times.
The rest of the article dealing with the exact workings of the GPS
never even references relativity as its application. Your analytical
skills must be totally lacking. <shrug>
_______________________
Try searching for the word "Relativity". You posted this article; you
claimed that it never mentions Relativity; it clearly does, all you have
done is post an article which states that Relativity is used in GPS. Which
appears to be the exact opposite of what you claim. It is your analytical
skills which are lacking, not to mention your inability to read all the way
to the fourth paragraph or search within a web page.
You have been told through rigorous engineering analyses that the
clocks of the satellites and the ground do not have to be
synchronized. The rest of the article never even has attempted to
utter this issue as a requirement. So, where exactly is this
relativistic correction utilized in the GPS? <shrug>
___________________________________
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf
Oh, the requirement only exists in the minds of retards like
yourself. <shrug>
_________________________________
No.
> > Nowhere in these links below, academic or industrial,
> > or govt, is there any word about relativity:
> > <http://www8.garmin.com/aboutGPS/>
> > <http://www.maps-gps-info.com/gps-accuracy.html>
> > <http://www.igage.com/mp/GPSAccuracy.htm>
> > <http://www.nasm.si.edu/gps/spheres.html>
> > <http://www.crunchgear.com/2011/01/04/new-gps-system-boosts-accuracy-t...>
> > <http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/02/enhancing-gps.html>
>
> None of them mention Newton's laws of motion, either.
Just how dumb can Peter get? Newton’s law is not in question here.
<shrug>
________________________________
These people didn't put these pages together to answer questions about
Relativity, either. Just because some fact doesn't appear on some website
doesn't mean the fact is wrong.
> Why would you think that a Garmin GPS brochure would talk about General
> Relativity?
If they applied relativity, they will mention it in their algorithm.
<shrug>
____________________________
Why? Computer chips use quantum mechanics, but I don't see Asus talking
about quantum mechanics in their laptop brochures.
Their algorithm is very certainly covered in the “navigation equation”
section of the following link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS
If you possess knowledge in algebra, you should have no problem figure
out what it is saying. Notice there is no relativity coming into play
in the algorithm. <shrug>
_______________________________
From this site (which you posted): "To achieve accuracy requirements, GPS
uses principles of general relativity to correct the satellites' atomic
clocks.". Are you now claiming that the site *you* posted as evidence is
wrong?
hanson
>
"Peter Webb" <webbfamily@.com.au> wrote:
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Peter Webb" wrote:
>> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>
Nowhere in these links below, academic or industrial,
or govt, is there any word about relativity:
<http://www8.garmin.com/aboutGPS/>
<http://www.maps-gps-info.com/gps-accuracy.html>
<http://www.igage.com/mp/GPSAccuracy.htm>
<http://www.nasm.si.edu/gps/spheres.html>
<http://www.crunchgear.com/2011/01/04/new-gps-system-boosts-accuracy-t...>
<http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/02/enhancing-gps.html>
>>
None of them mention Newton's laws of motion, either.
>
hanson wrote:
"So",... so, you are an Einstein Dingleberry, Peter.
>
"Koobee Wublee" wrote:
Just how dumb can Peter get? Newton’s law is not in
question here. <shrug>
>
Webb is not dumb. He is worse. He is an Einstein
Dingleberry. When EDs like Webb hear or see the
word "relativity" they fall into a religious trance.
The only difference between Webb and some rag
head is their icon. Webb worships Einstein's Asshole
while the Islamist extremist yearns for 72 whores
promised to him in the Koran if he defends it.
>
Dingleberry Webb wrote:
Why would you think that a Garmin GPS brochure
would talk about General Relativity?
>
If they applied relativity, they will mention it in their
algorithm. <shrug>
Their algorithm is very certainly covered in the
“navigation equation” section of the following link.
>
ED Webb wrote:
Yes. And it mentions how Relativity is used. Just search for
"Relativity" on the page. Can't you read very well in English?
>
The 2 places in link [1] which mention relativity say:
"In 1956 Friedwardt Winterberg[2] proposed a test of
general relativity using accurate atomic clocks placed in
orbit in artificial satellites. To achieve accuracy requirements,
GPS uses principles of general relativity to correct the
satellites' atomic clocks."
>
in my post to Dunno-Dono, which you read, but you came
back like a drug addict for another fix... ahahaha..
>
Listen ED-Webb, Einstein Dingleberries, like yourself,
will never be able to realize in their fanaticism that the
above cited paragraph only shows that the author was
a biased Einstein Dingleberry too... who by hook and
crook tried to fudge in something about relativity... which
gave Webb an immediate relativity erection... AHAHAHA...
>
Even worse, ED-Webb does not realize that the author
twists ED-Webb like a pendejo and confuses ED-Webb
with his circular reasoning by using SR/GR to test SR/GR.
AHAHAHAHA.. ahahaha...
>
But that is good enough for the ED-pendejo choir who
cherishes its own <http://tinyurl.com/Proof-of-Relativity>
with Webb, loud on centerstage, up front and deliriously
happy.... ahahahahaha... Thanks for the laughs Webb
ahahahaha... ahahahahanson
>
<shaved the rest of Webb's pendejos>
Peter Webb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS says "GPS uses principles of general
relativity to correct the satellites' atomic clocks."?
So, you are now (instead) claiming that the web page - offered as proof that
GPS doesn't use Relativity - does state that GPS uses Relativity after all,
but that is wrong?
Is that your position?
Koobee Wublee
> So, just to get this straight, you accept and acknowledge that
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS
> says "GPS uses principles of general
> relativity to correct the satellites' atomic clocks."?
No. <shrug>
> So, you are now (instead) claiming that the web page - offered as proof that
> GPS doesn't use Relativity - does state that GPS uses Relativity after all,
> but that is wrong?
The article claims so in a non-technical section but fails to deliver
so in the technical section. In science, it is the technical section
that is backed up by analyses that count. You just have to get used
to it. <shrug>
Claim is cheap. Any bozo can claim so is true. <shrug>
> Is that your position?
Absolutely. Only retards cannot decide for themselves. <shrug>
hanson
pendejo-"Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
Is that your position?
>
hanson wrote:
ED-pendejo Webb, listen. Here is a "repeat" of my position:
satellites' atomic clocks."
>
Peter Webb
> On Apr 27, 12:44 am, "Peter Webb" wrote:
>
>> So, just to get this straight, you accept and acknowledge that
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS
>> says "GPS uses principles of general
>> relativity to correct the satellites' atomic clocks."?
>
> No. <shrug>
>
OK, go to the web page, scan down to the fourth paragraph, second sentence.
Do you see it now?
>> So, you are now (instead) claiming that the web page - offered as proof
>> that
>> GPS doesn't use Relativity - does state that GPS uses Relativity after
>> all,
>> but that is wrong?
>
> The article claims so in a non-technical section but fails to deliver
> so in the technical section. In science, it is the technical section
> that is backed up by analyses that count. You just have to get used
> to it. <shrug>
Then why did you post it?
And why did you post it, claiming that it doesn't even mention Relativity,
when it clearly states "To achieve accuracy requirements, GPS uses
principles of general relativity to correct the satellites' atomic clocks."
(Fourth paragraph, second sentence. The one you couldn't find).
>
> Claim is cheap. Any bozo can claim so is true. <shrug>
>
>> Is that your position?
>
> Absolutely. Only retards cannot decide for themselves. <shrug>
Do you now acknowledge and accept that this web page (offered as proof that
GPS doesn't use Relativity) clearly states the exact opposite of what you
claim, specifically stating (and I quote): "To achieve accuracy
requirements, GPS uses principles of general relativity to correct the
satellites' atomic clocks." ?
Well?
Jerry
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Do you now acknowledge and accept that this web page (offered as proof that
> GPS doesn't use Relativity) clearly states the exact opposite of what you
> claim, specifically stating (and I quote): "To achieve accuracy
> requirements, GPS uses principles of general relativity to correct the
> satellites' atomic clocks." ?
>
> Well?
Why are we debating on the basis of secondary sources? Here are
quotes from the officially released Interface Control Documents
for the GPS, Galileo, and GLONASS systems:
GPS Interface Control Document (ICD 200c)
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/ICD200Cw1234.pdf
3.3.3.1 "The SV carrier frequency and clock rates -- as they
would appear to an observer located in the SV -- are offset to
compensate for relativistic effects. The clock rates are offset
by delta f/f = -4.4647E-10..."
European GNSS (Galileo) Open Service
Signal In Space Interface Control Document
http://tinyurl.com/yblsztb
5.1.4 "This satellite time correction is modelled through the
following second order polynomial...where...delta t_r is a
relativistic correction term...-4.442807309 x 10^-10..."
Global Navigation Satellite System
GLONASS
http://rniikp.ru/en/pages/about/publ/ICD_GLONASS_eng.pdf
3.3.1.1 "To compensate relativistic effects, the nominal value of
frequency, as observed at satellite, is biased from 5.0 MHz by
relative value f/f = -4.36 10^-10..."
Jerry
hanson
>
"Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
did show his own <http://tinyurl.com/Proof-of-Relativity> & wrote:
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Well?
>
hanson wrote:
ahahahaha... No, not all is "well" with you, pendejo-Peter.
You act quite rational and analytical, and you see thru the
con that Al Gore's AWG fanatics try to fuck you over with...
>
But when it comes to SR/GR, how come you behave like
a brainwashed object that fell victim to the grand Zionist
con of the 20th century, and you proselytize for it as if your
sanity and well being was at stake?....
>
.... when & while it is abundantly clear that only some few
papers, written by kikes, make a big deal about the vanishing
get to the 38 usec,
.... when & while any high school student or engineer, can
glean, for this particular situation, in 1 fell swoop, in ONE
SINGLE STEP, in good, old Newtonian ways, & show that
>
||||| ---- m_e/h * 2G/c^2 *86400 = 38 microsec/day ----
||||| ---- m_e/h * 2G/c *86400 = 11.2... drift /day ----
|||||
where m_e = mass of earth and h = the satellite's height
above the earth surface. Corrections are done by standard
industrial ways by classical methods devoid of any SR/GR.
< http://tinyurl.com/622an2> or < http://tinyurl.com/57asbg> or
<http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm>
>
|||||||| ---- GPS NEVER NEEDED neither SR nor GR ---- |||||||||
||||| not for its design, manufacturing, testing nor operations. |||||
||||| ------------ GPS was in operation LONG before ----------- |||||
||||| Einstein Dingleberries came along to nuzzle into the |||||
||||| show, hoping to get some credit away from Newton. |||||
||||| Albert's SR/GR is the Kosher Tax levied onto academia |||||
>
and apparently the incessant indoctrination of the goyim by
<http://tinyurl.com/Zio-Politics-with-Relativity> and / or
<http://tinyurl.com/Alberts-Zio-Politics-w-SR-GR>
has taken its toll on you, Peter Webb, as seen in here
in you the <http://tinyurl.com/Zionist-educated-Relativists>
>
Ding! Ding!... Snap out of it, Peter.. Thanks for the laughs..
ahaha... ahahahaha.. ahahahanson
hanson
another fanatical pendejo, who wrote crap since he can't
see that it is abundantly clear that only some few papers,
non-existent role that SR/GR is supposed to play in GPS...
to get to the 38 usec,
.... when & while any high school student or engineer, can
glean, for this particular situation, in 1 fell swoop, in ONE
SINGLE STEP, in good, old Newtonian ways, & show that
>
||||| ---- m_e/h * 2G/c^2 *86400 = 38 microsec/day ----
||||| ---- m_e/h * 2G/c *86400 = 11.2... drift /day ----
|||||
where m_e = mass of earth and h = the satellite's height
above the earth surface. Corrections are done by standard
industrial ways by classical methods devoid of any SR/GR.
