Re: Tip for GPS users


Tom Potter wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1161656507.655398.260850@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Tom Potter wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1161592747.645827.178900@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

tdp1...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
[...]

As a guy who sold several kinds of accelerometers
back in the 1960's, and attended seminars on the subject,

So?

That makes you a salesman, not a physicist.

Thank you!

Nothing happens until somebody sells something.

That may be so, but my point is that just because you sold stuff and
attended a few talks about the stuff you sold, does not mean that you
actually have a complete understanding of the stuff.

However, you being a salesman does explain your curious dislike of
general relativity. Since there are a lot less down-to-earth
applications for GR as opposed to SR/QM/Newton, you percieve GR as
being useless.

Rejecting a certain theory just because it isn't directly influencing
your life right this second is incredibly short-sighted. Just because
you don't see a direct down to earth use for GR right this second does
not mean there will not be one down the road.

"Eric Gisse" makes a good point.
I do not "actually have a complete understanding of "
General Relativity and Astrology.

I do know that
the ultimate measure of the relationship between cause and effect
is the auto-correlation between the assumed causes and the assumed effects.

Models and theories are mnemonics
used to expand and extrapolate ONE cross-correlation
(Tests of Einstein's general theory of relativity
did not provide an experimental foundation for the theory
until well after it was introduced in 1915.
Physicists accepted the theory
because it correctly accounted for
the precession of the perihelion of Mercury..)
or a set of correlations.

Actually it took longer than that, but close enough.


All models are limited in their applications.
For example, have you ever seen GTR used to model
DNA, ionization potentials, electronegativity, to build a bridge,
to design an electrical or electronic system, a semiconductor,
or an information compressor (JPG, ZIP, etc.), etc.?

No, because GR isn't a theory that deals with microscopic interactions
of particles nor is it a theory of computer science. Demanding it to be
as such is a foolish venture.


And as GTR is "continuous"
whereas reality consists of "discrete" events,
it cannot be the end all,
nor a look into the "mind of God".

Of course it isn't. Never said it was.


Physics works on a small subset of the properties
perceived by humans. This sub-set is called the physical properties,
and Maxwell found about 140 years ago,
that four of these physical properties could be used as pointers
to all of the other physical properties.

This is now called Dimensional Analysis,
and ALL models and theories MUST
be dimensional correct, or else they are not physics.

Value should be placed on utility and correlations,
rather than models and theories,
or on credentials and individuals.

The value of a model, theory, person, group, nation, etc.
to mankind can best be quantized in terms of
"discounted rate of return" on the resources invested in them,
and in terms of this measure,
General Relativity is an enormous loser,

Back to square one.

You place no value on increasing the sum of human knowledge when it
doesn't directly affect your right this second.

You are the type of person who refuses to do basic research because
there is no guaranteed rate of return.

You can't do science sucessfully while demanding every avenue of
research to pay off big time.


as it has waste enormous amounts of
time, money and minds,
on such pursuits as hero worship, space warps,
gravitons, race/religion promotion, time travel, gravitons,
rubber clocks and rulers, etc.

So you don't like the theory because not only does it not have a direct
influence on your life, but because it upsets your notions of space and
time?

Have you *SEEN* quantum mechanics...ever?


A dollar is a terrible thing to waste.

--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "What Relativity Theories Tell Us About the Universe"
    ... You've never completed college level course in physics ... when these laws and/or constants are measured WITHIN a given velocity ... value in all reference frames, it means that a change in reference frame ... Relativity after the fundamental error in General Relativity is corrected, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Nikola Tesla about Relativity
    ... >So, any attempt trying to redirect my reply to other newsgroup failed, you ... >There is no doubt that Einstein is a plagirist. ... are you claiming that einstein plagiarised general relativity from ... perhaps you really believe the reality of your ``As the Physics ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Newtons inverse-square force law from Einsteins equation
    ... >> to derive Newton's inverse-square force law from general relativity ... > Einstein can prove nothing can go faster than a crab. ... > "In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity ... > You don't have an inkling about mathematics or physics ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Laws of Intelligence Examined
    ... General relativity is a geometric theory ... interpretation, in which gravity is not a classical force. ... in which gravity remains a classical force. ... then please explain the physics that causes the 3-space ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: May The Force(s) Not be With Us
    ... geodesics, even when "responding to EM forces". ... General relativity and E&M do not constitute ``all forces.'' ... for the current paradigms in physics? ... on supermanifolds and theories in higher dimensions in volumes I ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast