Re: The Cost of Relativity

From: Androcles (androc1es_at_nospamblueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 07/26/04 

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 04:55:03 GMT

"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:d8097fcc.0407251046.7d91a478@posting.google.com...
| Sorry about threadlet.
|
|
| "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:QaQMc.7684$1R2.79580196@news-text.cableinet.net...
| >
| > "Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
| > news:d8097fcc.0407250450.7aad22cf@posting.google.com...
| > | "Leonard Pardin" <leoppard@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
| > news:d746a243.0407131356.285749e4@posting.google.com...
| > | > "Tom Potter" <tdp@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| > news:<2likorFd0g4qU4@uni-berlin.de>...
| > | > > <jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com> wrote in message
| > | > > news:cd0ql8$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?
| > | > >
| > | > > As I have posted in explicit detail,
| > | > > Relativity is not needed to design, engineer,
| > | > > and maintain the GPS system.
| > | > >
| > | > > If this thread continues,
| > | > > I'll Google my old post,
| > | > > and repost it to illustrate this.
| > | > >
| > | > > The essential elements of the GPS system
| > | > > are a constant speed of radio waves, stable oscillators,
| > | > > auto-correlation, spread spectrum technology,
| > | > > and microprocessors.
| > | >
| > | > You are right on, Mr. Potter: Relativity, whether special or
| > | > general, serves no function in the GPS system. The measured
| > | > differences between the orbiting clocks and the ground clocks are
due
| > | > entirely to the blue shift in the signal sent from the satellite to
| > | > earth receivers. In fact, Prof. Carroll O. Alley of the University
of
| > | > Maryland Physics Department, the consultant who worked with the
| > | > original designers of the GPS system, doesn't even believe in
| > | > Relativity. He actually argued with the technicians not to employ
| > | > Relativitic adjustments because they weren't needed after the clocks
| > | > were adjusted to account for the frequency shift of the satellite
| > | > signal. They wouldn't listen, and it took some expensive testing to
| > | > prove that Alley was right.
| > |
| > | Thanks to Leonard, Tom, Gregory, Spaceman, etc., for weighing in with
| > | those very interesting views.
| > |
| > | I believe they are in the context of, or relate to, my idea:
| > | news:d8097fcc.0407120258.3579e1db@posting.google.com...
| > |
| > | http://www.effectuationism.com/forum/messages/27/27.html?1071620499
| > |
| > | "[] Given tension of indefinite and dynamic forces, establish value
| > | through a definite and stationary frame of reference by selecting a
| > | FOR.
| > | (Value is- -am indefinite, so, to establish definite value one selects
| > | a frame of reference - an option crystallises).
| > |
| > | To select a FOR:
| > | Take, for example, the earth in its orbit around the sun. A line
| > | through the centre of the earth and the centre of the sun can be, say,
| > | the y-axis. A line through the centre of the earth and perpendicular
| > | to the y-axis can be the x-axis. Based on these and the direction of
| > | the earth in relation to the sun apply the z-axis. Let the time t-axis
| > | be, say, 00.00 am Jan 1st 2004.
| >
| > Horrendous FoR, but not impossible, I'll agree.
|
| Without implying that you seem to understand it, and while glad you
| are taking an interest: That seems to express that you premise
| categoricalism.
|
| Ptolemaic without daily
| > rotation.
| > Ugh...
|
| If one knows the movement path of body, one can then take an interest
| in its rotation.
|
| >
| > | (Presumably the process of developing the x,y,z axes is clear).
| > Ugly, but clear.
|
| This too seems to express that you premise categoricalism. I find that
| beauty is in part determined by the beholder.

|
| >
| >
| > | (To develop the time t co-ordinate: As events are rather continuous,
| > | one selects a particular (point of an) event. It can be, for example,
| > | 00.00.00am Jan. 1st 2004).
| > |
| > | (So, this co-ordinate system, or such FOR, is Man/Person- -Ground, in
| > | effect, observer).
| >
| > If a daily carousel ride, tilted at 23.5 degrees from the z axis and
further
| > tilted by latitude and crossing the y-axis at noon and midnight, the
x-axis
| > at 6:00am and 6:00pm is your Frame of Reference, so be it. I find it
rather
| > a tough one. Which time zone do you mean, and which should we use when
| > standing at the Arctic circle, i.e. on the z-axis at winter solstice?
|
| I think you may have failed to see that this is a cosmic, 4D, FoR
| system.

I most certainly have failed to see that. I've also failed to see what it
has to do
with Christmas, who won the Cup Final and when Winston Churchill will
return.
You didn't answer the question. Which time zone should we use when on the
z-axis at winter solstice?

|
| If a body - which would probably have to be travelling faster than
| light to do so,

What do you mean, "probably"? Can't you calculate it? The circumference of a
circle is 2pi.r. For the nearest star beyond the sun, Proxima Centauri, r ~
4 ly. Call pi roughly 3, so about 2*3*4 = 24 ly per year. That's 24c.
Sirius, the brightest, is 8 light years away, so it is travelling in your
FoR at circa 48c.

| or else right at the axis of the system

Polaris lies 23.5 degrees from the z-axis, so for homework, tell me the
speed of Polaris in your FoR. Use the internet to discover the distance to
Polaris, I'll accept that figure. Show all calculation. Perhaps then you'll
see how impractical your FoR is.

