Re: Simple question about relativity and space time

On Feb 7, 9:51 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:RYKdnZfs0PDTdjXaRVnyjgA@xxxxxxxxx

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:yS5qj.46901$w_6.17896@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:Z7OdnbP6VrQ_dTXaRVnytAA@xxxxxxxxx

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2I5qj.46601$w_6.29926@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:ZvWdnfXoQInqezXanZ2dnUVZ8smgnZ2d@xxxxxxxxx

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:G72qj.69114$im2.50409@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:-JudnRv3dO9iMDXaRVnyigA@xxxxxxxxx

"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:LN1qj.9354$Ej5.3226@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[#] the first few satellites had the option to select
between the standard and the modified divider; it was
empirically found that the modified divided is necessary,
as predicted by GR.

I find it interesting to imagine the possible conversation
between the military and the scientists that lead to the
decision to make the first few satellites this way.

Good one :-)

Out of interest, what would you have done?

I think I would have insisted to have an option to switch
from electronic circuits to phlogiston ones.

Do I take it from the tone of your reply that you would not
have fitted the option to change the divider?

To keep the military happy and, by extension, paying the bills,
I would have fitted any option they could possibly dream up.

But what if it had been your money and your decision?

You know...
Suppose you ask the following similar question to all the crackpots here:
"It is your money and your decision, and you can't have an option to
switch either way. Do we program the thing according to general
relativity or according to Galilean relativity? You decide now."
Ask the question, and they will all say they would take Galileo.
And they would all be lying like hell :-|

Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Goodness me !!,look at all those digits,I am impressed,astonished and
what have you -

"The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods"

Are you sure the last digit is not 1 or a 9

The fact of the matter is that the 24 hour day and subsequently its
subdivisions of hours ,minutes and seconds are of human construct,they
exist by virtue of recognising that the year is 365 days 5 hours 49
minutes and within that framework the natural noon cycles are unequal
-

"Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signes,
or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5 hours 49
min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon,
are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd in
Astronomy." Huygens

That principle has been known since antiquity along with the noon
correction which creates the 24 hour day which in turn allows you to
calculate the annual cycles as 365 days 5 hours....

When Copernicus discovered that the daily cycle was due to axial
rotation,they simply transfered the average 24 hour day to 'constant'
axial rotation without having to appeal to an external reference and
so clocks always keep in sync with planetary geometry at 4 minutes for
each degree of geographical seperation making exactly 24 hours/360
degrees.The treatise of Huygens explains it all except what causes the
noon cycles to vary.It takes 21st century imaging power to do that -

http://asymptotia.com/wp-images/2007/08/uranus_rings.jpg

Again,the transfer of the 'average' 24 hour day to 'constant' axial
rotation was and remains a masterstroke regardless of what NIST may
believe.Maybe you can inform them that nothing has changed,not even in
the era of the GPS.




.