Re: The Cost of Relativity
From: Randy (rhoweaxiak_at_shaw.ca)
Date: 07/13/04
- Next message: V.K.Tamhane: "Re: Mass-velocity relationship."
- Previous message: V.K.Tamhane: "Re: Mass-velocity relationship."
- In reply to: Uncle Al: "Re: The Cost of Relativity"
- Next in thread: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: The Cost of Relativity"
- Reply: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: The Cost of Relativity"
- Reply: Androcles: "Re: The Cost of Relativity"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 08:45:44 GMT
Hi
Just a curious lurker. I read Uncle Al's reference:
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
(on page A-8 it says:)
Note 2: Our analysis assumed the speed Vearth of the Earth clock to be
that of the speed of the equator. One might expect that this
speed-dependent correction would take on different values at different
latitudes north or south of the equator, going to zero at the poles
where there is no motion of the Earth clock due to rotation of Earth. In
practice there is no latitude effect because Earth is not spherical; it
bulges a bit at the equator due to its rotation. The smaller radius at
the poles increases the M/rEarth term in equation [[12] by the same
amount that the velocity term decreases. The outcome is that our
calculation for the equator applies to all latitudes.
(me again)
Is this just a (rather remarkable ?) coincidence or is there a more
fundamental reason that the Earth's shape would offset the velocity term
so closely?
Also I could not help but wonder why they did not resync the clocks with
periodic timestamp transmissions from earth rather than worry about
accumulated time offsets due to relativistic effects? Do you think they
were worried the timestamps might be jammed in a war situation?
Thanks
Uncle Al wrote:
> Leonard Pardin wrote:
>
>>Never in the history of the scientific world has so much money been
>>spent to prove a theory that has provided so little benefit.
>
> [snip]
>
> Global Positioning Satellite System, wide-screen color TV CRTs.
> That gets you to the party even though you can't read a map and
> lets you see the widescreen porn lifesize undistorted in aspect
> and color. What more do you want?
>
> Idiot.
>
> <http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html>
> http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
> Experimental constraints on General Relativity.
>
> <http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/index.html>
> http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
> Relativity in the GPS system
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076.pdf
> <http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP>
> http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
> http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
> http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
> http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
> http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
> http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
> http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
> http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
> http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
> <http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html>
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
- Next message: V.K.Tamhane: "Re: Mass-velocity relationship."
- Previous message: V.K.Tamhane: "Re: Mass-velocity relationship."
- In reply to: Uncle Al: "Re: The Cost of Relativity"
- Next in thread: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: The Cost of Relativity"
- Reply: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: The Cost of Relativity"
- Reply: Androcles: "Re: The Cost of Relativity"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
