Understanding Relativity: Demystifying the GPS Satellite System Calculation

[Doctordick]

Just a post for all the severely uneducated scholars who wish to contribute to the understanding of mankind. I would suggest that you carefully read the following reference.

http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

For anyone who complains about the rationality of relativity, please, from whatever your perspective is, diagram exactly what the algorithms must be to make the GPS satellite system yield the correct calculation for the position my vehicle on my vacation this summer.

If you can not do that, do not waste my time (or anyone else's for that matter). Learn what the requirements of that calculation are and accomplish them by a means which does not include the present interpretation of relativity, and I will take your complaints against relativity seriously. If you cannot do that, you are wasting everyone's time!

Have fun – Dick

 

[ram2048]

that article leaves out way too many variables to calculate proper relativity from.

do they take into account the acceleration launching the clock into orbit?

besides that i highly doubt all the clocks are running stable, i bet they recalibrate them frequently

 

[force5]

Hi doc, I guess I understand about as much of Relativity as I wish to know. And I must say, it is the work of a genius. Without this theory, no telling where we would be today. I do think that enhancements will eventually add to the scope of his theories. I've always considered GR to be on much firmer ground than QM. By that, I imply that GR is closer to reality and QM is more of an analogy. Of course, this is just my opinion.

Anyway, it's nice to have people with your formal background here to remind everyone that if you don't jump though all the right hoops, you're not going to end up where you wish to be relative to your goals.

I hope you have the time to stay involved. Thanks.

 

[russ_watters]

do they take into account the acceleration launching the clock into orbit?

besides that i highly doubt all the clocks are running stable, i bet they recalibrate them frequently

Acceleration is irrelevant because the clocks are resynchronized periodically (daily, if not more frequently). All that matters is the difference between the two reference frames (earth vs orbit).

The clocks are quite stable enough to measure the effects of Relativity on them.

Good article - probably been posted before, but worth repeating.

 

[geistkiesel]

Just a post for all the severely uneducated scholars who wish to contribute to the understanding of mankind. I would suggest that you carefully read the following reference.

http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

For anyone who complains about the rationality of relativity, please, from whatever your perspective is, diagram exactly what the algorithms must be to make the GPS satellite system yield the correct calculation for the position my vehicle on my vacation this summer.

If you can not do that, do not waste my time (or anyone else's for that matter). Learn what the requirements of that calculation are and accomplish them by a means which does not include the present interpretation of relativity, and I will take your complaints against relativity seriously. If you cannot do that, you are wasting everyone's time!

Have fun – Dick

See the opening post in the new thread: "SR Simultaneous Lines Drawn in the Sand." Beat it if you can, by specificity, other than use of the one obvious true constant: Doctordick: the smartest one in the room. That must be some burden to bear. Try a physics argument on this one. http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files/

 

[wespe]

Someone who has no grasp of SR can surely come up with apparent paradoxes. But instead of searching for SR's answer to the paradox, some prefer to simply post the paradox on forums and expect to be spoon-fed the answer. Then, some will even refuse to listen to the answers and waste everyone's time. Those people are not only ignorant but also arrogant. They will think no one in the past century considered the paradox, only he is clever enough to do that, or there's dishonesty, cover up, conspiracy etc. All this because they don't do their homework. I was one of them in the past and I'm sorry. So, people, before you post paradoxes and start arguing, please try to find out what SR would say about it.

Here is an interesting site with graphics:
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/paradox.html

 

[geistkiesel]

Wespe's Windmills are Creaking Again

Someone who has no grasp of SR can surely come up with apparent paradoxes. But instead of searching for SR's answer to the paradox, some prefer to simply post the paradox on forums and expect to be spoon-fed the answer. Then, some will even refuse to listen to the answers and waste everyone's time. Those people are not only ignorant but also arrogant. They will think no one in the past century considered the paradox, only he is clever enough to do that, or there's dishonesty, cover up, conspiracy etc. All this because they don't do their homework. I was one of them in the past and I'm sorry. So, people, before you post paradoxes and start arguing, please try to find out what SR would say about it.

Here is an interesting site with graphics:
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/paradox.html

As far as I am able to determine Wespe, you were never able to come to grips with the mere possibility that postulates of SR are faulty, hence you were never able to follow your own thread to its natural conclusion. You became confused , frustrated, apologetic and defeated.

You are following your habitual patterns by assuming the validity of SR and therefore the postulates of SR. Your thinking ability is self-restricted, you avoid upsetting applecarts, impolte, you avoid disturbing beliefs, denying precious mental equilibrium, you avoid straight talk, they won't like you,. You know something is wrong but you just won't let yourself be exposed tot he truth, as desparately as you esire the truth.

have you looked at the attitude of the author of this thread, his technique, understanding, objectivity, flexibility, wilingness to stretch? This is a professional with 40 plus years in the theoretical physics business, with all the answers to all the questions packed solidly into one hard nut.