< http://tinyurl.com/622an2> or < http://tinyurl.com/57asbg> or
<http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm>
>
|||||||| ---- GPS NEVER NEEDED neither SR nor GR ---- |||||||||
||||| not for its design, manufacturing, testing nor operations. |||||
||||| ------------ GPS was in operation LONG before ----------- |||||
||||| Einstein Dingleberries came along to nuzzle into the |||||
||||| show, hoping to get some credit away from Newton. |||||
||||| Albert's SR/GR is the Kosher Tax levied onto academia |||||
>
and apparently the incessant indoctrination of the goyim by
<http://tinyurl.com/Zio-Politics-with-Relativity> and / or
<http://tinyurl.com/Alberts-Zio-Politics-w-SR-GR>
ahaha... ahahahaha.. ahahahanson
Jerry
> ||||| ---- m_e/h * 2G/c^2 *86400 = 38 microsec/day ----
> ||||| ---- m_e/h * 2G/c *86400 = 11.2... drift /day ----
> |||||
> where m_e = mass of earth and h = the satellite's height
> above the earth surface.
Your formula is nonsense.
Let h => 0.
Jerry
PD
You wouldn't want a simple sanity check stand in the way of the
intuitively obvious, would you?
>
> Jerry
tensegriboy
you don't need to know spherical trig to use it.
hanson
who was originally Lyndon LaRouche's roach, that
morphed into "Spudnick", son of "Mr. Potato head"
which was disasterous for him, & so he's hiding now
in "rasterspace" as "tensegriboy" from
<Spac...@hotmail.com> from where
||Brian said|| "... do I have to kiss the dingleberries?"
and wonders.....
also, you don't need stringtheory to have GPS, and
you don't need to know spherical trig to use it.
>
Brian, the intent in your 2 liner may be honorable,
but the Dingleberries will string you up for what
you just said no matter how feverishly you wanna
kiss them... hahahahaha... ahahahanson
hanson
>
Idiot Dingleberry "Jerry" <WaterCephalus @comcast.net> wrote:
>
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
||||| ---- m_e/h * 2G/c^2 *86400 = 38 microsec/day ----
||||| ---- m_e/h * 2G/c *86400 = 11.2... drift /day ----
|||||
where m_e = mass of earth and h = the satellite's height
above the earth surface.
>
Your formula is nonsense.
Let h => 0.
>
... ahahahaha.. Only in the mind of an Einstein
Dingleberry, like "Jerry", do the GPS Satellites
roll over the meadows and the desert sands
on the Earth's ground surface at h=> 0.
Now pendejo-Jerry go again upfront center and
present your <http://tinyurl.com/Proof-of-Relativity>
>
Then read the post below again & memorize the
line which says "for this particular situation" and
then snap out of it and then do not destroy the GPS
characteristics just to save relativity with your idiotic
mindset ... See what a pendejo SR/GR has made
out of you.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
>
------ Here it is again for your benefit ----------
>
Dingleberry-"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net>
another fanatical pendejo, who wrote crap since he can't
see that it is abundantly clear that only some few papers,
written by kikes, make a big deal about the vanishing to
non-existent role that SR/GR is supposed to play in GPS...
... like in Ashby's crap, which takes 39 questionable steps
to get to the 38 usec,
.... when & while any high school student or engineer, can
glean, for this particular situation, in 1 fell swoop, in ONE
SINGLE STEP, in good, old Newtonian ways, & show that
>
||||| ---- m_e/h * 2G/c *86400 = 11.2... drift /day ----
|||||
where m_e = mass of earth and h = the satellite's height
industrial ways by classical methods devoid of any SR/GR.
< http://tinyurl.com/622an2> or < http://tinyurl.com/57asbg> or
<http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm>
>
|||||||| ---- GPS NEVER NEEDED neither SR nor GR ---- |||||||||
||||| not for its design, manufacturing, testing nor operations. |||||
||||| ------------ GPS was in operation LONG before ----------- |||||
||||| Einstein Dingleberries came along to nuzzle into the |||||
||||| show, hoping to get some credit away from Newton. |||||
||||| Albert's SR/GR is the Kosher Tax levied onto academia |||||
>
and apparently the incessant indoctrination of the goyim by
<http://tinyurl.com/Zio-Politics-with-Relativity> and / or
<http://tinyurl.com/Alberts-Zio-Politics-w-SR-GR>
has taken its toll on you, Jerry Dingleberry, as seen in here
in you the <http://tinyurl.com/Zionist-educated-Relativists>
>
Ding! Ding!... Snap out of it, Jerry.. Thanks for the laughs..
ahaha... ahahahaha.. ahahahanson
The read all this here again and specifcall wher it
says
Jerry
> ... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHA...
>
> Idiot Dingleberry "Jerry" <WaterCephalus @comcast.net> wrote:
>
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> ||||| ---- m_e/h * 2G/c^2 *86400 = 38 microsec/day ----
> ||||| ---- m_e/h * 2G/c *86400 = 11.2... drift /day ----
> |||||
> where m_e = mass of earth and h = the satellite's height
> above the earth surface.
>
> pendejo Dingleberry-"Jerry" wrote:
>
> Your formula is nonsense.
> Let h => 0.
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> ... ahahahaha.. Only in the mind of an Einstein
> Dingleberry, like "Jerry", do the GPS Satellites
> roll over the meadows and the desert sands
> on the Earth's ground surface at h=> 0.
What is the relativistic correction for a ship's chronometer
running at sea level? When I insert h=0 into your formula, I
get nonsense.
Jerry
NoEinstein
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> So, just to get this straight, you accept and acknowledge thathttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPSsays "GPS uses principles of general
> relativity to correct the satellites' atomic clocks."?
>
> So, you are now (instead) claiming that the web page - offered as proof that
> GPS doesn't use Relativity - does state that GPS uses Relativity after all,
> but that is wrong?
>
> Is that your position?
Dear Peter Webb: Einstein's GR theory was the result of his decade
long odyssey to write an empirical equation defining the orbit of the
planet Mercury about the Sun. That formula has the forces agreeing
with Newton, but including a force variant corresponding to the
Lorentz transformation. The latter correctly "predicts" the
precession of the orbit over time. The same sort of effects apply to
GPS satellites. Those aren't caused by space-time variance, but by
the varying ether flow and density. Both of those vary according to
the inverse square law. Two variables doing the latter will cause a
force variance almost identical to that of the Lorentz transformation,
or beta. For any object moving laterally through the "raining" ether
(that is gravity) such will be more slowed in passing through ether
that is more concentrated close to the Earth (or the Sun, as in the
case of Mercury) than in passing through ether that is less
concentrated. In addition, the ether SPIRALS down. The flow isn't
perpendicular except very near to the Earth (or Sun). If a GPS
satellite has a circular orbit, it won't be necessary to "correct"
anything, by formula, but only to measure the slowing caused by the
ether at the altitude in question. Understanding where the ether is,
the concentration, and the direction of flow are the variables needed
to correct GPS satellites, NOT anything relating to... relativity—
which of course I have invalidated! — NoEinstein —
k...@kymhorsell.com
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7b77167a-b8c6-4c8a...@x37g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 27, 12:44 am, "Peter Webb" wrote:
>>> So, just to get this straight, you accept and acknowledge that
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS
>>> says "GPS uses principles of general
>>> relativity to correct the satellites' atomic clocks."?
>> No. <shrug>
> OK, go to the web page, scan down to the fourth paragraph, second sentence.
> Do you see it now?
Intro physics notes are probably a better source of keywords for
further Googling -- at least for those that broadly accept the mainstream:
<http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/PHY312.03Spring/GPS/GPS.html>
...
There are several reasons that relativity is very important in GPS: GPS
satellites have a large velocity, there is large gravitational potential
differences between that of the satellites and that of the users, and there is
significant Earth rotation effects. These effects themselves might not be that
important but because GPS satellites are equipped with atomic clocks
relativistic effect should be taken into account.
"There are three primary consequences of relativity effects:
1. There is a fixed frequency offset in the satellite's clock rate when
observed from Earth. Most of the effect is purposely removed by slightly
offsetting the satellite clocks in frequency prior to launch, the so-called
"factory offset" of the clock.
2. The slight eccentricity of each satellite orbit causes an additional
periodic clock error effect that varies with the satellite's position in
its orbit plane.
3. There is also effect (Sagnac delay) caused by the Earth's rotation
during the time of transit of the satellite signal from satellite to the
ground" (Parkinson, Bradford. pg. 623-634).
Moving users on the Earth surface or near it or fixed users at some altitude
about the Earth surface have to make additional corrections caused the their
velocity and the height above the ground.
The net effect of relativity for a zero eccentricity GPS satellite is a
combination of effects caused by satellites velocity (Special Relativity
effect) and Earth gravitational field (General Relativity effect). This
produces small fixed frequency offset in addition to classical Doppler shift.
---
["Warmist Abuse Shows They're Losing":]
Irony? Skepticism was never considered abuse in science, until AGW was
invented and bestowed with a "sheltered workshop" status.
-- Gillard Lies <oyroolout...@gmail.com>, 15 Feb 2011 22:57 -0800 (PST)
Eric Gisse
> On Apr 27, 3:44 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > So, just to get this straight, you accept and acknowledge thathttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPSsays"GPS uses principles of general
> > relativity to correct the satellites' atomic clocks."?
>
> > So, you are now (instead) claiming that the web page - offered as proof that
> > GPS doesn't use Relativity - does state that GPS uses Relativity after all,
> > but that is wrong?
>
> > Is that your position?
>
> Dear Peter Webb: Einstein's GR theory was the result of his decade
> long odyssey to write an empirical equation defining the orbit of the
> planet Mercury about the Sun. That formula has the forces agreeing
> with Newton, but including a force variant corresponding to the
> Lorentz transformation.
This is completely incorrect. Please stop making shit up.
[snip rest]
Peter Webb
"NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:14f37eb2-cc69-4360...@z13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 27, 3:44 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> So, just to get this straight, you accept and acknowledge
> thathttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPSsays "GPS uses principles of general
> relativity to correct the satellites' atomic clocks."?
>
> So, you are now (instead) claiming that the web page - offered as proof
> that
> GPS doesn't use Relativity - does state that GPS uses Relativity after
> all,
> but that is wrong?
>
> Is that your position?
Dear Peter Webb: Einstein's GR theory was the result of his decade
long odyssey to write an empirical equation defining the orbit of the
planet Mercury about the Sun.
_______________________________
No. That was not Einstein's motivation for GR.
That formula has the forces agreeing
with Newton, but including a force variant corresponding to the
Lorentz transformation. The latter correctly "predicts" the
precession of the orbit over time.
_____________________________
No. It does not. There are (classically) two components, relating to SR and
GR effects.
The same sort of effects apply to
GPS satellites. Those aren't caused by space-time variance, but by
the varying ether flow and density. Both of those vary according to
the inverse square law. Two variables doing the latter will cause a
force variance almost identical to that of the Lorentz transformation,
or beta. For any object moving laterally through the "raining" ether
(that is gravity) such will be more slowed in passing through ether
that is more concentrated close to the Earth (or the Sun, as in the
case of Mercury) than in passing through ether that is less
concentrated. In addition, the ether SPIRALS down. The flow isn't
perpendicular except very near to the Earth (or Sun). If a GPS
satellite has a circular orbit, it won't be necessary to "correct"
anything, by formula, but only to measure the slowing caused by the
ether at the altitude in question. Understanding where the ether is,
the concentration, and the direction of flow are the variables needed
to correct GPS satellites, NOT anything relating to... relativity—
which of course I have invalidated! — NoEinstein —
____________________________
I am pleased they did not call you in to help design the GPS system. Using
Einstein's equations it demonstrably works; using yours it would not.
