Understanding Relativity: Demystifying the GPS Satellite System Calculation

[geistkiesel]

It all goes back to "squirrel decisions"! See my post:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=222763#post222763

The issue behind that post was overlooked by almost everyone who read it. You all want to "intuitively" understand what you are talking about: i.e., know the answer without thinking about the issue logically at all. Geistkiesel is a major progenitor of that mode of thinking. In fact, I would be tempted to say that "logical" thought is beyond his comprehension (he does not have the attention span to comprehend logic; if he does not understand it intuitively, it is beyond him). I think I used the term "simple minded" and got raked over the coals for it.

All of his arguments are based on a collection of "squirrel" decisions which he cannot even comprehend questioning. Actually, that is quite common. I am afraid that everyone on this forum is equally guilty of the same error; just not quite so blatant as is Geistkiesel. If one wants to understand reality, one must be able to comprehend the basis of their beliefs. To quote myself, All I am asking is, "is there anyone out there who is interested in rational science or is this indeed the 'crackpots are us forum'?"

Have fun -- Dick

Actually "simple minded" is a rather mild perjorative seen this current spate of SR theads, relatively speaking.


Wespe is not describing me or my ideas. Try to see through the veil of SR theorists whose only goal in life is to defend SR. I have stated on many occasions That I believe SRT will predict what has been historically predicted. They, SRTists, want me to write equations and show them I can do that for some reason. When I ask that they look at Grounded's paper, at a specific point, they make the funny noises heard only comonmg from the mouths of SRTists. They seem unable to discuss any physics outside their precious domain of accepted beliefs, or professional beliefs, or what they are paid to do?.


No one, even the great doctordick, which I actually admire in a way, can express any understanding of the concept that measuring the frequency of an oncoming stream of photons one merely has to count the number of full wave length units passing through the eye/sec. This is much too simple to comprehend. This statement has nothing significant about it that attaches the process to SR implications, nothing.

That this measuring technique does not disturb the the wave length of the oncoming photon must be taken in some kind of way, but the responses all avoid the concept.How the situation is perceived is anunknown. Merely the #Lamdas/sec = F. The measurement of a stream of photons in this way does not apply a squeezing pressure shortening the wavelength which can be detected and measured and the frequency calculated from the compressed wave cycle.

Remember, the assumed compressed wave length is not an example of a spatial dilation of matter due to velocities reaching relativistic speeds. The wave length is moving at what speed? c? I mean the full wave length of a unit wave length is moving at how many counts per second across the observers eye? Is the tip-to-tail of a unit wave length moving at c? How do you know?

If nothing else there should be a response indicating experimental evidence to the contrary, or in agreement. If none of these certainly an experimental determination is in order.

 

[wespe]

Wespe is not describing me or my ideas.

Geistkiesel, if you are not the confused person I described, why do you write things like these:

... understanding of the concept that measuring the frequency of an oncoming stream of photons one merely has to count the number of full wave length units passing through the eye/sec. ...this measuring technique does not disturb the the wave length of the oncoming photon ...

This exciting new technique to measure frequency looks like the definition of frequency. How others disturb the wavelength is a mystery though.

 

[setAI]

and absolute space / time is wrong because why?

because absolutes- by definition do not/ cannot exist

___________________________

/:set\AI transmedia laboratories

http://setai-transmedia.com

 

[ram1024]

because absolutes- by definition do not/ cannot exist

ace in the hole time eh? everything is relative, nothing can be wrong...

well if you define something to be absolute then it can exist as such. i see this as a very desirable proposition

 

[wespe]

ace in the hole time eh? everything is relative, nothing can be wrong...

well if you define something to be absolute then it can exist as such. i see this as a very desirable proposition[/QUOT]

If you mean aether, I agree it is possible for it to exist. But also it is undetectable and not needed to explain anything, so probably it is imaginary. And some say space cannot exist without mass. I find it impossible to imagine nothingness, so our minds fill space with something and you tend to favor aether, but not for a scientific reason.

 

[Hurkyl]

The thing about "absolute space/time" is that the only way we know to define such a thing is to define it relative to some chosen reference point. For all known practical purposes, an "absolute space/time" is merely an arbitrary choice of some reference frame to be the "right" frame to use.

The other thing about "absolute space/time" is that it does not forbid one from opting to use their "personal" reference frame instead of the absolute one. All of the physics will still be valid in this relative reference frame.

 

[ram1024]

that remains to be seen :D

i'm getting there, just a few more brain crunches and we'll be in business.

 

[geistkiesel]

The thing about "absolute space/time" is that the only way we know to define such a thing is to define it relative to some chosen reference point. For all known practical purposes, an "absolute space/time" is merely an arbitrary choice of some reference frame to be the "right" frame to use.

The other thing about "absolute space/time" is that it does not forbid one from opting to use their "personal" reference frame instead of the absolute one. All of the physics will still be valid in this relative reference frame.

Would this include using Grounded's frame system?

 

[geistkiesel]

ace in the hole time eh? everything is relative, nothing can be wrong...

well if you define something to be absolute then it can exist as such. I see this as a very desirable proposition

If you mean aether, I agree it is possible for it to exist. But also it is undetectable and not needed to explain anything, so probably it is imaginary. And some say space cannot exist without mass. I find it impossible to imagine nothingness, so our minds fill space with something and you tend to favor aether, but not for a scientific reason.

To say that something is possible to exist but is undetectable is contradictory. Why even assert the existence of something that cannot bee observed affecting physical phenomena?

 

[wespe]

To say that something is possible to exist but is undetectable is contradictory.

Yea.. I should have written "undetectable by any means we currently know". I just don't agree with "absolutes cannot exist by definition". Maybe setAI would like to elaborate.

Why even assert the existence of something that cannot bee observed affecting physical phenomena?

I did write it's because our minds cannot imagine nothingness and tries to fill it with something, well at least mine.

 

[geistkiesel]

Yea.. I should have written "undetectable by any means we currently know". I just don't agree with "absolutes cannot exist by definition". Maybe setAI would like to elaborate.



I did write it's because our minds cannot imagine nothingness and tries to fill it with something, well at least mine.

If the definition is not so arbitrary as to be uselesss and harmfull, and is practical,even the defintion is a contrivance determined from expedient necessity, what harm? Even if inelegant.SOmeone will come along and fix it.

The first axiom of computer programming and data analysis error: "You find it you fix it."