Your link is interesting. It shows one physical sphere being generated ino as many spheres as you can fit moving obervers into, yet says SR this is exactly what occurs. SR does more than adjust perceptions, SR adjusts the reality of physical events occurring before observers ever appear, by creating alteration to events by the mere fact of being present and observing, like that stupid link you refer to as "interesting". What did you like about it? Did it explain physical truth? It seems you used the reference as a means of infering that SR is as physically viable, true, real as asserted by SR theorists. The link is a bunch of crap. The only paradoxes are constructed by special relativitistic insanity and you bought into it long before you started posting in science forums.

Do you know Wespe what simultaneity is within the context of SR? It says, events that are simultaneous in a stationary frame are not (in general) simultaneous in a moving frame. In the Einstein train problem you worked on, the event was the instant the photons were emitted from A and B, remember? OK.? All the stuff after that is used by SR theorists to prove that what happened at A and B before, didn't happen, and this is "proved" by the mere fact that an observer can come along, virtually at any time, make some observations and work backward into the past to change the physical reality of the past. I couldn't budge you off your insistance that you had to make some calculation, or measure the speed of light or whatever you were doing, and I assume that you are doing here and now.

Try another approach: assume that SR will conclude the lights emitted from A and B in the stationary frame were not emitted simultaneously in the moving frame. Start here, don't end here.

Then : See if you can use some rational means to find a contradiction: Hint: start with the physical fact that the photons emitted from A nad B in the stationary frame were also emitted simultaneously in the moving frame. I bet you a dollar, you don't understand this.

I see another weakness of yours: You start out with the intention of blasting SR from the mental dynamics of the world's theoretical industry, but failing, you grovel in abject and embarrassing apologetic nonsense, begging readmittance into the fold. Now nicely shamed and convincingly pacified, now with your newfound inner strength you charge into the fold ready to do waste to your once faithful comrades whom you once led into battle against the devil SR. Blinded as you are with steely eyed conviction, and lying as you are with strong jawed conviction you go among the populace seeking the windmills of dissident; for those who dare challenge SR postulates also dare to challenge the invariant furrow browed truth of wespe, Protector Knight of SR . [shudder!].

Your sincerity is leaking from every pore in your soul, mind and body, as if sounding, seeming and appearing serious and restrained is sufficient rational data substitutable for measurable weight to the implicit expression that what you say is the truth. Your insane Wespe, totally.

 

[wespe]

Geist, actually my opinion is that either you are suffering from a mental illness or you are an immature seeking attention. Not name calling, just letting you know my opinion. I respect your opinion about me too (that me being insane), but it has little value to me (which is probably mutual). Anyways,

So you checked the link. My guess is that you were not able to guess SR's solution of the paradox. You had to look at the solution page, but you didn't like it. You concluded that the solution does not reflect reality and you dismissed it. And how would you know what reality really is? Do you see yourself like God? (not in a religious context, likewise I don't take your mention of devil and soul as such). Don't tell me if my guess is true or false, just admit it to yourself, that you don't understand how SR works. Only thing you understand here is the end results of SR, and that's the only thing you are able to object to, but unable to argue.

Your mistake is to assume absoulte time in the first place. Suppose the train is at rest and the two lightenings strike simultaneously, and then the train starts to move. You don't understand that the events will gradually skew in time according to the train (like shown in the graphics in that link). You won't accept that events can have temporal coordinates relative to an observer, just like spatial corrdinates. Admit it, you already assume absolute time. You assume you can know what reality is really like, which is why I think you are arrogant and/or mentall ill.

You're right about me now being overly humbled. That's not because I realized I was wrong, but because I feel guilty for the time I stole from people which I can't return. Any why I bother to write all this is because you are doing the same misktake you can't reverse. Maybe someday you will understand how SR works, but your way of learning is highly inefficient.

 

[Doctordick]

that article leaves out way too many variables to calculate proper relativity from.

I didn't say the solution of the problem was there! What I said was that "anyone who complains about the rationality of relativity" should have the capability to solve that problem from his perspective. If he can't, he doesn't understand the problem relativity solves. Why should I listen to someone claiming to have a solution to a problem he does not understand?

I've always considered GR to be on much firmer ground than QM. By that, I imply that GR is closer to reality and QM is more of an analogy. Of course, this is just my opinion.

It really isn't an issue to be left to opinion, either learn how to do the calculations or leave the calculation to others. The impact on your life is zero unless you are in the business of using it. My only point was, don't tell the people who's income depends on getting the right answer that you have a better way.

From Flawed Analysis

You should put that as a heading on all your work!

Have fun -- Dick

 

[russ_watters]

Originally Posted by force5
I've always considered GR to be on much firmer ground than QM. By that, I imply that GR is closer to reality and QM is more of an analogy. Of course, this is just my opinion.

It really isn't an issue to be left to opinion...

The physical reality of QM has been debated since it was first conceived. QM is just so "weird" that people (even the physicists and mathematicians who derived it) just couldn't accept that what the equations said to them could be physically real. But as technology has improved, more and more of these bizarre predictions have been tested and all have been verified to be correct. Thus, the debate is largely over.

 

[baffledMatt]

I didn't say the solution of the problem was there! What I said was that "anyone who complains about the rationality of relativity" should have the capability to solve that problem from his perspective. If he can't, he doesn't understand the problem relativity solves. Why should I listen to someone claiming to have a solution to a problem he does not understand?