Koobee Wublee
> There are several reasons that relativity is very important in GPS:
This was the claim when the self-styled physicists were called to
consult on this project early on. However, engineers prove to be much
smarter than self-styled physicists. Actually, the self-styled
physicists are just too stupid. Taking away their matheMagics, they
have nothing to show for the mysticism they have created. <shrug>
> GPS
> satellites have a large velocity, there is large gravitational potential
> differences between that of the satellites and that of the users, and there is
> significant Earth rotation effects.
<shrug>
First of all, it is the chronological time that is of interest not the
clock. The clock drives a counter that determines the chronological
time. The chronological time is actually the counter. <shrug>
> These effects themselves might not be that
> important but because GPS satellites are equipped with atomic clocks
> relativistic effect should be taken into account.
To compute one’s position relative to the constellation of satellites,
the self-styled physicists originally proposed acquisitions of three
satellites with their known time and positions. <shrug>
The system then has four unknown variables. They are the three
spatial coordinates and the chronological time relative to the
satellites. With only three satellites, you get to solve the four
unknowns with only three equations. Well, in that case, it becomes
crucial to also synchronize the receiver’s chronological time with the
satellites. This is where the myth of GR and SR nonsense got infested
into the system. <shrug>
Very soon, some engineer came about and proposed instead to acquire
the time and position of four satellites. In this case, the system
remains having these four unknown variables, but there become four
independent equations. The GPS receiver then only has to solve these
four unknowns with these four equations. The receiver now can have an
independent running chronological time from the satellites. This
saves a tremendous amount of engineering challenges of trying to
synchronize the ground and the satellite chronological time. <shrug>
If you understand GR, all satellites should have the same GR effect.
Thus, the GR effect whether it is present or not does not come into
play in the GPS system. <shrug>
Claiming GR playing a role in the GPS development is not truthful.
<shrug>
Koobee Wublee
> Why are we debating on the basis of secondary sources? Here are
> quotes from the officially released Interface Control Documents
> for the GPS, Galileo, and GLONASS systems:
>
> GPS Interface Control Document (ICD 200c)
> http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/ICD200Cw1234.pdf
> 3.3.3.1 "The SV carrier frequency and clock rates -- as they
> would appear to an observer located in the SV -- are offset to
> compensate for relativistic effects. The clock rates are offset
> by delta f/f = -4.4647E-10..."
>
> European GNSS (Galileo) Open Service
> Signal In Space Interface Control Document
> http://tinyurl.com/yblsztb
> 5.1.4 "This satellite time correction is modelled through the
> following second order polynomial...where...delta t_r is a
> relativistic correction term...-4.442807309 x 10^-10..."
>
> Global Navigation Satellite System
> GLONASS
> http://rniikp.ru/en/pages/about/publ/ICD_GLONASS_eng.pdf
> 3.3.1.1 "To compensate relativistic effects, the nominal value of
> frequency, as observed at satellite, is biased from 5.0 MHz by
> relative value f/f = -4.36 10^-10..."
These are not specifications but design guidelines or application
notes. Whether you follow these guidelines or not, you will not go
wrong with the GPS design since the satellite time and the ground time
can be out of sync if GR effect is true. That is you can set the
satellite clocks to be so much faster or slower than the ground
clocks. It does not matter. <shrug>
Peter Webb
Claiming GR playing a role in the GPS development is not truthful.
<shrug>
______________________________________
So you believe the designers and implementors of the GPS system didn't
include Relativistic effects in their calculations, and they are all lying?
Why did they do this? The GPS system was a massively expensive US Government
program, and would have been analysed technically in microscopic detail. Why
do you think they lied and used a different algorithm to the one they
published, and why hasn't this massive lie previously come to light?
Koobee Wublee
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Claiming GR playing a role in the GPS development is not truthful.
> > <shrug>
>
> So you believe the designers and implementors of the GPS system didn't
> include Relativistic effects in their calculations, and they are all lying?
Yours truly really does not know if the recommended correction
suggested by these stupid self-styled physicists is indeed implemented
or not. However, it does not matter how the clocks are offset. As
long as all the satellites have the same clock offset, the system will
work. Get over with it. <shrug>
Koobee Wublee
> "NoEinstein" wrote:
> > Einstein's GR theory was the result of his decade
> > long odyssey to write an empirical equation defining the orbit of the
> > planet Mercury about the Sun.
>
> No. That was not Einstein's motivation for GR.
Webb is wrong again. What prompted Hilbert to indulge that so-called
Lagrangian to the ever elusive Einstein-Hilbert action was Einstein
the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar’s passion on deriving
Mercury’s orbital anomaly. <shrug>
> That formula has the forces agreeing
> with Newton, but including a force variant corresponding to the
> Lorentz transformation.
You do not know what you are talking about. The field equations have
nothing to do with SR. <shrug>
> The latter correctly "predicts" the
> precession of the orbit over time.
There are many ways to mathematically crunch through the equations.
The one pioneered by Gerber was the choice to do so. <shrug>
> I am pleased they did not call you in to help design the GPS system. Using
> Einstein's equations it demonstrably works; using yours it would not.
What specific Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar’s
equations are you referring to? <shrug>
Peter Webb
> On Apr 27, 10:17 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>> > Claiming GR playing a role in the GPS development is not truthful.
>> > <shrug>
>>
>> So you believe the designers and implementors of the GPS system didn't
>> include Relativistic effects in their calculations, and they are all
>> lying?
>
> Yours truly really does not know if the recommended correction
> suggested by these stupid self-styled physicists is indeed implemented
> or not.
Well, that is pretty important.
It is the difference between a massive conspiracy of physicists (if they all
lied) and Relativity is used in GPS (as they all claim, and you dispute).
So which is it?
> However, it does not matter how the clocks are offset. As
> long as all the satellites have the same clock offset, the system will
> work. Get over with it. <shrug>
Obviously it does. Many pages have been provided to you which show the error
if relativity is not included in the calculations. If the GPS system did not
include the terms deriving from Relativity, it would be far less accurate.
So what, exactly, is your position? Are Relativistic effects used in GPS
calculations or not? If they are not, why and how is there this huge
conspiracy to lie about how GPS works?
Peter Webb
On Apr 27, 9:50 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
> "NoEinstein" wrote:
> > Einstein's GR theory was the result of his decade
> > long odyssey to write an empirical equation defining the orbit of the
> > planet Mercury about the Sun.
>
> No. That was not Einstein's motivation for GR.
Webb is wrong again. What prompted Hilbert to indulge that so-called
Lagrangian to the ever elusive Einstein-Hilbert action was Einstein
the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar’s passion on deriving
Mercury’s orbital anomaly. <shrug>
________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_general_relativity. The precession
of Mercury was not the motivator. Unless you have a reference which backs up
your statement?
> That formula has the forces agreeing
> with Newton, but including a force variant corresponding to the
> Lorentz transformation.
You do not know what you are talking about. The field equations have
nothing to do with SR. <shrug>
__________________________
I didn't write that and don't know what you are going on about.
> The latter correctly "predicts" the
> precession of the orbit over time.
There are many ways to mathematically crunch through the equations.
The one pioneered by Gerber was the choice to do so. <shrug>
___________________________
Does it produce the same answer as GR?
> I am pleased they did not call you in to help design the GPS system. Using
> Einstein's equations it demonstrably works; using yours it would not.
What specific Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar’s
equations are you referring to? <shrug>
________________________________
SR and GR. The ones used in GPS calculations.
You still haven't told us what is the correct outcome of the Twin's
experiment. Why won't you do this? Are you scared that if your actual
beliefs are discussed, they will be shown to be rubbish?
Helmut Wabnig
Your last 2 paragraphs:
The ever revolving repeating discussion
>"If the GPS system did not "....
It does not have to.
Apply empirical corrections and that's it.
You don't have to calculate anything.
The satellite clock manufacturers allow for remote controlled
clock rate adjustments. Interestingly there is a broader range
to slowdown the clocks than to accelerate them above mean.
Read their spec sheets.
Also it is hogwash to say, as some do, the clocks are beeing adjusted
at ground to a lower rate before starting the satellite carrier
rockets.
We live in the remote-control aera.
Send a few data bytes up there.
w.
hanson
>
"Oye weh"... "Trust me"... <k...@kymhorsell.com>
he said & he feverishly googles but had now idea
"There are several reasons that relativity is very
<all hand waving only, snipped, to save kym embarrassment>
>
hanson wrote:
... It is hilarious how one Einstein Dingleberry after
the other starts to clanker & tremble now, as they
feel threatened in their worship so close to Albert's
sphincter... and come to defend their REL-igion,...
like Islamist extremists do defend their Koran, ...
>
.. since these Einstein Dingleberries cannot see that
written by kikes, make a big deal about the vanishing to
non-existent role that SR/GR is supposed to play in GPS...
... like in Ashby's crap, which takes 39 questionable steps
to get to the 38 usec,
.... when & while any high school student or engineer, can
glean, for this particular situation, in 1 fell swoop, in ONE
SINGLE STEP, in good, old Newtonian ways, & show that
>
||||| ---- m_e/h * 2G/c *86400 = 11.2... drift /day ----
|||||
where m_e = mass of earth and h = the satellite's height
industrial ways by classical methods devoid of any SR/GR.
< http://tinyurl.com/622an2> or < http://tinyurl.com/57asbg> or
<http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm>
>
|||||||| ---- GPS NEVER NEEDED neither SR nor GR ---- |||||||||
||||| not for its design, manufacturing, testing nor operations. |||||
||||| ------------ GPS was in operation LONG before ----------- |||||
||||| Einstein Dingleberries came along to nuzzle into the |||||
||||| show, hoping to get some credit away from Newton. |||||
||||| Albert's SR/GR is the Kosher Tax levied onto academia |||||
>
and apparently the incessant indoctrination of the goyim by
<http://tinyurl.com/Zio-Politics-with-Relativity> and / or
<http://tinyurl.com/Alberts-Zio-Politics-w-SR-GR>
in their <http://tinyurl.com/Zionist-educated-Relativists>
>
Thanks for the laughs, you poor sod, ahahaha... ahahanson
hanson
>
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
||||| ---- m_e/h * 2G/c^2 *86400 = 38 microsec/day ----
||||| ---- m_e/h * 2G/c *86400 = 11.2... drift /day ----
|||||
where m_e = mass of earth and h = the satellite's height
above the earth surface.
>
pendejo Dingleberry-"Jerry" wrote:
Your formula is nonsense.
Let h => 0.
>
hanson wrote:
... ahahahaha.. Only in the mind of an Einstein
Dingleberry, like "Jerry", do the GPS Satellites
roll over the meadows and the desert sands
on the Earth's ground surface at h=> 0.
present your <http://tinyurl.com/Proof-of-Relativity>
>
Then read the post below again & memorize the
line which says "for this particular situation" and
then snap out of it and then do not destroy the GPS
characteristics just to save relativity with your idiotic
mindset ... See what a pendejo SR/GR has made
out of you.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
>
------ Here it is again for your benefit ----------
>
Dingleberry-"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net>
another fanatical pendejo, who wrote crap since he can't
see that it is abundantly clear that only some few papers,
written by kikes, make a big deal about the vanishing to
non-existent role that SR/GR is supposed to play in GPS...
