|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 29, 2017 13:59:17 GMT
<various and sundry things> You're free to believe in relativity, it's just not what I call "science" because you're dodging... The "proofs" of relativity are not even nearly that good. That's all. The proofs for relativity are much better and your entire reason for not accepting them boils down to your inability to test them yourself. Your view of science is that if you can't test/prove it, it hasn't been tested/proven, and if every damn physicist agrees it's been proven then tough noogie for them because Arlon > all physicists. I think the GPS system is the most valuable development in recent years. It is obvious. Therefore it is science. It does not "prove" relativity though since it would be more accurate and dependable if relativity did not happen.Prove it. Just a bit off topic here, I'm still using Windows XP. I went through my collection of old software to check again (I check things again a lot) what will run on XP. I have a lot of old software that won't work on XP. One old program I did finally get to work is Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego, the version made for Windows 95. Ha, I remember playing that game on our gradeschool computers back in the day. They also had a kid's game show based on it that I watched occasionally. There is a very good reason not to put any faith at all in science. When you put faith in it, then it isn't science anymore. Have all the faith you want in it, please just don't call it science. How does this even make sense? If scientists are proposing a hypothesis, doing an experiment, publishing the result in a peer-reviewed journal, getting the results confirmed by other scientists, becoming accepted by everyone in the field, etc., then how is what they're doing suddenly NOT science just because I have "faith" that's what indeed happened? I found it true what is said of the Midwest, they are more friendly and hospitable there than most other places. I moved away years ago though and my relatives who still live there say that people are getting more suspicious of strangers every year. I have been thinking of moving back there anyway for the lower cost of living. I could save about 25 percent on rent alone. Does Midwest City still have the "Burger Train"? It was a hamburger place that sent your hamburgers, fries and sodas out to your car on electric conveyors. You placed your order by intercom from your car. Low cost of living is a major benefit, and it's nice being a stone's throw away from tons of shopping and restaurants (I live just outside the "big city," closer to the suburbs in Moore.) I never noticed a Burger Train in Midwest City, but I never spent a lot of time down there. A quick Google search didn't turn anything up.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 29, 2017 22:50:39 GMT
You're free to believe in relativity, it's just not what I call "science" because you're dodging... The "proofs" of relativity are not even nearly that good. That's all. The proofs for relativity are much better and your entire reason for not accepting them boils down to your inability to test them yourself. Your view of science is that if you can't test/prove it, it hasn't been tested/proven, and if every damn physicist agrees it's been proven then tough noogie for them because Arlon > all physicists. I think the GPS system is the most valuable development in recent years. It is obvious. Therefore it is science. It does not "prove" relativity though since it would be more accurate and dependable if relativity did not happen.Prove it. Just a bit off topic here, I'm still using Windows XP. I went through my collection of old software to check again (I check things again a lot) what will run on XP. I have a lot of old software that won't work on XP. One old program I did finally get to work is Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego, the version made for Windows 95. Ha, I remember playing that game on our gradeschool computers back in the day. They also had a kid's game show based on it that I watched occasionally. There is a very good reason not to put any faith at all in science. When you put faith in it, then it isn't science anymore. Have all the faith you want in it, please just don't call it science. How does this even make sense? If scientists are proposing a hypothesis, doing an experiment, publishing the result in a peer-reviewed journal, getting the results confirmed by other scientists, becoming accepted by everyone in the field, etc., then how is what they're doing suddenly NOT science just because I have "faith" that's what indeed happened? I found it true what is said of the Midwest, they are more friendly and hospitable there than most other places. I moved away years ago though and my relatives who still live there say that people are getting more suspicious of strangers every year. I have been thinking of moving back there anyway for the lower cost of living. I could save about 25 percent on rent alone. Does Midwest City still have the "Burger Train"? It was a hamburger place that sent your hamburgers, fries and sodas out to your car on electric conveyors. You placed your order by intercom from your car. Low cost of living is a major benefit, and it's nice being a stone's throw away from tons of shopping and restaurants (I live just outside the "big city," closer to the suburbs in Moore.) I never noticed a Burger Train in Midwest City, but I never spent a lot of time down there. A quick Google search didn't turn anything up. I checked out Google Maps myself and it appears Burger Train is indeed gone. I thought I remembered it being around SE 15th & S Sooner Road, but the intersection of SE 15th and S Sunnylane (2 blocks west) looks more like where it was. The pictures helped me remember. I haven't been in that part of town in twenty years. So technically it was on the border of Del City and Oklahoma City, not the border of Del City and Midwest City (other side of Del City). The