Now now, is this really reasonable? Just because a person can't give you the algorithms to get correct calculations from GPS it doesn't mean they don't understand their theory. I see your point that you should be able to use any new theory to explain all the existing observations but immediately insisting on one this complex is not very reasonable.

How many people do you think can even derive the equations using GR?

Matt

 

[DrChinese]

Geist, actually my opinion is that either you are suffering from a mental illness or you are an immature seeking attention...

Yes, but with good taste in music...

 

[Alkatran]

Wespe, I just want to thank you for that site. I never understood relativity until I saw the picture where the persons "reality" (so to speak) was actualy tilted on the time axis! It makes a lot more sense now than before (when it just seemed to me like people would travel slower through time).

 

[krab]

[...something incredibly stupid...]

Welcome to my ignore list. You remind me of schoolyard bullies who upon discovering someone who really knew how to learn, compensated for feelings of inadequacy by beating him to a pulp.

 

[force5]

Dear Doc, In my "opinion", If I choose to review the work of others and wish to express my "opinion", I will do so in what ever manner I prefer. I don't want to hurt your feelings, but, many subjects can be discussed (at some level) without a detail mathematical justification. I know you may take exception to the fact that most original ideas have very little to do with math. Unless, of course, you are developing a new math or a new mathematical tool.

Russ, I think the key word here is "physical". I have no problem with QM as a very effective descriptive "analogy" of some aspects of this "physical" world we live in. Just as I had no problem with Newtons work 150 years ago, when I was a little boy.

Have patiences with us poor neanderthals.

 

[Doctordick]

Don't think I am unsympathetic!

Now now, is this really reasonable?

You are asking me if it is reasonable to expect people who contradict relativity to be able to duplicate the achievements before I take them seriously? I don't know about you, but I have better things to do with my time! I look at the number of posts you seem to have the time to make and I suspect you are neglecting your education!

How many people do you think can even derive the equations using GR?

Dammed few! But before they can consider themselves educated enough to put forth alternate theories, they had better at least understand the extent of the problems which the current theory has solved. I am sorry, but even among professional physicists that understanding is rare. That is exactly why Diracs, Maxwells and Einsteins are so rare!

Welcome to my ignore list.

Good move. However, I am relatively slow to make to make the move because it is exactly these people who sway the ignorant to thoughtless conclusions. Take for example baffledMatt's "good retort" response to confutatis – see:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=224873#post224873

I put confutatis on my ignore list long ago but he still influences people I might otherwise have respect for.

Dear Doc, In my "opinion", If I choose to review the work of others and wish to express my "opinion", I will do so in what ever manner I prefer. I don't want to hurt your feelings, but, many subjects can be discussed (at some level) without a detail mathematical justification.

I am sorry I apparently upset you. I had no intention to do so. My tirade was against people who put forward ideas which have utterly no logical thought behind them as if they are rational and well thought out. And don't worry, it is very difficult to hurt my feelings. I am an old man and have endured ridicule for most of my life. I am pretty well immune to its effect. My father used ridicule as a mechanism to control those around him. As a child, I thought his ridicule was well thought out. As an adult I know it arose from a feeling of inferiority but he had already made a very strong individual of me long before I knew that.

And please, don't ever think of yourself as a "poor Neanderthal". Everyone has a mind and, if they use it[/color], they have as good a chance of discovering truth as anyone else. Put it another way, authority is as apt to be wrong as anyone; if what they say doesn't make sense, think about it. Just don't depend on "squirrel decisions" as a source of truth! They may be great for day to day decisions but for truth, they are worthless.

To put it another way, for getting along in life, intuition is great and logic is worthless; but don't be drawn into the trap that intuition is the "correct" answer.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[PFanalog57]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=23266&page=1&pp=15&highlight=momentum+time+states

Doctor D:

II. The representation is fundamentally more symmetric than Einstein's representation as all four coordinates are totally equivalent. The \tau axis is a spatial axis completely equivalent to x, y and z. The only thing which sets \tau off as different is that the great majority of important entities exist in momentum quantized states in the \tau direction. One could just as easily work with entities which were momentum quantized in any direction. That is, the asymmetry is a result of the problem being solved, not the geometry.

Classical Newtonian reality, is a low energy approximation of Einsteinian, and quantum realities.

Einsteinian reality, and quantum reality are possibly low energy approximations of a more "unifying" perspective.

Dr. D has the right idea in the above quote, IMHO.

 

[baffledMatt]

You are asking me if it is reasonable to expect people who contradict relativity to be able to duplicate the achievements before I take them seriously? I don't know about you, but I have better things to do with my time!

But wait. To be able to reproduce the calculations you need to know much more than GR! This is the problem I have with your example, you are asking for knowledge of something much more complex than the theory in question.

I look at the number of posts you seem to have the time to make and I suspect you are neglecting your education!

Thank you for your concern, but I think I am the better judge of this.