- takes, in
| the given cosmic FoR system, the path you stipulate then that is the
| FoR and that is the four dimensional path, respectively.
|
| If such a body were rotating one would select a point on the body and
| take that as the body - or specific point of the body - and log its
| (4D) path in the system.
|
| If there was a body, such as the carousel,

The carousel IS the Earth in your FoR. Your y-axis has origin at Earth
centre and passes through the sun. We pass it at noon every day.

| on the rotating body in the
| cosmic FoR system, one would, although impractical, show its path in
| the cosmic FoR system - it would be pretty much within that of the
| rotating body path.
|
| More practically, studying such a carousel would be a different branch
| of science.

Inventing your own FoR is most definitely a different branch of something,
but I wouldn't call it science. Awkward mathematics, maybe.

|
| >
| > |
| > |
| > | Moving Object/Animal in relationship with FOR is an event, with
| > | readily determined x,y,z,t co-ordinates.
| >
| > A lion chasing a gazelle in Africa can hardly be said to have "readily
| > determined" coordinates to THAT FoR. Heck, I'd need a computer before
I'd
| > try it.
|
| To follow the paths of two such objects, I would, as indicated, be
| relying on another science:

It's your FoR, for heaven's sake! You tell me how to calculate the x,y, z
and t of a lion chasing a gazelle... heck, I'll make it easy for you. What
is the x,y z and t of London, England in your FoR? Use 52 degrees N, 0
degrees E and 4000 miles Earth radius, 23.5 degrees tilt and 00.00 am Jan
1st 2004. Let's see how beautiful this FoR really is in your, the
beholder's, eye.

| "Presumably, Guidance Positioning Systems also can be independent of
| the Theory of Relativity". (How does the TOR deal with such events?).

Forget other people's theory for moment. Its your FoR. What is the x,y,z and
t
of London in the beautiful FoR that you have specified?
|
| >
| >
| > |
| > | Such co-ordinate systems of events could be developed into calendars
| > | as follows:
| > |
| > | The concept of a "point": the co-ordinate system (or observer) is a
| > | co-ordinate system of, or consists of a block of, four-dimensional
| > | points - the dimensions of points being various- -different values of
| > | x,y,z,t of the system.
| >
| > Well, ok. You've heard of the Horoscope, perhaps? Horology is the study
of
| > time. The words have the same root because the constellations rotate
about
| > your z-axis once a year, and a year is a measure of time.
|
| ??? I rather doubt if this is applicable to this 4D system.

I rather doubt you can tell me something as simple as the coordinates of
London in your 4D system, let alone that of any star.
|
| >
| > |
| > | So, if a body moves in the co-ordinate system - in relationship to the
| > | co-ordinate system - we can call its starting co-ordinates P_1((x_1,
| > | y_1, z_1, t_1) and its next position P_2(x_2, y_2, z_2, t_2) or
| > | abbreviated P(1) and P(2). We thereby have the co-ordinates of the
| > | magnitude of movement of the body - in effect an event.
| >
| > Yeah, well, Just about every body in the Universe moves in that
"horondous"
| > coordinate system.
|
| What percentage of bodies in the Universe move in the TOR system?

100%. All motion is relative. What makes your FoR so beautiful?

|
| > |
| > | We can easily develop a log or calendar of such events.
| >
| > I think it has been done, but no thanks for re-inventing it. Ptolemaic
| > thinking went out with Copernicus 400 years ago, and the Gregorian
calender
| > replaced the Julian (except for Astronomers, of course).
|
| Perhaps "thinking" per se has almost gone out.
Let's find out. Give me the x,y, z and t of London and any one of Cairo,
Johannesburg, Mombai, Winnepeg, Beijing or Los Angeles in your specified FoR
and we'll see who's thinking has gone out. Approximation will do, as long as
its good enough to calculate the distance to a third city from either of the
other two. Let's see how easily YOU can develop a log or calendar, it's your
claim.
|
| >
| >
| > | The magnitute
| > | of movement required to be expressed in a calendar might vary with
| > | different phenomena from a per minute rate, a day, a year, 100 light
| > | years, ...
| > |
| > | Different calendars would express different sections of the universe.
| >
| > Good grief!
| >
| > Androcles.
| >
| > | Presumably, Guidance Positioning Systems also can be independent of
| > | The Theory of Relativity.
| > |
| > |
| > | I believe such a calendar would express, a more formidable model of
| > | the nature of 'Nature' than does the Theory of Relativity. []".
| > |
| > |
| > | This post may at least serve to remind people of the main substance of
| > | this thread and general issue - and perhaps generate further comments
| > | there-on.
| > |
|
| I'll give this a new thread, as others may not be clear about its
| simple, intuitive beauty.

By all means make all the threads you like. Just answer the question, where
are London and Sydney? I'd like to know how far I have to travel to see
Henri Wilson in your simple, intuitive and beautiful FoR.
Androcles

| --
| Peter Kinane
| http://www.effectuationism.com/

Quantcast