Re: GPS versus source dependency / ballistic theory

From: Henri Wilson (H_at_..(Henri)
Date: 09/21/04 

Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 06:14:33 GMT

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 12:05:57 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
<feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:

>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 14:31:56 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
>> <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 16 Sep 2004 07:18:36 -0700, poespam-trap@yahoo.com (Randy Poe) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>eleatis@yahoo.gr (Mike) wrote in message news:<9c1b39be.0409151348.51f55507@posting.google.com>...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>poespam-trap@yahoo.com (Randy Poe) wrote in message news:<df76407e.0409150657.2a0d285@posting.google.com>...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And no, not all divisions of distances by time give you
>>>>>>>a velocity. For instance, if I were to tell you that some
>>>>>>>city gets an average of 2.5 meters of snowfall per year,
>>>>>>>it would be bizarre if you were to tell me there's some
>>>>>>>meaningful velocity of 2.5 m/year that this corresponds
>>>>>>>to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Anything that has dimension [L]/[T] is a velocity of something or wrt
>>>>>>to something.
>>>>>
>>>>>Incorrect. While it has dimensions of a velocity, dividing
>>>>>any random length by any random time does not necessarily
>>>>>give you a velocity of something with respect to something.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nobody claimed it does.
>>>
>>>Say, can't you read at all? Look what was written just above!
>>>
>>>"Anything that has dimension [L]/[T] is a velocity of something or wrt
>>>to something."
>>>
>>>Randy Poe pointed out rightly that that statement is not correct!
>>
>>
>> Bull.
>
>Showing your reading comprehension problems yet again.
>
>
>> His ""2.5 meters/year""" is the average rise velocity of the snow surface above
>> the ground, per year.
>>
>> He doesn't include the average speed of ""-2.5 m/y"" that occurs when it melts.
>
>That has nothing at all to do with the actual point here. For the third
>time: the point here is that not everything with the dimensions [L]/[T]
>is a velocity.

Until you come up with an example, you have no justification for saying that.

>
>>>>It still has the units of velocity.
>>>
>>>*sigh* That was precisely the point here: not everything that has
>>>the units of velocity *is* actually a velocity.
>>
>>
>> It is.
>
>So the height of the women, divided by the time she slept, is
>a velocity?

Now why would anyone want to divide a woman's height by the time she slept?
Why don't you draw the graph?
You will produce a CONSTANT with dimensions of velocity.
That's what 'c' is....a CONSTANT with dimensions L/T

>
>
>> The term "(c+v)" is a velocity greater than 'c', too.
>>
>> Forbiden by relativity..... but used everywhere in its maths.
>
>Entirely irrelevant to the point here.

That's what you hope.

>
>
>>>Could you please learn some *basic* reading comprehension?
>>
>>
>> How fast does your blood pressure rise when you read my posts?
>
>In the moment, it is quite calm. I am only wondering how you
>can manage to make such egregious reading comprehension errors,
>again and again and again.

If v is positive, then c+v is greater than c, is it not.
One doesn't have to be very skilled at reading to understand that.

>
>
>[snip]
>
>
>>>>>A certain woman is 1.8 meters high. She slept 6 hours last
>>>>>night. Does the figure 1.8m/6h = 0.3 m/hr tell you some
>>>>>velocity associated with this woman?
>
>
>[snip]
>
>
>
>Bye,
>Bjoern

HW.

www.users.bigpond.com

Relevant Pages