Dammed few! But before they can consider themselves educated enough to put forth alternate theories, they had better at least understand the extent of the problems which the current theory has solved. I am sorry, but even among professional physicists that understanding is rare. That is exactly why Diracs, Maxwells and Einsteins are so rare!

I would ask if you can do the calculation yourself, but unfortunately I would have no way of determining if you were telling the truth.

Take for example baffledMatt's "good retort" response to confutatis – see:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=224873#post224873

I put confutatis on my ignore list long ago but he still influences people I might otherwise have respect for.

Yeah, he's a real rapscallion! I mean, imagine actually trying to point out the nonsense you talk sometimes. My only regret is that I was not the first to say it.

Matt

 

[confutatis]

Yeah, [confutatis] is a real rapscallion! I mean, imagine actually trying to point out the nonsense you talk sometimes. My only regret is that I was not the first to say it.

Well, now that I know DoctorDick is not seeing my posts, I can tell you guys a bit of information about him: he is autistic. His obsession with meaningless ideas, his proficiency in mathematics, his lack of proficiency in absolutely anything else, and his completely antisocial behaviour are not flaws of character, they are just a neurological problem. So take it easy on the guy, he can't be blamed for being himself.

I used to be his friend, by the way, long before I told him to join this forum. Or better, I should say I thought I was his friend, until I realized autistic people don't make friends.

 

[geistkiesel]

And please, don't ever think of yourself as a "poor Neanderthal". Everyone has a mind and, if they use it[/color], they have as good a chance of discovering truth as anyone else. Put it another way, authority is as apt to be wrong as anyone; if what they say doesn't make sense, think about it. Just don't depend on "squirrel decisions" as a source of truth! They may be great for day to day decisions but for truth, they are worthless.

To put it another way, for getting along in life, intuition is great and logic is worthless; but don't be drawn into the trap that intuition is the "correct" answer.

Have fun -- Dick

A very minor point, but there is substantial hisotrical record indicating Neanderthals were not mentally inferior to any other human like beings. Their story is strange from their relatively short history of existence -- Rapid appearance, rapid disappearance, relativelty speaking.

 

[geistkiesel]

Geist, actually my opinion is that either you are suffering from a mental illness or you are an immature seeking attention. Not name calling, just letting you know my opinion. I respect your opinion about me too (that me being insane), but it has little value to me (which is probably mutual). Anyways,

So you checked the link. My guess is that you were not able to guess SR's solution of the paradox. You had to look at the solution page, but you didn't like it. You concluded that the solution does not reflect reality and you dismissed it. And how would you know what reality really is? Do you see yourself like God? (not in a religious context, likewise I don't take your mention of devil and soul as such). Don't tell me if my guess is true or false, just admit it to yourself, that you don't understand how SR works. Only thing you understand here is the end results of SR, and that's the only thing you are able to object to, but unable to argue.

Your mistake is to assume absoulte time in the first place. Suppose the train is at rest and the two lightenings strike simultaneously, and then the train starts to move. You don't understand that the events will gradually skew in time according to the train (like shown in the graphics in that link). You won't accept that events can have temporal coordinates relative to an observer, just like spatial corrdinates. Admit it, you already assume absolute time. You assume you can know what reality is really like, which is why I think you are arrogant and/or mentall ill.

You're right about me now being overly humbled. That's not because I realized I was wrong, but because I feel guilty for the time I stole from people which I can't return. Any why I bother to write all this is because you are doing the same misktake you can't reverse. Maybe someday you will understand how SR works, but your way of learning is highly inefficient.

Too many assumptions on your part Wespe. I can very clearly see Sr calculating that photons emited simultaneously in a staionary frame will be perveived as not emitted simultaneously in a moving frame. This doesn't, by itself, offer any credibility to SR. If nothing else, take the case where the A an d B emitters are light years apart and emitted photons in the stationry frame. Along comes a moving observer moving along a line connecting the sources and he sees one photon from the oncoming photon then from the photon catching up from behind. As far as I can tell frm the litrature and all the talk here it is this time difference in measurement that is taken as the "loss of simultaeity" whether time and spatial dilations are used or just by observation. The fact that the moving observer prceives the photons as not simultaeously emitted in the moving frame is nothing to get exceited about , certainly in the context of "loss of simultaneiity" as advertised as it is as a "physical state" as real as the state that described the emitted photons in the first instance instead of a simple minded mesuring of two photons from a spatial and temporal position that is completely removed from he stationary position. Why anyone bothers to link the two in the same context is bewildering, very bewildering. And don't forget, invariably the language used is "the perception of the observer"

Isn't it a first law of physics that changing the physical parameters in an experiment aslo changes the entire thread of the physical chain of events? Haven't you noticed yet that the slightest hint of questioning SR invariably gets a reaction where the SRists feel it absolutely necessary to educate those of us mortals (save some of those recognized as God by others, thank you sir) not so mentally endowed that we are also able to endorse the theory? I can unerstand the theory withiout endorsing it, without robotically echoing the mathematical structure and the litany of the "constancy of the speed of light", but this is never quite good enough is it? Theories come and theories go has been my historical perspective and as the end of time ain't yet, SR still has a recognized tenure, "before it too into the dust descends, sans wine, sans singer and sans end'.