... like in Ashby's crap, which takes 39 questionable steps
to get to the 38 usec,
.... when & while any high school student or engineer, can
glean, for this particular situation, in 1 fell swoop, in ONE
SINGLE STEP, in good, old Newtonian ways, & show that
>
||||| ---- m_e/h * 2G/c *86400 = 11.2... drift /day ----
|||||
where m_e = mass of earth and h = the satellite's height
industrial ways by classical methods devoid of any SR/GR.
< http://tinyurl.com/622an2> or < http://tinyurl.com/57asbg> or
<http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm>
>
|||||||| ---- GPS NEVER NEEDED neither SR nor GR ---- |||||||||
||||| not for its design, manufacturing, testing nor operations. |||||
||||| ------------ GPS was in operation LONG before ----------- |||||
||||| Einstein Dingleberries came along to nuzzle into the |||||
||||| show, hoping to get some credit away from Newton. |||||
||||| Albert's SR/GR is the Kosher Tax levied onto academia |||||
>
and apparently the incessant indoctrination of the goyim by
<http://tinyurl.com/Zio-Politics-with-Relativity> and / or
<http://tinyurl.com/Alberts-Zio-Politics-w-SR-GR>
has taken its toll on you, Jerry Dingleberry, as seen in here
in you the <http://tinyurl.com/Zionist-educated-Relativists>
>
Ding! Ding!... Snap out of it, Jerry.. Thanks for the laughs..
ahaha... ahahahaha.. ahahahanson
>
What is the relativistic correction for a ship's chronometer
running at sea level? When I insert h=0 into your formula,
I get nonsense.
>
hanson wrote:
AHAHAHAHA...No, no, it's not nonsense you get.
You get to be, in the full sense of the word, a
very wet Marine Einstein Dingleberry now. Maybe
you are a Jewish Latter Day Flying Dutchman...
>
Tell me your findings after you have destroyed
the Satellite system by have brought the GPS
Satellite down onto your ship... in order to fulfil
your wish to make h=0.... AHAHAHAHA...
>
Are you just joking or really the grand emissary
of Einstein Dingleberries who is dangling too
close to Albert's Sphincter, for his own comfort
and unable to know what you are doing in your
REL-igious fanaticism?
>
In one of the above links or in a post conversing
the very same issue, you'll find a note where a
GPS equipment SALESMAN was needed to explain
to an another idiot like yourself what's going here...
Are you a Peddler's apprentice... but not up to par?
Furthermore take note that Henry Wilson just told
you: === "Jerry, You are wrong, as usual. ===
>:
Listen Pendejo-Jerry. I'm not here to educate
Einstein Dingleberries like yourself. I am here
to have fun on their account.. and maybe make
them aware, that they are damaged goods due
to their life long Zio brains washing they have
falling victim to, a fact they never noticed, . Pity,
but ever so funny... ahahahaha.. ahahahanson
Koobee Wublee
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yours truly really does not know if the recommended correction
> > suggested by these stupid self-styled physicists is indeed implemented
> > or not.
>
> Well, that is pretty important.
No, it is not. <shrug>
> It is the difference between a massive conspiracy of physicists (if they all
> lied) and Relativity is used in GPS (as they all claim, and you dispute).
No conspiracy. Yours truly is too young to be involved with the GPS
development. However, if He were a program manager then, He will
certainly implement the nonsense suggested by the self-styled
physicists. <shrug>
The reasoning is that to test for such an accuracy in the clocking
system of synchronizing between the satellites and the ground, it
represents more opportunities to collect more money from the customer,
namely the government. He will do anything to jack up the cost. He
would play dumb to do so. <shrug>
> So which is it?
If the self-styled physicists as consultants supervising over the
development of the program were to be a little bit smarter, they would
not impose such a nonessential recommendation, and that would save the
customer money. <shrug>
> > However, it does not matter how the clocks are offset. As
> > long as all the satellites have the same clock offset, the system will
> > work. Get over with it. <shrug>
>
> Obviously it does. Many pages have been provided to you which show the error
> if relativity is not included in the calculations. If the GPS system did not
> include the terms deriving from Relativity, it would be far less accurate.
This is just not true. You will never learn, and as Tom said, it is
your fucking problem only. <shrug>
> So what, exactly, is your position? Are Relativistic effects used in GPS
> calculations or not? If they are not, why and how is there this huge
> conspiracy to lie about how GPS works?
The moral of the story is that never to use self-styled physicists as
consults for anything. <shrug>
GPS proves nothing valid about GR. <shrug>
Koobee Wublee
> "Koobee Wublee" wrote:
> > Webb is wrong again. What prompted Hilbert to indulge that so-called
> > Lagrangian to the ever elusive Einstein-Hilbert action was Einstein
> > the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar s passion on deriving
> > Mercury s orbital anomaly. <shrug>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_general_relativity
>
> The precession
> of Mercury was not the motivator. Unless you have a reference which backs up
> your statement?
“Saint Einstein” gave a historic account of the exchanges between
Hilbert and Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar.
<shrug>
> > You do not know what you are talking about. The field equations have
> > nothing to do with SR. <shrug>
>
> I didn't write that and don't know what you are going on about.
Well, your posting is rather messy. It is hard to tell who utter what
nonsense. <shrug>
> > There are many ways to mathematically crunch through the equations.
> > The one pioneered by Gerber was the choice to do so. <shrug>
>
> Does it produce the same answer as GR?
The question is that “does it produce the same result as
observation”. <shrug>
Yes, Gerber had to modify the Newtonian gravitational potential to do
so. <shrug>
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar also modified the
Newtonian gravitational potential prior to Hilbert’s desperate “hail-
Mary pass”. <shrug>
> > What specific Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar s
> > equations are you referring to? <shrug>
>
> SR and GR. The ones used in GPS calculations.
You have not answered the question. What specific Einstein the
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar’s equations are you referring
to? <shrug>
> You still haven't told us what is the correct outcome of the Twin's
> experiment. Why won't you do this? Are you scared that if your actual
> beliefs are discussed, they will be shown to be rubbish?
Who cares about one’s belief? After all, this is a discussion based
on scientific methodology and not comparing hard-ons with faith. You
just have to get over with that. <shrug>
Sam Wormley
> Yours truly really does not know if the recommended correction
> suggested by these stupid self-styled physicists is indeed implemented
> or not. However, it does not matter how the clocks are offset. As
> long as all the satellites have the same clock offset, the system will
> work. Get over with it.<shrug>
Oooooh, major malunderstanding there, Koobee! You haven't the
foggiest notion of how relativistic corrections are implemented
in the Global Positioning System (GPS). Some corrections and be
combined resulting in an offset on board the satellites clocks,
others in the GPS receivers, and so on. You might want to do a
bit of self-education with this resource by Neil Ashby.
Relativity in the Global Positioning System
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html
Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html
"For atomic clocks in satellites, it is most convenient to consider the
motions as they would be observed in the local ECI frame. Then the
Sagnac effect becomes irrelevant. (The Sagnac effect on moving
ground-based receivers must still be considered.) Gravitational
frequency shifts and second-order Doppler shifts must be taken into
account together. In this section I shall discuss in detail these two
relativistic effects, using the expression for the elapsed coordinate
time, Eq. (28)".
Jerry
You neglect an extremely important consideration. GPS comprises
a Space Segment, a Control Segment, and a User Segment.
The Space Segment consists of the constellation of satellites;
the User Segment consists of the receivers that we are all
familiar with.
The Control Segment comprises the master control station at
Scriever Air Force Base in Colorado plus six unstaffed monitoring
stations around the world, four large ground-antenna stations,
and additional data gathered from monitor stations operated by
the NGIA.
Among other functions, these ground stations closely monitor the
positions of the satellites, and the master control station sends
updated ephemerides information to the satellites as they pass
over the large ground-antenna stations.
Currently, only Block IIR satellites are capable of autonomous
position monitoring and synchronization independent of the
ground Control Segment. This capability allows Block IIR
satellites to mutually correct their clocks and ephemerides
information for a period of up to several months should the
Control Segment be knocked out by, say, nuclear war. For
optimum performance under non-wartime conditions, "ground
truth" comparisons are still performed on a daily basis to
correct the satellites for drift.
In order to perform their function, THESE GROUND STATIONS NEED
PRECISE TIME. How do they set their clocks? Through the GPS
itself.
The ability to distribute precise time is an absolutely essential
aspect of the GPS system, since without precise time, the earth-
based control stations that monitor the satellites' positions and
establish "ground truth" for the system cannot perform their
function.
Unless the satellites' clocks are synchronized with ground clocks
via the GR correction, there is simply no feasible way for them
to distribute time around the globe.
Here is an exercise for you. Go online and buy one of those
neat little Mars watches that are set for a day length of
24h 39m 35s. Set your watch to accurate Earth time, go into a
large office building and using your Mars watch as a reference,
synchronize all of the office clocks over the course of a day
so that they show accurate Earth time to the nearest second.
That's sort of what the problem is like synchronizing the
ground-based clocks of the GPS Control Segment if you don't
adjust the rates of the satellite clocks with the GR
correction.
Jerry
Henry Wilson DSc.
Don't be too hard on poor old Jerry. Having a sex change is a pretty
traumatic event in anyone's life....
Eric Gisse
[...]
> If you understand GR, all satellites should have the same GR effect.
> Thus, the GR effect whether it is present or not does not come into
> play in the GPS system. <shrug>
Except not every satellite was launched at the exact same second, so
different satellites would have different times. So much for that
boneheaded idea.
You contort yourself into many shapes just to avoid the simple
solution of making sure clocks tick at the same rate just so you can
shit on relativity. You are a headcase.
>
> Claiming GR playing a role in the GPS development is not truthful.
> <shrug>
Yeah, it is. You've been given the design documents.
If you'd like to argue that the specifications for the system are
wrong, then you are just making yourself look like a lunatic. Which is
probably 'ok' with you because you don't post under your real name so
you feel no sense of accountability for the crazy shit you spout.
Eric Gisse
[...]
> The moral of the story is that never to use self-styled physicists as
> consults for anything. <shrug>
Nobody consults you for anything, so I guess you were right about
something.
[...]
jacob navia
The arguments of these people are also that Einstein
"was a Jew" , "Relativity is a kosher tax imposed to the goyim"
and other antisemitic ramblings.
Anyway there is no point in really discussing the "theories" of
these people. They will not listen to any arguments and just
answer a long tirade of antisemitic insults, specially
"hanson" and "brad guth".
jacob navia
Henry Wilson DSc.
Poor old Jerry.
UTC = GPS time + leap seonds + the current known difference.
GPS time is being continuously corrected to give UTC.
>Jerry
Henry Wilson DSc.
One doesn't have to be anti semetic to criticize Einstein...but by the same
token, it appears that only those of Jewish faith are suppporters of him.
>jacob navia
Androcles
"jacob navia" <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote in message
news:ipbf4j$2ao$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
I have heard young black men on a bus calling each other "Yo nigga".
I am a white man, you can call me a white man and I will not be offended.
If they think of themselves as niggers why should I not call them niggers?
FACT:
Jews are racist, they think of themselves as God's chosen people,
separate from anyone else and elitist.
