ram1024 said:see the main thing i see as "the problem" is that light itself does NOT obey physical laws of the universe, so when you put it in a position where the frames get switch you cannot expect light to behave the same.
ram1024 said:case in point the picture i submitted most recently ...
ram1024 said:same thing here, compensate for your limitations and everything still works fine. no time dialation, no length contraction, no simultaneity nonsense.
ram1024 said:no relative to the viewer light speed, but i do believe that's solely an error based on how they're calculating their measurments. we'll see when the data arrives.
But everything doesn't work fine with Galilean relativity. GPS for example. MMX null result. And of course experiments in particle accelerators. What about muon decay? Muons live longer and travel longer when they are moving fast. You can't ignore all these.
ram1024 said:GPS still works because of triangulation. it doesn't work PERFECTLY, but then again it's all consistent so if they're running off the same system and all give the same error who's to know it's actually an error? being peak technology for that kind of thing the only way you could check it would be to use cruder technology
ram1024 said:they're saying that how things operate up there is MORE consistant with Lorentz Relativity than Special Relativity.
Oy - not only is every physicist wrong, but every mathematician is wrong too? Ram, you have a problem that we can't help you with here.ram1024 said:i had the same problem when i was prooving .999~ doesn't equal 1.
Every system has errors. GPS clocks are quite good (easily good enough that they notice time dilation), but they still need to be synchronized periodically.apparently regardless of how they correct the system they still get errors, so the whole thing has to be continually recalibrated.
Oy - not only is every physicist wrong, but every mathematician is wrong too? Ram, you have a problem that we can't help you with here.
ram1024 said:meh... I've scared Tom, Hurkyl, and Doc Al away... wespe you're all i have left!
hold me...
You're operating based on a preconcieved notion of how you think it might work, which is (unsurprisingly) wrong.ram1024 said:so i opened up 3dsMax and started messing with spheres to try and figure out geometrically how GPS would work...
i think what that guy said about the fourth satellite being used for SR correction is false. just by messing with the sphere myself it doesn't seem to be the case.
Your last posts indicate you are trying to figure out how GPS works. That's not an argument and there are no questions, so you shouldn't be expecting a reply.
ram1024 said:yeh i was waiting for Hurkyl to interpret my spacetime diagram, and Tom to come back with data.
i think they both went on vacation though, i haven't seen them post in other threads either.
As for Doc Al, i think i wore him out :(
the GPS is a good distraction while i wait for their return
It would appear (with a gentle nudge from Hurkyl) that you answered your own question. Why couldn't you have just read up on it like I (we) suggested instead of guessing and getting combative when you guessed wrong? Its simpler, faster, and less painful for all of us.you're talking as if you're absolutely positively sure that i have no idea what I'm talking about.
And this is why you are having such a hard time learning these things. Its human nature to not want to be wrong and so I understand your frustration. You are trying to learn by a process that ensures that for you to learn something you must first make a guess and be wrong (and accept that you were wrong). On this forum it manifests itself as you making guesses, us trying to help you, and you responding with the natural human instinct of getting defensive/combative. Why put yourself through that? Just learn the right way the first time. Don't guess.ram1024 said:...I lay out my own "how i think it would work" scenario as a guidestone, and then work the research data into my theory as i progress, using each new piece to compare and contrast to find out how stuff actually works and where i went wrong <if anywhere>.
ram1024 said:...
relaying that information in a way that you or anyone else could understand it is indeed a bit more difficult which is why it takes 25 pages for me to get my point across to you guys.
in the end if you guys are simply trying to "teach me" and not also "learn what the heck I'm talking about" then there's a failure on your end as well. because from my standpoint i have taken everything "taught" to me thus far and incorporated it into my "self theory" as retained knowledge. you have simply clung to what you believe and not made an attempt to "learn" what i might have to offer.
ram1024 said:the center of emission HAS to be a space buoy.
it's relative to frames and it's not a real object.ram1024 said:if it's moving then what's its speed and direction?
wespe said:If the center of emission is a space buoy, then speed of light can't be the same for both emitter and receiver.
it's relative to frames and it's not a real object.
[u](o) <-)|[/u]
[u](o) <-)|[/u][u] (o) <-)|[/u]
[u] (o) <-)|[/u][u] (o) <-)|[/u]
[u] (o) <-)|[/u][u] (o) <-)|[/u]
[u] (o) <-)|[/u][u] (o) <-)|[/u]
[u] (o) <-)|[/u][u] (o) <-)|[/u]
[u] (o) <-)|[/u][u] (o) <-)|[/u]
[u] (o) <-)|[/u][u] (o) <-)|[/u]
[u] (o) <-)|[/u][u] (o) <-)|[/u]
[u] (o) <-)|[/u][u] (o) <-)|[/u]
[u] (o) <-)|[/u][u] (o) <-)|[/u]
[u] (o) <-)|[/u][u] (o) <-)|[/u]
[u] (o) <-)|[/u][u](o) <-)|[/u]
[u] (o) <-)|[/u][u] (o) <-)|[/u]
[u] (o) <-)|[/u][u] (o) <-)|[/u]
[u] (o) <-)|[/u][u] (o) <-)|[/u]
[u] (o) <-)|[/u][u] (o) <-)|[/u]
[u] (o) <-)|[/u][u] (o) length <-)|[/u]
[u] (o) <-)|[/u]If your system doesn't take Relativity into consideration, it might work in your universe, but it won't work in ours.ram1024 said:my system would use 4 satellites but we wouldn't need to know the positions of the satellites or local Earth time, as 4 expanding spheres with calibrated time only intersect in 2 places, one would be your position on Earth and the other would be somewhere way off in space.
i don't know if that would make computations any easier or harder, but it is a system that would work, fashioned entirely from my brain in a way that i personally can understand it.
This process certainly does help us to learn (thats part of the reason I'm here), but its learning by finding your errors. You get us to think about these subjects, pick apart your ideas, and find the flaws.in the end if you guys are simply trying to "teach me" and not also "learn what the heck I'm talking about" then there's a failure on your end as well. because from my standpoint i have taken everything "taught" to me thus far and incorporated it into my "self theory" as retained knowledge. you have simply clung to what you believe and not made an attempt to "learn" what i might have to offer.
(o1)----------------------------------------<-)| (o2)----------------------------------------<-)| (o2)----------------------------------<-)| (o1)----------------------------------<-)| (o1)----------------------------------------<-)|
(o2)----------------------------------<-)|
(o1)----------------------------------------<-)|
(o2)----------------------------------<-)|
(o1)----------------------------------------<-)|
(o2)----------------------------------<-)| (o1)----------------------------------------<-)|
(o2)----------------------------------<-)| (o1)----------------------------------------<-)|
(o2)----------------------------------<-)| (o1)----------------------------------<-)|
(o2)----------------------------------------<-)|
(o1)----------------------------------<-)|
(o2)----------------------------------------<-)|
(o1)----------------------------------<-)|
(o2)----------------------------------------<-)| (o1)----------------------------------<-)|
(o2)----------------------------------------<-)|------------------------------<-)|
(o2)----------------------------------<-)|