The universe cares not that we argue about what makes it work, but then why is the rush to stamp one's own brand on the "truth" so intense? Doctordick insists one must understand the satellite global positioning algorithms sychnchronization before he will discuss the matter, or smething akin to this. He doesn't know how to deal with hypotheticals and this is a sad weaKkness, for the smartest man in the room that is.

You miss a point or two yourself. I tells 'em like I sees 'em,which doesn't make me 100% correct, but I know that you know there was a thread of accuracy in my scathing dialogue, my observed profile. Hey, wespe, when I call someone insane I means it as a compliment,

 

[wespe]

... The fact that the moving observer prceives the photons as not simultaeously emitted in the moving frame is nothing to get exceited about , certainly in the context of "loss of simultaneiity" as advertised as it is as a "physical state" as real as the state that described the emitted photons in the first instance instead of a simple minded mesuring of two photons from a spatial and temporal position that is completely removed from he stationary position. Why anyone bothers to link the two in the same context is bewildering, very bewildering. And don't forget, invariably the language used is "the perception of the observer"

Geistkiesel,

Considering our past discussions, I don't have much desire to argue with you. Do you have a new theory, any math or new predictions? No. Can you carry out an experiment where SR predictions are wrong? No. So what have you to offer? Nothing.

Is it just that you don't like the physical interpretation of relativity? Well I don't care about that. Physical interpretation is a matter of preference, as long as the predictions are the same. By "predictions", I mean knowing what everyone will measure.

OK, I will, for the last time, try to tell you something, if you will listen.

Think of simultaneity. Why is it important if two events happen at the same time? Because, you cannot prevent one of the events from occurring, after you have observed one of them occurring. That is the only limitation of simultaneity I can think of right now. And with SR, you cannot surpass this limitation unless you can go faster than light. Therefore I see no problem with SR's simultaneity.

So, I don't care what your physical interpretation is. You think you can see things from above and you think you know what realtiy is out there. No, it can be anything weird. What is real for us is our measurements.

Think of doppler shift. You see blue/red shifted light. The color is your measurement and your reality. Please do think of it: the color you observe is really real for you. You still know that if you were at rest with the light source you would not see the change in color. But knowing that does not change the real color you observe. Same with time, distance and simultaneity. So SR is fine with me.

However don't misunderstand me. I am interested in new theories, I check crank.net frequently. In my opinion, new theories are necessary for us to be able to think of new experiments. You just have to carry out a weird experiment and find a surprising result. Such a discovery that can result in something new and useful. But, Geistkiesel, sorry, you are not saying anything new.

 

[geistkiesel]

Geistkiesel,

Considering our past discussions, I don't have much desire to argue with you. Do you have a new theory, any math or new predictions? No. Can you carry out an experiment where SR predictions are wrong? No. So what have you to offer? Nothing.

Is it just that you don't like the physical interpretation of relativity? Well I don't care about that. Physical interpretation is a matter of preference, as long as the predictions are the same. By "predictions", I mean knowing what everyone will measure.

OK, I will, for the last time, try to tell you something, if you will listen.

Think of simultaneity. Why is it important if two events happen at the same time? Because, you cannot prevent one of the events from occurring, after you have observed one of them occurring. That is the only limitation of simultaneity I can think of right now. And with SR, you cannot surpass this limitation unless you can go faster than light. Therefore I see no problem with SR's simultaneity.

So, I don't care what your physical interpretation is. You think you can see things from above and you think you know what realtiy is out there. No, it can be anything weird. What is real for us is our measurements.

Think of doppler shift. You see blue/red shifted light. The color is your measurement and your reality. Please do think of it: the color you observe is really real for you. You still know that if you were at rest with the light source you would not see the change in color. But knowing that does not change the real color you observe. Same with time, distance and simultaneity. So SR is fine with me.

However don't misunderstand me. I am interested in new theories, I check crank.net frequently. In my opinion, new theories are necessary for us to be able to think of new experiments. You just have to carry out a weird experiment and find a surprising result. Such a discovery that can result in something new and useful. But, Geistkiesel, sorry, you are not saying anything new.

Ditto, bro. Check out Grounded in post #1 "New Theory of Light". You might learn something.

 

[russ_watters]

Is it just that you don't like the physical interpretation of relativity? Well I don't care about that. Physical interpretation is a matter of preference, as long as the predictions are the same. By "predictions", I mean knowing what everyone will measure.

I think that's it exactly. And I think that's the issue with most anti-Relativity cranks. They just plain don't like what physics has to say about reality, so they try to find a way to make reality conform to how they want it to be.

Sorry, but reality is what it is. It won' conform to your wishes.

 

[geistkiesel]

I think that's it exactly. And I think that's the issue with most anti-Relativity cranks. They just plain don't like what physics has to say about reality, so they try to find a way to make reality conform to how they want it to be.

Sorry, but reality is what it is. It won' conform to your wishes.

The measue of frequency of light when moving into a stream of photons is a measure of the number of wave lengths passing throughyour eye. The wavelength of the light does not compress generating a new frequency. This doesn't conform to your wishes does it?