FACT:
Einstein WAS a Jew. <shrug>
FACT:
Einstein was a fuckin' idiot. That has nothing to do with his being
Jewish but it speaks volumes about your attitude, you know sweet
fuck-all about GR.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
news:fpcir6l4giuvcdn5f...@4ax.com...
Doubly so when he's had a cephalitic lobotomy. Or was
it syphilitic?
Eric Gisse
Yes, it would appear that way to an anti-semite.
Funny how, when pressed, the most ardent local haters of relativity
also complain about the jews.
I'm sure it is a coincidence.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >jacob navia
hanson
admires and loves these folks:
>.
Israel's ex PM Ariel Sharon in < http://tinyurl.com/nwzvcj >
|||Sharon|||: We are **Judeo-Nazis**.We might use nuclear arms.
|||Sharon|||:.... we might go wild and burn all the oil fields in the
|||Sharon|||: Middle East! --- We might start World War Three.
"Mark K" <se...@server.net> wrote in message
news:HZDcb.429370$Oz4.227552@rwcrnsc54...
>
"One drop of blood of a Jew is worth that of a thousand
Gentiles." Yitzhak Shamir, a former Prime Minister of Israel
> --
Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg declared, "We have to recognize that
Jewish blood and the blood of a goy are not the same thing."
(NY Times, June 6, 1989, p.5).
> --
Rabbi Yaacov Perrin said,
"One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail."
(NY Daily News, Feb. 28, 1994, p.6)."
> --
University of Jerusalem Prof. Ehud Sprinzak described
Kahane and Goldstein's philosophy:
"They believe it's God's will that they commit violence
against goyim, a Hebrew term for non-Jews."
(NY Daily News, Feb. 26, 1994, p. 5).
> --
On Purim, Feb. 25, 1994, Israeli army officer
Baruch Goldstein, an orthodox Jew from Brooklyn,
massacred 40 Palestinian civilians, including children,
while they knelt in prayer in a mosque.
Goldstein was a disciple of the late Brooklyn
that his teaching that Arabs are "dogs" is derived
"from the Talmud." (CBS 60 Minutes, "Kahane").
-- Mark K
>
A Zionist Settler said in: <http://tinyurl.com/mg6q5w>
If censured, check here: < http://tinyurl.com/nd2ff7>
wherein the Zionist proudly declares:
|||Zio||| "You and your fucking Jesus, kiss my ass!... Screw you,
|||Zio||| screw your mothers!... Go away, you Nazi (to a British
|||Zio||| Film crew)... I'll brake your camera... We killed Jesus
|||Zio||| and we are proud of it.... This is our land!.. Get the fuck
|||Zio||| out of here!.. This is my land, you Fuck!... You son of a
|||Zio||| bitch, we are gonna kill you (the Brits) & the Palestinians,
|||Zio||| you Nazi! - You son of a shit! - This is my land. God gave
|||Zio||| it to me!... Fuck you!.. Call everyone you want; I'm gonna
|||Zio||| kill you, Bastards! This is my house! This is my land!...
|||Zio||| God gave it to me!... and FUCK YOU!... "
>
The Zio-ilk is being worse then the Nazis, as seen in actions
which are reported in a Israeli Newspaper
<http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072466.html>
which discusses the habits of soldiers in the Zio Army
who wore T-shirts that say:
|||| ----------------- "One Shot 2 Kills", ----------- showing
|||| --- Zionists targeting and shooting pregnant women ---
>
or is manifest in the conviction of US kike & ex-poster
Uncle rect-Al Schwartz who proudly bragged & posted:
>
||| UA |||: Jews don't work. Jews supervise and take their
||| UA |||: cut. Jews steal with a pencil and have the swag
||| UA |||: delivered by sweating goyim. No tipping!
||| UA |||: Uncle Al's ancestors, [the kikes] were kiting checks
||| UA |||: when yours [goyim] were still swinging through trees.
||| UA |||: You Goyim could study for your entire lifetime and
||| UA |||: not come close to what is hardwired at birth for
||| UA |||: Yahweh's Chosen.
>
||| UA |||: "Uncle Al especially enjoys earthquakes
||| UA |||: that collapse churches filled with worshippers".
>
... echoed by ersatz rabbi Bob Kolker, the kike who said:
||| BK |||: "to put all Christians into asylums for their belief in
||| BK |||: Christianity".
>
||| UA |||: Uncle Al's Schwartz' Hebrew School teacher
||| UA |||: was an Israeli whore who pussy lured British
||| UA |||: soldiers & enjoyed killing them.
||| UA |||: "DEATH to the poor. -- DEATH to the sick. -- ....
||| UA |||: DEATH to the entire Third World. Kill them all".
||| UA |||: "I have no problem with killing the now and
||| UA |||: future enemy. An Earth with 3 billion people
||| UA |||: would be a much nicer place
>
>
But Jacoffcob Navia, the illbegotten & besotted kike
had to come to the rescue of his ilk & wrote:
>
The arguments of these people are also that Einstein
"was a Jew" , "Relativity is a kosher tax imposed to the
goyim" and other antisemitic ramblings. Anyway there
is no point in really discussing the "theories" of these
people. They will not listen to any arguments and just
answer a long tirade of antisemitic insults, specially
"hanson" and "brad guth".
>
hanson wrote:
Whenever brainwashed Einstein Dingleberries like
kikeophile Navia fear that their Einstein shit is in danger
they resort unvaveringly to the Anti-Semitism card.
In his next post kike Navia will bring up the holocaust
to defend and justify Einstein's shit... which Einstein
himself already buried ca 1920, when he said:
>
|||AE:||| If Relativity is correct, the Germans
|||AE:||| & the French will say that I am one of
|||AE:||| their citizens. - If SR/GR is wrong they
|||AE:||| will say that I am a Jew.
Well, by Einstein's own judgment SR/GR is wrong
cuz neither country begged him to take citizenship.
>
Navia, as far as your own kikeophilism goes, heed
the words of your Landsman, poster Victor Diego
who said in
<http://tinyurl.com/Victor-Diego-relativistic-Nazi>
||| VD says |||: ...(Navia) you Fricken untermensch
||| VD says |||: Your parents (or grandparents)
||| VD says |||: missed the dragnet of Himmler/Heydrich
||| VD says |||: and now the world has to suffer for it.
||| VD says |||: ...the selection squad comes calling.
||| VD says |||: ... your ass kicked, and your teeth
||| VD says |||: will be smashed in very short order.
||| VD says |||: You, are marked and you know it."
>
Navai, you fool, you think that Victor Diego was
kidding?... Look here what Israel did just 5 years
after their own holcaust to people like yourself:
<http://tinyurl.com/Holocaust-on-Ringworm-kids>
Like the Nazis, the Judeo-Nazis wanted to have racial
purity too.... Pure Aryan race... Pure Jewish race...
>
and just for some more good measure, kike Navia,
here are some details about the personality of the
idol whose sphincter you worship with a REL-igious
passion: <http://tinyurl.com/yjmfyxa> hush money
of ------ Wife beater Einstein, arrested, twice -------:
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-wife-beater-arrested>
>
Enjoy, and thanks for the laughs, Navia, you Dreidel...
AHAHAHA... ahahahaha... ahahahanson
hanson
>
"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote:
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
Einstein Dingleberry "Jerry" <HydroCephalus @comcast.net> wrote:
>
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
||||| ---- m_e/h * 2G/c^2 *86400 = 38 microsec/day ----
||||| ---- m_e/h * 2G/c *86400 = 11.2... drift /day ----
|||||
where m_e = mass of earth and h = the satellite's height
above the earth surface.
>
pendejo Dingleberry-"Jerry" wrote:
Your formula is nonsense.
Let h => 0.
>>
came back, made his situation worse and wrote:
running at sea level? When I insert h=0 into your formula,
I get nonsense.
>>>:
Listen Pendejo-Jerry. I'm not here to educate
Einstein Dingleberries like yourself. I am here
to have fun on their account.. and maybe make
them aware, that they are damaged goods due
falling victim to, a fact they never noticed. Pity,
but ever so funny... ahahahaha.. ahahahanson
>
Don't be too hard on poor old Jerry. Having a sex
change is a pretty traumatic event in anyone's life
>
... ahahahaha... What sex change. It was the Zio
brainwashing that turned Jerry into an intellectual
pendejo with his huge Hydro-cephalus... hahaha..
>
Pendejo Jerry-Dingleberry, the mental cripple, has
insurmountable problems with reading a simple
equation, but he apparently accepts, without question,
all the nonsense from Einstein's shit whose REL
equations bring forth negative masses &/or infinite
masses that shrink to zero thickness after an infinitely
long time.
>
Thanks for the; laughs, you, guys... hahahahanson
PD
Oh, Ralph. How dare you!
>
> >jacob navia
hanson
>
The kike in "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com>
<http://tinyurl.com/Gisse-the-Jew-page-281>
crawled out of him, as seen when he wrote:
>
...
On Apr 28, 3:59 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 12:22:13 +0200, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net>
> wrote:
> >Le 28/04/11 11:59, Eric Gisse a écrit :
> >> On Apr 27, 9:59 pm, Koobee Wublee<koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Claiming GR playing a role in the GPS development is not truthful.
> >>> <shrug>
>
> >> Yeah, it is. You've been given the design documents.
> >> If you'd like to argue that the specifications for the system are
> >> wrong, then you are just making yourself look like a lunatic. Which is
> >> probably 'ok' with you because you don't post under your real name so
> >> you feel no sense of accountability for the crazy shit you spout.
>
> >The arguments of these people are also that Einstein
> >"was a Jew" , "Relativity is a kosher tax imposed to the goyim"
> >and other antisemitic ramblings.
> >Anyway there is no point in really discussing the "theories" of
> >these people. They will not listen to any arguments and just
> >answer a long tirade of antisemitic insults, specially
> >"hanson" and "brad guth".
>
One doesn't have to be anti semetic to criticize Einstein...but by the same
token, it appears that only those of Jewish faith are suppporters of him.
>
Yes, it would appear that way to an anti-semite.
Funny how, when pressed, the most ardent local haters
of relativity also complain about the jews.
I'm sure it is a coincidence.
>
Now that Erictum has spent 9 years in college
and got dropped without even getting a BSc....
Erictum now seek refuge in his ancestral collective.
Erictum has now taken the final step by that to admit
that he is an abject failure... ahahaha... which is
why it is advisable to show Eric, why he should think
a bit more before he supports the same ilk that
Navia does:
Kike Gisse & Pendejo Judio "jacob navia" <ja...@spamsink.net>
admire and love these folks:
The arguments of these people are also that Einstein
"was a Jew" , "Relativity is a kosher tax imposed to the
goyim" and other antisemitic ramblings. Anyway there
is no point in really discussing the "theories" of these
people. They will not listen to any arguments and just
answer a long tirade of antisemitic insults, specially
"hanson" and "brad guth".
>
Enjoy, and thanks for the laughs, you 2 Dreidels...
AHAHAHA... ahahahaha... ahahahanson
hanson
Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
One doesn't have to be anti semetic to criticize Einstein...
but by the same token, it appears that only those of
Jewish faith are suppporters of him.
>
PD Paul wrote:
Oh, Ralph. How dare you!
>
hanson wrote:
ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHAHA...
Tell me some more about that dare of yours,
Paul. I remember you saying that it was "irrelevant
what Einstein said"... AHAHAHA... ahahahanson
Peter Webb
> On Apr 27, 10:34 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
>> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Yours truly really does not know if the recommended correction
>> > suggested by these stupid self-styled physicists is indeed implemented
>> > or not.
>>
>> Well, that is pretty important.
