Re: The Cost of Relativity

From: Randy (rhoweaxiak_at_shaw.ca)
Date: 07/14/04 

Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:27:35 GMT

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
> In article <6JVIc.2406$W75.28265602@news-text.cableinet.net>,
> Androcles <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>><jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com> wrote in message
>>news:cd0ql8$je4$4@mail.specsol.com...
>>| In sci.physics Gregory L. Hansen <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>>| > In article <l2wIc.61323$MB3.44465@attbi_s04>,
>>| > Robert J. Kolker <robert_kolker@hotmail.com> 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. Almost
>>a
>>| > >> hundred years after Einstein first proposed his General Theory of
>>| > >> Relativity, the theory is still unproved and unproveable. In
>>addition,
>>| > >> the theory has spawned an astonishing array of unproved and
>>| > >> unproveable *** theories like time warps, vacuum energy, worm
>>| > >> holes, and black holes.
>>| > >
>>| > >Special Theory of Relativity is at the base of quantum electrodynamics,
>>| > >which among other things is responsible for the computer you are
>>| > >bitching and moaning with. You are a fucking idiot.
>>| > >
>>| > >Bob Kolker
>>|
>>| > Electronic devices are well in the realm of non-relativistic quantum
>>| > mechanics.
>>|
>>| GPS?
>>
>>A bunch of satellites continually updated from ground stations because some
>>relativist idiot misprogrammed them and the need constant correction to
>>ground time.
>>Androcles
>
>
> A bunch of satellites updated once per day from ground stations. Without
> the relativistic consideration, the error would drift by about a
> kilometer per day between corrections.
>

Hi

I don't have (nor am I qualified) to have any opinion on the validity of
relativity.

However when I read the very interesting article that Uncle Al
referenced http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf I could not help
wondering if the implementation they chose really required the
adjustments for relativity.

I was pretty much convinced it did until I read the Summary starting on
page A-8. In part it states:

"The clock in the hand held receiver on Earth is far less accurate than
the atomic clock in each satellite, so the signal from a fourth
satellite is employed to correct the Earth clock."

If they mean actual time values are sent to the Earth clock then the
only use of the receiver's clock that I can see is to calculate a rough
positioning in order to deduce the amount of satellite to receiver
propogation delay to add on to the time value received. For even more
precision the calculation could be done again after the Earth clock is
corrected.

What am I missing here ?

Randy

Quantcast