The change in frequency is the distance traveled in one second wrt source divided by the measured wave length.

The velocity of a body moving wrt source of light is
fxlambda - c., where f is the measured frequency.

the measured frequency is (c + v)/lamda where v is velocity of the observer wrt source. -v if moving away..

The lamda relative to the universe is = v/f where v is the velocity of the observer wrt source, and f the observed frequency.

Its all there, crank to scholar. What will we see? Knee jerk reactions from a SR scientificless jerk.

Good work Wespe, it seems you have been accepted. Having russ_watters expressing kudos and huzzahs for you is quite a work of art, very clever. I know how important this is to you and how hard you have worked to reach this rather questionable level of achievment and personal security. Now you won't have as many minds to offend when you publish your echoes of SRT. Hey everybody, come see, Wespe made it to the majority! Now he can begin to live!

Let us see Wespe grasp the problem here and see how effectively he uses SR mantras as rebuttals. Let us observe him, not in a scientific dialogue with Grounded, but as a committed propagandist with a job to complete: eradicate SRT opponents. Scorn, derision, smug self-centerd priestly piety, "the speed of light is constant from whatever inertial frame measured". Go with your peace of mind Wespe, go.

 

[wespe]

the measured frequency is (c + v)/lamda where v is velocity of the observer wrt source. -v if moving away..

Where do all these formulae come from? Relativistic doppler formula is the one supported by real experiments. You are talking out of your bottom. I will ignore your worthless speculations about me so don't waste your breath.

 

[geistkiesel]

Where do all these formulae come from? Relativistic doppler formula is the one supported by real experiments. You are talking out of your bottom. I will ignore your worthless speculations about me so don't waste your breath.

I guessed correctly. Wespe doesn't understand Grounded and his clear essay on scientific reality. Hey smart guy, proveb your stupid statement about relativistic doppler experiments, prove they experiments specifically distinguished between a frequency measured b the photons passing through the eye of the observer versus a frequency assumed from the comparison of the wave form of the approaching photons? Prove it man! What real experiments? Were you there? Are you familier with the arrangement of the experiments? Do you know if the experimentors ever considered the structure of frequency measurements? Were the experimenters honest? biased? on drugs? boozed? Was data fudged to conform with expectations? Do you know?
Are you a scientist, or a believer?

No you don't, Wespe, you know nothing. You have only the litany of SR mantras to spew at us when you are wasting our time.

 

[wespe]

Hey smart guy, proveb your stupid statement about relativistic doppler experiments, prove they experiments specifically distinguished between a frequency measured b the photons passing through the eye of the observer versus a frequency assumed from the comparison of the wave form of the approaching photons? Prove it man! What real experiments? Were you there? Are you familier with the arrangement of the experiments? Do you know if the experimentors ever considered the structure of frequency measurements? Were the experimenters honest? biased? on drugs? boozed? Was data fudged to conform with expectations? Do you know?

Since I am not in position to carry out any real experiments, I will take their word. Some may be dishonest, but not all. You can't hide truth for as long as a century. You think doppler applies the same for sound and light? That's not a new idea, actually it's the first thing to assume. Relativistic doppler was not invented for fun you know. And you're not the only one trying to refute relativity. Yet no one was able to do with experiments. Where are your experiments, where is your proof? You have nothing, except your bottom you talk out of. I would dig up some references if you were not such a hopeless case.

 

[geistkiesel]

Since I am not in position to carry out any real experiments, I will take their word. Some may be dishonest, but not all. You can't hide truth for as long as a century. You think doppler applies the same for sound and light? That's not a new idea, actually it's the first thing to assume. Relativistic doppler was not invented for fun you know. And you're not the only one trying to refute relativity. Yet no one was able to do with experiments. Where are your experiments, where is your proof? You have nothing, except your bottom you talk out of. I would dig up some references if you were not such a hopeless case.

In the first place I am not trying to refute SR. I am presenting in this thread the ideas expressed by Grounded, which are available for your inspection. You choose to rely on the tested and accepted, don't you?

See what I mean by this wespe, is that when you do not "dig up references" for me, as I am a hopeless case, at the same time you deny yourself the references and your scrutiny and consideration of those references. These references that you brought into the conversation, references that you adopt as your truth on your personal faith, references that you offered for consideration to others to make a scientific point, as a claimed scientist.

 

[wespe]

In the first place I am not trying to refute SR. I am presenting in this thread the ideas expressed by Grounded, which are available for your inspection. You choose to rely on the tested and accepted, don't you?

See what I mean by this wespe, is that when you do not "dig up references" for me, as I am a hopeless case, at the same time you deny yourself the references and your scrutiny and consideration of those references. These references that you brought into the conversation, references that you adopt as your truth on your personal faith, references that you offered for consideration to others to make a scientific point, as a claimed scientist.

Last edited by Tom Mattson? May I assume geistkiesel have resorted to nasty insults? I would ignore them anyway.

Firstly, discuss Grounded's ideas on his thread, that's the point of having threads.