>
> No, it is not. <shrug>
>
>> It is the difference between a massive conspiracy of physicists (if they
>> all
>> lied) and Relativity is used in GPS (as they all claim, and you dispute).
>
> No conspiracy. Yours truly is too young to be involved with the GPS
> development. However, if He were a program manager then, He will
> certainly implement the nonsense suggested by the self-styled
> physicists. <shrug>
>
You are incoherent. Who is this "He" that you refer to?
You do understand and acknowledge that the engineers who designed and
operated say they used Relativity in its design and without these
adjustments it would not be as accurate?
So, are you claiming that they are lying, as are the many scientists who
have contributed to the design?
Why? Why do you think they are all lying?
> The reasoning is that to test for such an accuracy in the clocking
> system of synchronizing between the satellites and the ground, it
> represents more opportunities to collect more money from the customer,
> namely the government. He will do anything to jack up the cost. He
> would play dumb to do so. <shrug>
>
So you are saying that the Government has bribed all the scientists and
engineers who have helped build the GPS system to all lie about the physics
they used in building it, so they can jack up the cost of a free service
from zero to zero?
Why has none of these scientists spoken out?
Because they aren't wearing tinfoil hats to prevent the Zionist thought
control rays from fooling them about physics?
If not, what is your explanation?
>> So which is it?
>
> If the self-styled physicists as consultants supervising over the
> development of the program were to be a little bit smarter, they would
> not impose such a nonessential recommendation, and that would save the
> customer money. <shrug>
Funny, the system with Relativistic adjustments works quite well, and if
those adjustments had not been made it wouldn't have.
>
>> > However, it does not matter how the clocks are offset. As
>> > long as all the satellites have the same clock offset, the system will
>> > work. Get over with it. <shrug>
>>
>> Obviously it does. Many pages have been provided to you which show the
>> error
>> if relativity is not included in the calculations. If the GPS system did
>> not
>> include the terms deriving from Relativity, it would be far less
>> accurate.
>
> This is just not true. You will never learn, and as Tom said, it is
> your fucking problem only. <shrug>
It is true; it is stated on all reputable web sites, including Wikipedia,
Physics Today, NASA, and many others.
And there is absolutely no reason for the world's scientists to lie about
this. None at all.
>
>> So what, exactly, is your position? Are Relativistic effects used in GPS
>> calculations or not? If they are not, why and how is there this huge
>> conspiracy to lie about how GPS works?
>
> The moral of the story is that never to use self-styled physicists as
> consults for anything. <shrug>
Why do you refuse to answer questions about what you believe?
Scared that answering them will make you look stupid?
Bit late to let that stop you.
>
> GPS proves nothing valid about GR. <shrug>
"nothing valid" ?
You sound *particularly* stupid when you try and sound pompous, which is
about 98% of the time.
Peter Webb
> You still haven't told us what is the correct outcome of the Twin's
> experiment. Why won't you do this? Are you scared that if your actual
> beliefs are discussed, they will be shown to be rubbish?
Who cares about one’s belief? After all, this is a discussion based
on scientific methodology and not comparing hard-ons with faith. You
just have to get over with that. <shrug>
___________________________________
Nobody cares about your beliefs, because you are too chicken-shit to even
say what they are. You probably don't even have any. A Usenet blowhard with
nothing to say.
Daryl McCullough
>(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
>> One doesn't have to be anti semetic to criticize Einstein...but
>> by the same token, it appears that only those of Jewish faith are
>> supporters of him.
Whoa! What an unbelievable statement. Henry really is nuts.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
Daryl McCullough
>
>.... ahahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA....
>>
>The kike in "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com>
><http://tinyurl.com/Gisse-the-Jew-page-281>
>crawled out of him, as seen when he wrote:
Wow. I actually think it sounds like a pretty safe bet that
a large number of people who are outraged by relativity are
anti-semitic.
Koobee Wublee
> On Apr 28, 12:18 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > These are not specifications but design guidelines or application
> > notes. Whether you follow these guidelines or not, you will not go
> > wrong with the GPS design since the satellite time and the ground time
> > can be out of sync if GR effect is true. That is you can set the
> > satellite clocks to be so much faster or slower than the ground
> > clocks. It does not matter. <shrug>
>
> You neglect an extremely important consideration. GPS comprises
> a Space Segment, a Control Segment, and a User Segment.
Here comes more bullshit. <shrug>
> The Space Segment...
>
> The Control Segment...
>
> ...
>
> ...
>
> In order to perform their function, THESE GROUND STATIONS NEED
> PRECISE TIME. How do they set their clocks? Through the GPS
> itself.
This is absolute nonsense. At this stage, the parameter in question
to be synchronized is not the clock but what the clock accumulates (a
number, a counter). It becomes a software issue. <shrug>
More bullshit thrown this way to justify that Jerry is an Einstein
Dingleberry? You have made your point in that. <shrug>
hanson
Kike & Einstein Dingleberry "Daryl McCullough"
<stevend...@yahoo.com> whose inner
kike crawled out of him, says that he is in the same
mental belief frame as is "Jerry", "Gisse" and
"Nava". They are a class of kikes who assert
that Einstein's shit can only be proven with, thru
and by Anti-Semitism.
>
This class of pendejos always & unwaveringly
resort to the Anti-Semitism card, the moment
they feel threatened in their worship of Albert's
sphincter and proudly declare that they love
and admire these, Einstein's kin in ilk:
hanson wrote:
In their fu's these poster kikes will bring up the holocaust
to defend and justify Einstein's shit... which Einstein
himself already buried ca 1920, when he said:
>
|||AE:||| If Relativity is correct, the Germans
|||AE:||| & the French will say that I am one of
|||AE:||| their citizens. - If SR/GR is wrong they
|||AE:||| will say that I am a Jew.
Well, by Einstein's own judgment SR/GR is wrong
cuz neither country begged him to take citizenship.
>
As far as these posters own kikeophilia goes, they
shoud heed the words of Navia's Landsman, poster
Victor Diego who said in
<http://tinyurl.com/Victor-Diego-relativistic-Nazi>
||| VD says |||: ...(Navia) you Fricken untermensch
||| VD says |||: Your parents (or grandparents)
||| VD says |||: missed the dragnet of Himmler/Heydrich
||| VD says |||: and now the world has to suffer for it.
||| VD says |||: ...the selection squad comes calling.
||| VD says |||: ... your ass kicked, and your teeth
||| VD says |||: will be smashed in very short order.
||| VD says |||: You, are marked and you know it."
>
If you fools think that Victor Diego was kidding, then...
Look here what Israel did just 5 years after their own
holcaust to people like yourself:
<http://tinyurl.com/Holocaust-on-Ringworm-kids>
Like the Nazis, the Judeo-Nazis want to have racial
purity too.... Pure Aryan race... Pure Jewish race...
>
and just for some more good measure, you kikes,
here are some details about the personality of the
idol whose sphincter you worship with a REL-igious
passion: <http://tinyurl.com/yjmfyxa> hush money
of ------ Wife beater Einstein, arrested, twice -------:
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-wife-beater-arrested>
>
Thanks, Daryl McCullough, to acknowledge that you
have joined the company of these Kike-Dreidels
who think that Hitler-admiring mass murderers are
great... hahahAHAHA... ahahahaha... ahahahanson
>
PS:
Kikes and kikeophile goyim, like McCullough, Gisse,
Navia & Jerry etc, who cry Anti-Semitism to defend
their own REL-igious belief in Einstein's shit are the
biggest and worst danger to Israel's, security and
existence. These bastards are no friends of Israel.
NoEinstein
> On Apr 27, 8:21 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 27, 3:44 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> > <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > So, just to get this straight, you accept and acknowledge thathttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPSsays"GPS uses principles of general
> > > relativity to correct the satellites' atomic clocks."?
>
> > > So, you are now (instead) claiming that the web page - offered as proof that
> > > GPS doesn't use Relativity - does state that GPS uses Relativity after all,
> > > but that is wrong?
>
> > > Is that your position?
>
> > Dear Peter Webb: Einstein's GR theory was the result of his decade
> > long odyssey to write an empirical equation defining the orbit of the
> > planet Mercury about the Sun. That formula has the forces agreeing
> > with Newton, but including a force variant corresponding to the
> > Lorentz transformation.
>
> This is completely incorrect. Please stop making shit up.
>
> [snip rest]
As spoken by Eric Gesse, a had-been career student who ultimately
flunked out of physics. Varying ether flow and density are the causes
of the force of gravity. But a Jew like Eric will keep touting his
idol, MORON Einstein, who "made up" space-time variance. — NoEinstein
—
NoEinstein
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> news:14f37eb2-cc69-4360...@z13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 27, 3:44 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > So, just to get this straight, you accept and acknowledge
> > thathttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPSsays"GPS uses principles of general
> > relativity to correct the satellites' atomic clocks."?
>
> > So, you are now (instead) claiming that the web page - offered as proof
> > that
> > GPS doesn't use Relativity - does state that GPS uses Relativity after
> > all,
> > but that is wrong?
>
> > Is that your position?
>
> Dear Peter Webb: Einstein's GR theory was the result of his decade
> long odyssey to write an empirical equation defining the orbit of the
> planet Mercury about the Sun.
>
> No. That was not Einstein's motivation for GR.
>
> That formula has the forces agreeing
> with Newton, but including a force variant corresponding to the
> precession of the orbit over time.
>
> _____________________________
> No. It does not. There are (classically) two components, relating to SR and
> GR effects.
>
> The same sort of effects apply to
> GPS satellites. Those aren't caused by space-time variance, but by
> the varying ether flow and density. Both of those vary according to
> the inverse square law. Two variables doing the latter will cause a
> force variance almost identical to that of the Lorentz transformation,
> or beta. For any object moving laterally through the "raining" ether
> (that is gravity) such will be more slowed in passing through ether
> that is more concentrated close to the Earth (or the Sun, as in the
> case of Mercury) than in passing through ether that is less
> concentrated. In addition, the ether SPIRALS down. The flow isn't
> perpendicular except very near to the Earth (or Sun). If a GPS
> satellite has a circular orbit, it won't be necessary to "correct"
> anything, by formula, but only to measure the slowing caused by the
> ether at the altitude in question. Understanding where the ether is,
> the concentration, and the direction of flow are the variables needed
> to correct GPS satellites, NOT anything relating to... relativity—
> which of course I have invalidated! — NoEinstein —
>
> ____________________________
> I am pleased they did not call you in to help design the GPS system. Using
> Einstein's equations it demonstrably works; using yours it would not.
Dear naive Peter Webb: Writing an empirical equation(s) for the orbit
of the planet Mercury matched the equation(s) with the extensive
astronomy data showing the precession. Coincidentally, the same
mechanisms at work to kick Mercury around (precess) do the same thing
for GPS satellites that don't have circular orbits. There was no
"genius" associated with writing equations that any mathematician
worth his salt could have written on the weekends of a single summer.
But it took MORON Einstein ten years of trial and error. The only
difference between my New Science and GR is that I correctly peg
varying ether flow and density for all forces of gravity, while MORON
Einstein had to concoct space-time variance, which "works" only for
objects in fly-by. What divides us is stating the correct CAUSE of
gravity, not the magnitude of gravity at a given elevation and orbital
velocity. Varying ether flow and density explains the "weight" of
stationary objects on Earth, SR and space time have NEVER done the
latter! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:34:37 +1000, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:f3cfdf7b-03fc-480d...@n2g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Apr 27, 10:17 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
> >>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> >>> > Claiming GR playing a role in the GPS development is not truthful.