Secondly, read this:
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-04/2-04.htm

Note that with the classical doppler formula, it matters if source or observer is moving, so if that forumula was correct you could your detect absolute speed. Relativistic formula is different and symmetric. Therefore the different predicted results are testable. As shown at the bottom of that link, the experimental results support relativity. You don't trust those? Fine, go repeat them. I searched and found mentions of more recent and modern tests, involving direct measurements, but I don't have access to the content of those published papers. Go examine them if you have access. And I didn't claim I am a scientist. I am a layman. But you.. It will look like an insult if I write that.

 

[wespe]

I think I finally figured out how Geistkiesel thinks. This is not a personal attack, I apologize if my guess wrong. But this is very relevant to the topic of this thread.

OK, Geistkiesel subconsciously assumes absolute space. Speed is also absolute, like when you ask "how fast does this car go?", you can get a fixed number. Relative speed is only a calculated meaningless number, he doesn't understand can be measured. When we talk about speed of light, he thinks we mean absolute speed. That's why he sees no problem with constancy of speed of light. Therefore everybody can read in a book and know the value of c and there is no need for a measurement. His concept of speed is absolute, so any relative measurement is in fact wrong. He does not understand that the speed of light is measured constant with respect to all frames, because he thinks even if it is measured, it is somehow measured with respect to absolute space. If my guess is correct, he will be baffled when he finds that the measurement of constant speed of light is relative and still constant. All this time, we were discussing Einstein's relativity with someone who doesn't even understand Galilean relativity..

 

[ram1024]

and absolute space / time is wrong because why?

 

[Doctordick]

Failure to think!

OK, Geistkiesel subconsciously assumes absolute space. Speed is also absolute, like when you ask "how fast does this car go?", you can get a fixed number. Relative speed is only a calculated meaningless number, he doesn't understand can be measured. When we talk about speed of light, he thinks we mean absolute speed. That's why he sees no problem with constancy of speed of light. Therefore everybody can read in a book and know the value of c and there is no need for a measurement. His concept of speed is absolute, so any relative measurement is in fact wrong. He does not understand that the speed of light is measured constant with respect to all frames, because he thinks even if it is measured, it is somehow measured with respect to absolute space. If my guess is correct, he will be baffled when he finds that the measurement of constant speed of light is relative and still constant. All this time, we were discussing Einstein's relativity with someone who doesn't even understand Galilean relativity..

It all goes back to "squirrel decisions"! See my post:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=222763#post222763

The issue behind that post was overlooked by almost everyone who read it. You all want to "intuitively" understand what you are talking about: i.e., know the answer without thinking about the issue logically at all. Geistkiesel is a major progenitor of that mode of thinking. In fact, I would be tempted to say that "logical" thought is beyond his comprehension (he does not have the attention span to comprehend logic; if he does not understand it intuitively, it is beyond him). I think I used the term "simple minded" and got raked over the coals for it.

All of his arguments are based on a collection of "squirrel" decisions which he cannot even comprehend questioning. Actually, that is quite common. I am afraid that everyone on this forum is equally guilty of the same error; just not quite so blatant as is Geistkiesel. If one wants to understand reality, one must be able to comprehend the basis of their beliefs. To quote myself,

"I have not met one who will easily admit of the possibility of error in their mental image of reality itself; they do not find that issue sufficiently abstract to honestly consider. Come, try to be objective: you either have absolute faith in your perceptions of the universe or they are subject to examination. To set any part of those perceptions above examination is to scuttle rational science."[/color]

All I am asking is, "is there anyone out there who is interested in rational science or is this indeed the 'crackpots are us forum'?"

Have fun -- Dick

 

[wespe]

and absolute space / time is wrong because why?

My point was: all the confusion with Geistkiesel is because he thinks of absolute speed when we mean relative speed so we can't communicate.

 

[geistkiesel]

My point was: all the confusion with Geistkiesel is because he thinks of absolute speed when we mean relative speed so we can't communicate.

no I don't "thinks of absolute speed".

 

[geistkiesel]

It all goes back to "squirrel decisions"! See my post:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=222763#post222763

The issue behind that post was overlooked by almost everyone who read it. You all want to "intuitively" understand what you are talking about: i.e., know the answer without thinking about the issue logically at all. Geistkiesel is a major progenitor of that mode of thinking. In fact, I would be tempted to say that "logical" thought is beyond his comprehension (he does not have the attention span to comprehend logic; if he does not understand it intuitively, it is beyond him). I think I used the term "simple minded" and got raked over the coals for it.

All of his arguments are based on a collection of "squirrel" decisions which he cannot even comprehend questioning. Actually, that is quite common. I am afraid that everyone on this forum is equally guilty of the same error; just not quite so blatant as is Geistkiesel. If one wants to understand reality, one must be able to comprehend the basis of their beliefs. To quote myself, All I am asking is, "is there anyone out there who is interested in rational science or is this indeed the 'crackpots are us forum'?"

Have fun -- Dick

Actually "simple minded" is a rather mild perjorative seen this current spate of SR theads, relatively speaking.


Wespe is not describing me or my ideas. Try to see through the veil of SR theorists whose only goal in life is to defend SR. I have stated on many occasions That I believe SRT will predict what has been historically predicted. They, SRTists, want me to write equations and show them I can do that for some reason. When I ask that they look at Grounded's paper, at a specific point, they make the funny noises heard only comonmg from the mouths of SRTists. They seem unable to discuss any physics outside their precious domain of accepted beliefs, or professional beliefs, or what they are paid to do?.


No one, even the great doctordick, which I actually admire in a way, can express any understanding of the concept that measuring the frequency of an oncoming stream of photons one merely has to count the number of full wave length units passing through the eye/sec. This is much too simple to comprehend. This statement has nothing significant about it that attaches the process to SR implications, nothing.

That this measuring technique does not disturb the the wave length of the oncoming photon must be taken in some kind of way, but the responses all avoid the concept.How the situation is perceived is anunknown. Merely the #Lamdas/sec = F. The measurement of a stream of photons in this way does not apply a squeezing pressure shortening the wavelength which can be detected and measured and the frequency calculated from the compressed wave cycle.

Remember, the assumed compressed wave length is not an example of a spatial dilation of matter due to velocities reaching relativistic speeds. The wave length is moving at what speed? c? I mean the full wave length of a unit wave length is moving at how many counts per second across the observers eye? Is the tip-to-tail of a unit wave length moving at c? How do you know?

If nothing else there should be a response indicating experimental evidence to the contrary, or in agreement. If none of these certainly an experimental determination is in order.

 

[wespe]

Wespe is not describing me or my ideas.

Geistkiesel, if you are not the confused person I described, why do you write things like these:

... understanding of the concept that measuring the frequency of an oncoming stream of photons one merely has to count the number of full wave length units passing through the eye/sec. ...this measuring technique does not disturb the the wave length of the oncoming photon ...

This exciting new technique to measure frequency looks like the definition of frequency. How others disturb the wavelength is a mystery though.

 

[setAI]

and absolute space / time is wrong because why?

because absolutes- by definition do not/ cannot exist

___________________________

/:set\AI transmedia laboratories

http://setai-transmedia.com

 

[ram1024]

because absolutes- by definition do not/ cannot exist

ace in the hole time eh? everything is relative, nothing can be wrong...

well if you define something to be absolute then it can exist as such. i see this as a very desirable proposition

 

[wespe]

ace in the hole time eh? everything is relative, nothing can be wrong...

well if you define something to be absolute then it can exist as such. i see this as a very desirable proposition[/QUOT]

If you mean aether, I agree it is possible for it to exist. But also it is undetectable and not needed to explain anything, so probably it is imaginary. And some say space cannot exist without mass. I find it impossible to imagine nothingness, so our minds fill space with something and you tend to favor aether, but not for a scientific reason.

 

[Hurkyl]

The thing about "absolute space/time" is that the only way we know to define such a thing is to define it relative to some chosen reference point. For all known practical purposes, an "absolute space/time" is merely an arbitrary choice of some reference frame to be the "right" frame to use.

The other thing about "absolute space/time" is that it does not forbid one from opting to use their "personal" reference frame instead of the absolute one. All of the physics will still be valid in this relative reference frame.

 

[ram1024]

that remains to be seen :D

i'm getting there, just a few more brain crunches and we'll be in business.

 

[geistkiesel]

The thing about "absolute space/time" is that the only way we know to define such a thing is to define it relative to some chosen reference point. For all known practical purposes, an "absolute space/time" is merely an arbitrary choice of some reference frame to be the "right" frame to use.

The other thing about "absolute space/time" is that it does not forbid one from opting to use their "personal" reference frame instead of the absolute one. All of the physics will still be valid in this relative reference frame.

Would this include using Grounded's frame system?

 

[geistkiesel]

ace in the hole time eh? everything is relative, nothing can be wrong...

well if you define something to be absolute then it can exist as such. I see this as a very desirable proposition

If you mean aether, I agree it is possible for it to exist. But also it is undetectable and not needed to explain anything, so probably it is imaginary. And some say space cannot exist without mass. I find it impossible to imagine nothingness, so our minds fill space with something and you tend to favor aether, but not for a scientific reason.

To say that something is possible to exist but is undetectable is contradictory. Why even assert the existence of something that cannot bee observed affecting physical phenomena?

 

[wespe]

To say that something is possible to exist but is undetectable is contradictory.

Yea.. I should have written "undetectable by any means we currently know". I just don't agree with "absolutes cannot exist by definition". Maybe setAI would like to elaborate.

Why even assert the existence of something that cannot bee observed affecting physical phenomena?

I did write it's because our minds cannot imagine nothingness and tries to fill it with something, well at least mine.

 

[geistkiesel]

Yea.. I should have written "undetectable by any means we currently know". I just don't agree with "absolutes cannot exist by definition". Maybe setAI would like to elaborate.



I did write it's because our minds cannot imagine nothingness and tries to fill it with something, well at least mine.

If the definition is not so arbitrary as to be uselesss and harmfull, and is practical,even the defintion is a contrivance determined from expedient necessity, what harm? Even if inelegant.SOmeone will come along and fix it.

The first axiom of computer programming and data analysis error: "You find it you fix it."