> >>> > <shrug>
>
> >>> include Relativistic effects in their calculations, and they are all
> >>> lying?
>
> >> Yours truly really does not know if the recommended correction
> >> suggested by these stupid self-styled physicists is indeed implemented
> >> or not.
>
> >Well, that is pretty important.
>
> >lied) and Relativity is used in GPS (as they all claim, and you dispute).
>
>
> >> However, it does not matter how the clocks are offset. As
> >> long as all the satellites have the same clock offset, the system will
> >> work. Get over with it. <shrug>
>
> >Obviously it does. Many pages have been provided to you which show the error
> >if relativity is not included in the calculations. If the GPS system did not
> >include the terms deriving from Relativity, it would be far less accurate.
>
> >calculations or not? If they are not, why and how is there this huge
> >conspiracy to lie about how GPS works?
>
> The ever revolving repeating discussion
>
> >"If the GPS system did not "....
>
> It does not have to.
> Apply empirical corrections and that's it.
> You don't have to calculate anything.
>
> The satellite clock manufacturers allow for remote controlled
> clock rate adjustments. Interestingly there is a broader range
> to slowdown the clocks than to accelerate them above mean.
> Read their spec sheets.
>
> Also it is hogwash to say, as some do, the clocks are beeing adjusted
> at ground to a lower rate before starting the satellite carrier
> rockets.
> We live in the remote-control aera.
> Send a few data bytes up there.
>
> w.
Sounds insightful. — NE —
PD
That is a lie.
Liar.
> Coincidentally, the same
> mechanisms at work to kick Mercury around (precess) do the same thing
> for GPS satellites that don't have circular orbits.
Orbital precession has NOTHING to do with the time retardation in the
GPS clock system.
Idiot.
> There was no
> "genius" associated with writing equations that any mathematician
> worth his salt could have written on the weekends of a single summer.
Prove that.
Liar.
> But it took MORON Einstein ten years of trial and error. The only
> difference between my New Science and GR is that I correctly peg
> varying ether flow and density for all forces of gravity, while MORON
> Einstein had to concoct space-time variance, which "works" only for
> objects in fly-by.
Wrong. It works for more than objects in fly-by.
Idiot.
> What divides us is stating the correct CAUSE of
> gravity, not the magnitude of gravity at a given elevation and orbital
> velocity. Varying ether flow and density explains the "weight" of
> stationary objects on Earth, SR and space time have NEVER done the
> latter! — NoEinstein —
Liar twice and idiot twice in one post.
NoEinstein
>
Folks: If one knew the orbital position of a non-circular GPS
satellite, it would then be possible to figure out the ether density
(varies with altitude) through which the GPS clock is traveling
horizontally. The time dilation will be greater for satellites at
lower orbit points than at higher. The "math" would be tricky, but
the results will be in the same ballpark with “space-time“ (sic) being
influenced by the "distances between the centers of mass" as per the
inverse square law. — NoEinstein —
PD
> On Apr 28, 5:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Folks: If one knew the orbital position of a non-circular GPS
> satellite,
Um, John, we DO know the orbital position of the GPS satellites to
very high precision. That's how the GPS system *works*, by
triangulating your position against the very-well-known positions of
the satellites.
Idiot. Again.
> it would then be possible to figure out the ether density
> (varies with altitude) through which the GPS clock is traveling
> horizontally. The time dilation will be greater for satellites at
> lower orbit points than at higher. The "math" would be tricky, but
> the results will be in the same ballpark with “space-time“ (sic) being
> influenced by the "distances between the centers of mass" as per the
> inverse square law. — NoEinstein —
Prove that.
If you think that you do not owe that, John, then you have no business
making a claim about the outcome of calculations that have not been
done. By selling an unproven claim, you are lying.
Liar. Again.
John, again and again, you demonstrate that all you know how to do is
to spout lies that stem from ignorance.
Ignorance by itself is not a problem because that's correctable. But
WILLFUL ignorance and DELIBERATE lying, those are character faults,
and I'll bet you can't fix those on your own.
NoEinstein
CORRECTION: In the last sentence make that: GR (not SR) and space-
time have NEVER done the latter! — NE —
PD
> Varying ether flow and density explains the "weight" of
> > stationary objects on Earth, SR and space time have NEVER done the
> > latter! — NoEinstein —
>
> CORRECTION: In the last sentence make that: GR (not SR) and space-
> time have NEVER done the latter! — NE —
And again, your ignorance overwhelms you. If you think that GR and
spacetime do not account for the weight of stationary objects on
earth, this is only because you have never read anything worthwhile
about GR. It most certainly DOES explain the weight of stationary
objects on Earth.
Idiot.
Lies springing from idiocy.
Aaron
ever heard of an Alfven wave ... no?
Okay!
Eric Gisse
[...long unreadable mess...]
What you are doing is called "proving my point."
Henry Wilson DSc.
That's quite Ok, Haemie.
Incidentally, did you notice all those climate change induced tornadoes?
Henry Wilson DSc.
wrote:
I'm not.
There are good and bad jews, just as there are good and bad in any race.
I have found that most intelligent Jews turn into extremely good
atheists....even better than ex-catholic ones.
That doesn't alter the fact that Einstein's theory is nonsense from start to
finish.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
news:4a3kr6pup2vi0lduo...@4ax.com...
http://thatcostumegirl.com/gallery/d/5958-2/ned-flanders.jpg
hanson
>
Arse tone "Aaron" <aaron....@gmail.com> wrote:
you're all out o'whack, Teehee; ever heard of an Alfven
wave ... no? Okay!
>
OK... ok... but you make the same arsetone like
>
Brian Quincy Hutchings" <Qnc...@netscape.net
who was originally Lyndon LaRouche's roach, that
morphed into "Spudnick", son of "Mr. Potato head"
which was disasterous for him, & so he's hiding now
in "rasterspace" as "tensegriboy" from
<Space...@hotmail.com> from where
||Brian said|| "... do I have to kiss the dingleberries?"
and wonders.....
also, you don't need stringtheory to have GPS, and
you don't need to know spherical trig to use it.
hanson wrote:
Brian, the intent in your 2 liner may be honorable,
but the Dingleberries will string you up for what
you just said, no matter how feverishly you wanna
kiss them... hahahahaha... ahahahanson
"Aaron" <aaron....@gmail.com> wrote:
...
hanson
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
[...long unreadable mess...]
Erictum wrote:
What you are doing is called "proving my point."
>
hanson wrote:
..... ahahaha... ahahahahaha... which one?
a) that you went for nine years to college
and still don't have an BSc, because you
are unable to read & understand the post
below?... or
b) that you require Anti-Semitism to suck up
and show your love for the Judeo-Nazis
& hope that this will prove your Relativity?...
>
Here it is again, for your benefit, Erictum:
Sam Wormley
>
> That's quite Ok, Haemie.
> Incidentally, did you notice all those climate change induced tornadoes?
>
Now now, Ralph, you should learn the difference between weather
and climate.
tensegriboy
nor have any of the other of your fellows,
the Association of Big-ass Dingleberries.
tensegriboy
Between the God-am Weather and Mere Climate?
that's what I thought;
it's not in the programme.
hanson
who was originally Lyndon LaRouche's roach, that
morphed into "Spudnick", son of "Mr. Potato head"
which was disasterous for him, & so he's hiding now
hotmail.com> who further demented into Arse tone
"Aaron" <aaron.s.keefe at gmail.com> ... who then as
>
||Brian said|| "... do I have to kiss the dingleberries?"
||Brian said|| have GPS, and you don't need to know
||Brian said|| spherical trig to use it. you're all out o'whack,
||Brian said|| Okay! ... Okay, you'v neve heard of an
||Brian said|| Alfven wave ... nor have any of the other
||Brian said|| of your fellows, the Association of Big-ass
||Brian said|| Dingleberries.
>
hanson wrote:
Brian, you poor bastard, what fears are you trying to
hide with your constant handle changes?... ahahaha...
>
At least make up some faintly entertaining story,
about the buzz words that you are constantly posting
but about which you quite obviously have not the
faintest idea what you are talking about.... ahahaha...
>
Brian, you are worse then any Einstein Dingleberry.
At least the EDs have some conviction, lots of
fanaticism & some sort of a religious backbone
all of which is entertaining.
OTOH, Brian, you have none of that and you are not.
Koobee Wublee
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > No conspiracy. Yours truly is too young to be involved with the GPS
> > development. However, if He were a program manager then, He will
> > certainly implement the nonsense suggested by the self-styled
> > physicists. <shrug>
>
> You are incoherent. Who is this "He" that you refer to?
Hmmm... The retard is indeed too retarded to figure it out. <shrug>
> You do understand and acknowledge that the engineers who designed and
> operated say they used Relativity in its design and without these
> adjustments it would not be as accurate?
Hmmm... The retard is not listening. <shrug>
> So, are you claiming that they are lying, as are the many scientists who
> have contributed to the design?
Hmmm... The retard is manufacturing lies. <shrug>
It is impossible to continue this discussion because Peter is
completely a retarded Einstein Dingleberry. <shrug>
[rest of babbling nonsense mercifully snipped]
Peter Webb
If two twins are separated, and one undertakes a return trip of 30 light
years at 0.9c (and therefore taking a little over 33 years), will the
travelling twin be the same age as the stay at home twin when they are
re-united?
kenseto
You can't compare the age of the traveling twin with the age of the
stay at home twin directly. The traveling twin's age must by converted
to the stay at home frame by a factor of gamma before making the
comparison....when you do that you will find that they are of the
same age.
What this mean is that a clock second does not represent the same
amount of TIME in different frames.....IOW a clcok second is not a
universal interval of TIME..
Sam Wormley
Seto, the twins compare their ages only when they are together.
See:
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/section15.html
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/twin.gif
Seto should watch this episode of The Mechanical Universe to help
them sort out his misunderstandings.
The Mechanical Universe series.
http://www.learner.org/resources/series42.html
42. The Lorentz Transformation
If the speed of light is to be the same for all observers, then
the length of a meter stick, or the rate of a ticking clock,
depends on who measures it.
Lesson 42: The Lorentz Transformation
If the speed of light is to be the same for all inertial observers (as
indicated by the Michelson-Morley experiment) the equations for time and
space are not difficult to find. But what do they mean? They mean that
the length of a meter stick, or the rate of ticking of a clock depends
on who measure it.
Henry Wilson DSc.
>On 4/28/11 7:39 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>
>>
>> That's quite Ok, Haemie.
>> Incidentally, did you notice all those climate change induced tornadoes?
>>
>
> Now now, Henry, you should learn the difference between weather
> and climate.
I might have know. Wormy is also a skeptic....
tensegriboy
it rolled up to your nose. anyway,
have fun with your silly apersions, if
you don't care to treat of Alfven waves ...
just stay out of the space sciences venue'of your local institution
of more learning.
I mean, none of the other dingleberries bother with it, because
they are learnt that gravity is the only long-range force ... or,
I should say, phenomenon, because we shouldn't need gravitons,
any more then we need massless rocks o'light to describe waves.
that was Newton's old untheory, where light goes faster
in a denser medium ... in analogy with sound?
if that makes me a bigger dingleberry than all of you,
smooshed together, that's okay.
tensegriboy
that doesn't mean he's going to answer the question,
what is the line between weather & climate ...
anything over a year?
how about the Quaternary Period?
Sam Wormley
Everybody should be a skeptic, and become familiar with the data
and references supporting and contradicting theories. Ralph, you need
not worry--there has never been an observation that contradicts a
prediction of relativity. It remains a viable fruitful tool of
physics and engineering.
Some lay-level background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
Tests of general relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
tensegriboy
who have discovered something of importance?
tensegriboy
the Twins meet & compare their clocks,
relative sagacity etc.; I mean,
that is so simple, when you are in the same "frame
of reference" or room that is moving
in whatever galilean-cum-einsteinian way (because,
it's always some of both, since everything is accelerating
in some way, as well as merely "speeding.")
unfotunately, folks are glued-down to a few ideas
that are totally superfluous & yet utterly mainstream.
hanson
who was originally Lyndon LaRouche's roach, that
morphed into "Spudnick", son of "Mr. Potato head"
which was disasterous for him, & so he's hiding now
in "rasterspace" as "tensegriboy" <Space998 at
hotmail.com> who further demented into Arse tone
"Aaron" <aaron.s.keefe at gmail.com> ... who then as
>
||Brian said|| "... do I have to kiss the dingleberries?
||Brian said|| also, you don't need stringtheory to
||Brian said|| have GPS, and you don't need to know
||Brian said|| spherical trig to use it. you're all out o'whack,
||Brian said|| Okay! ... Okay, you'v neve heard of an
||Brian said|| Alfven wave ... nor have any of the other
||Brian said|| of your fellows, the Association of Big-ass
||Brian said|| Dingleberry smooshed together, that's okay".
tensegriboy
you just want to edit my ****.
tensegriboy
you just throw your hands up & say "it's a software issue,"
which of course is generally, so.
> to be synchronized is not the clock but what the clock accumulates (a
> number, a counter). It becomes a software issue.
thus quoth:
[exercise with commercial Mars UTC watch,
used to synchronize your office clocks ... viz, also,
teh relatavistic intrasolar commuter .-]
1treePetrifiedForestLane
you made me change my handle, again -- again!
Cosmik de Bris
> ah, shucks;
> you made me change my handle, again -- again!
I'm not sure you really have much interesting to say but could you learn
to quote properly so that it is possible to work out who you are
replying to? Your posts make no sense at all otherwise.
Jerry
It should be noted that if you are carrying around adequate
computing power, this task of synchronizing the office clocks
with your Mars watch is not impossible. At present, Galileo is
not yet an operational system, but the designers of the Galileo
system have decided to offload the relativistic corrections that
I cited in an earlier post http://tinyurl.com/3zfrv57 to the
RECEIVER. Galileo satellites will be orbiting completely out of
sync with Earth time, but will be transmitting to Earth the
necessary correction factors which will allow a receiver to
compute the correct time from the satellites' incorrect time.
To those of us who are accustomed to the GPS and GLONASS way of
doing things, this at first seems absurd, but the designers of
the Galileo system present an interesting rationale for
offloading the relativistic corrections to the receiver. The
fixed relativistic corrections applied to GPS and GLONASS
satellite clocks assume that the satellites have been placed in
nominal orbits, but the actual orbits may differ from nominal by
significant amounts: They may be orbiting a few hundred meters
too low or two high, or the orbits may be slightly elliptical
rather than circular. Even if a satellite had been initially
injected into an ideal orbit, the orbit will degrade over time
due to the solar wind, and uneven mass distributions over the
Earth also cause drift. All of these minor deviations from
perfection need to be taken into account if one desires a system
of highest accuracy.
To the designers of the Galileo system, given the computing
power that is CURRENTLY available in mobile receivers, it is
hardly any more difficult to compensate for the major
discrepancies caused by sending into orbit clocks that are
totally uncorrected for relativistic effects, as it is to correct
for the minor discrepancies caused by the fact that satellite
orbits always deviate slightly from nominal.
This, of course, had not not been an option when GPS and GLONASS
were designed.
Now watch the Koobee Wooblies of the world misinterpret what I
have just written...
Jerry
Don Stockbauer
> On Apr 29, 9:58 pm, tensegriboy <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Jerry's essay was good, maybe not perfect, and
> > you just throw your hands up & say "it's a software issue,"
> > which of course is generally, so.
>
> > > to be synchronized is not the clock but what the clock accumulates (a
> > > number, a counter). It becomes a software issue.
>
> > thus quoth:
> > [exercise with commercial Mars UTC watch,
> > used to synchronize your office clocks ... viz, also,
> > teh relatavistic intrasolar commuter .-]
>
> It should be noted that if you are carrying around adequate
> computing power, this task of synchronizing the office clocks
> with your Mars watch is not impossible. At present, Galileo is
> not yet an operational system, but the designers of the Galileo
> system have decided to offload the relativistic corrections that
Einstein was good at fixing cars.
hanson
>
"Jerry" <Hydro-Cephalous_lies at us .net> wrote:
Obsessed handle shifter "tensegriboy" aka Brian
Quincy Hutchings" <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
<snip crap>
>
"Jerry" <Hydro-Cephalous_lies at us > wrote:
To those of us who are accustomed to the GPS and
GLONASS way of doing things, this at first seems absurd,
>
hanson wrote:
.... ahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... yes, that is an
absurd assertion by you indeed, unless you can
demonstrate who that "us" is, besides you, your
fleas, lice, crabs & a set of Einstein Dingleberries.
>
"Jerry" <Hydro-Cephalous_lies at us > wrote:
... the designers of the Galileo system present an
interesting rationale for offloading the relativistic
corrections to the receiver.
>
hanson wrote:
... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... yes, and you Jerry
are offloading your own mental crap here too, again.
>
"Jerry" <Hydro-Cephalous_lies at us > wrote:
<snip huge load of Jerry fanatsy cvrap>.... The fixed
relativistic corrections applied to GPS **assume**
>
hanson wrote:
.... ahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... yes, why then are
continuing to represent these assumptions as facts?
>
"Jerry" <Hydro-Cephalous_lies at us > wrote:
All of these minor deviations from perfection need to be
taken into account if one desires a system of highest accuracy.
>
hanson wrote:
.... ahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... yes, so why are you
making a big deal about relativistic corrections, when they
rank as being # 27 of 29 identified corrections, IOW
SR/GR shit being irrelevant to useless in/for GPS
>
"Jerry" <Hydro-Cephalous_lies at us > wrote:
... uncorrected for relativistic effects, ... had not not been
an option when GPS and GLONASS were designed.
Now watch the Koobee Wooblies of the world misinterpret
what I have just written...
>
hanson wrote:
Jerry, Koobee Wooblee did not "misinterpret" you. He
analyzed your tripe and found it to be "anal" & "lysing".
>
.... ahahaha... .AHAHAHAHA... and Jerry, yes, your load
of crap is highly entertaining, but the crap in your post is
still just crap... especially when you have insurmountable
problems & are unable to properly read, interpret & apply
a simple like ||| m_e/h * 2G/c *86400 ||| ... but OTOH
you apparently accept, without question nor reservations
all the nonsense from Einstein's shit whose REL equations
||| 1/ [sqrt (1- v^2/c^2)] ||| bring forth negative masses &/or
infinite masses that shrink to zero thickness after an infinitely
long time... ahahahaha... Different strokes for different folks
apparently... n'est pas, Jerry-Dingleberry... ahahahahaha..
>
Reprieve for you, Jerry:
At least you "Jerry" have NOT fallen and sunk to the level
the deranged Kikes and their brainwashed goyim (cattle)
like posters, Gisse, McCullough and Navia did, who ran out
of arguments for defending their fanatical beliefs in SR/GR
and who use politics instead of science by calling anybody
"anti-Semitic" who does not share their pathological worship
of Einstein's Sphincter, which they as Einstein's Dingleberries
do with gusto and religiously brainless passion ... ahahahaha...
>
Thanks for the laughs, dude.... ahahaha... ahahahanson
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Henry Wilson DSc.
>On 4/29/11 3:11 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 22:31:00 -0500, Sam Wormley<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/28/11 7:39 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's quite Ok, Haemie.
>>>> Incidentally, did you notice all those climate change induced tornadoes?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Now now, Henry, you should learn the difference between weather
>>> and climate.
>>
>> I might have know. Wormy is also a skeptic....
>
> Everybody should be a skeptic, and become familiar with the data
> and references supporting and contradicting theories.
We were refering to climate change, Wormy.
It is clearly manmade, as predicted and measured.
More extreme weather has been occuring throughout the whole world, as
expected.
> Henry, you need
> not worry--there has never been an observation that contradicts a
> prediction of relativity.
There has. Star brightness curves prove light is ballistic.
end of sytory...
>It remains a viable fruitful tool of
> physics and engineering.
Never used anywhere....
Henry Wilson DSc.
hHAHAHAHHHAHHAHHHAAHHHAHA!
Jerry has finally discovered and admitted that the 'GR correction' was
totally unnecessary in the first place and has now been dumped....hopefully
never to raise its ugly head again.
What will Paul say, I wonder?
>Jerry
Sam Wormley
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 15:46:03 -0500, Sam Wormley<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/29/11 3:11 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 22:31:00 -0500, Sam Wormley<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/28/11 7:39 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's quite Ok, Haemie.
>>>>> Incidentally, did you notice all those climate change induced tornadoes?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now now, Henry, you should learn the difference between weather
>>>> and climate.
>>>
>>> I might have know. Wormy is also a skeptic....
>>
>> Everybody should be a skeptic, and become familiar with the data
>> and references supporting and contradicting theories.
>
> We were refering to climate change, Wormy.
> It is clearly manmade, as predicted and measured.
>
> More extreme weather has been occuring throughout the whole world, as
> expected.
>
>> Henry, you need
>> not worry--there has never been an observation that contradicts a
>> physics and engineering.
>
> There has. Star brightness curves prove light is ballistic.
Emission theory (also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of
light) was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity,
explaining the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Emission
theories obey the principle of relativity by having no preferred frame
for light transmission, but say that light is emitted at speed "c"
relative to its source instead of applying the invariance postulate.
Thus, emitter theory combines electrodynamics and mechanics with a
simple Newtonian theory. Although there are still proponents of this
theory outside the scientific mainstream, this theory is considered to
be conclusively discredited by most scientists.
Peter Webb
> It is clearly manmade, as predicted and measured.
>
> More extreme weather has been occuring throughout the whole world, as
> expected.
>
Evidence?
Jerry
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 03:52:07 -0700 (PDT), Jerry
>
>
>
> <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On Apr 29, 9:58 pm, tensegriboy <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Jerry's essay was good, maybe not perfect, and
> >> you just throw your hands up & say "it's a software issue,"
> >> which of course is generally, so.
>
> >> > to be synchronized is not the clock but what the clock accumulates (a
> >> > number, a counter). It becomes a software issue.
>
> >> thus quoth:
> >> [exercise with commercial Mars UTC watch,
> >> used to synchronize your office clocks ... viz, also,
> >> teh relatavistic intrasolar commuter .-]
>
> >It should be noted that if you are carrying around adequate
> >computing power, this task of synchronizing the office clocks
> >with your Mars watch is not impossible. At present, Galileo is
> >not yet an operational system, but the designers of the Galileo
> >system have decided to offload the relativistic corrections that
YOU ARE A LYING IDIOT.
The necessary mobile computational power to implement such a
scheme, where the relativistic corrections are applied at the
receiver level, was simply not available when GPS was designed.
In complete contrast to you, I try to avoid lies and distortion.
Jerry
Henry Wilson DSc.
If you live in the US you probably don't hear about all the extreme weather
conditions experienced around the world at an ever increasing rate......just
like you never hear about anything at all that happens outside your shitty
country.