spot where it was is now a convenience store/gas station called S'Mart. That's the northeast corner of the intersection. Burger Train might have moved, but I doubt that. It's likely totally gone. The novelty wore off. It was quite the memorable experience twenty years ago, but no more. Midwest City still looks great though. I like that the signs are not missing any letters. ##### Back to the topic though, I suspect that somewhere along the line you and others got the idea that "faith" was a bad thing with no use whatsoever. Now you fail to recognize it even when it's your own. Faith is sometimes a necessary thing and a very good necessary thing. There are problems science can't even begin to approach. I hope you're older and wiser now. How does GPS not "prove" relativity? If there were no relativity then there would not have to be any adjustments to measurements for it. Each measurement would simply be the speed of EM radiation times the duration of its journey. I hope you're older and wiser now.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 30, 2017 1:17:03 GMT
The proofs for relativity are much better and your entire reason for not accepting them boils down to your inability to test them yourself. Your view of science is that if you can't test/prove it, it hasn't been tested/proven, and if every damn physicist agrees it's been proven then tough noogie for them because Arlon > all physicists. Prove it. Ha, I remember playing that game on our gradeschool computers back in the day. They also had a kid's game show based on it that I watched occasionally. How does this even make sense? If scientists are proposing a hypothesis, doing an experiment, publishing the result in a peer-reviewed journal, getting the results confirmed by other scientists, becoming accepted by everyone in the field, etc., then how is what they're doing suddenly NOT science just because I have "faith" that's what indeed happened? Low cost of living is a major benefit, and it's nice being a stone's throw away from tons of shopping and restaurants (I live just outside the "big city," closer to the suburbs in Moore.) I never noticed a Burger Train in Midwest City, but I never spent a lot of time down there. A quick Google search didn't turn anything up. Back to the topic though, I suspect that somewhere along the line you and others got the idea that "faith" was a bad thing with no use whatsoever. Now you fail to recognize it even when it's your own. Faith is sometimes a necessary thing and a very good necessary thing. There are problems science can't even begin to approach. I hope you're older and wiser now. How does GPS not "prove" relativity? If there were no relativity then there would not have to be any adjustments to measurements for it. Each measurement would simply be the speed of EM radiation times the duration of its journey. I hope you're older and wiser now. It depends on what you mean by "faith." Depending on how you define it, one could be said to have "faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow. That's a very different kind of faith than religious "faith." The difference is between believing in things for which there is a lot of evidence VS believing in things for which there is no evidence. There is plenty of evidence for the sun rising every day, and for science discovering truths and proving its efficacy; there is none for most religious claims. So that's what I mean by science earning my faith because of the process and what it's proven before. It's not a bad thing in the least to put faith in science, but it's a bad thing to put faith in things for which there is no evidence and no reason to have faith in. Your GPS comment makes no sense. There is relativity so adjustments have to be made for it for GPS to be accurate. Duh.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 30, 2017 2:12:55 GMT
It depends on what you mean by "faith." Depending on how you define it, one could be said to have "faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow. That's a very different kind of faith than religious "faith." The difference is between believing in things for which there is a lot of evidence VS believing in things for which there is no evidence. There is plenty of evidence for the sun rising every day, and for science discovering truths and proving its efficacy; there is none for most religious claims. So that's what I mean by science earning my faith because of the process and what it's proven before. It's not a bad thing in the least to put faith in science, but it's a bad thing to put faith in things for which there is no evidence and no reason to have faith in. Your GPS comment makes no sense. There is relativity so adjustments have to be made for it for GPS to be accurate. Duh. If adjustments to GPS measurements have to be made to correct for relativity then you have too many unknowns to solve the problem. As long as the necessary adjustments are trivial you can guess your way through to an approximate solution. If the necessary adjustments were more significant there would be no solving a problem with that many unknowns. Even the most elegant algorithm would return bad guesses. If relativity does not happen, then no problem, those unknowns are eliminated and no corrections for relativity are necessary. Because there are all sorts of trivial errors the current software must make some allowance for them. It does not mean that proves relativity. It means the errors from whatever sources, equipment specification limits or environmental interference, are trivial enough to discard. Faith in science can be every bit as "bad" as faith in anything else. Faith is faith. Faith in science is usually worse because people don't realize it is faith. Theirs is a blind faith. Many believe that there have been significant advances against cancer in the last twenty years. Life is improving generally. Work is less hard. Food is fresher. Yes, science is wonderful in that regard, but no there is no clear advance against cancer in twenty years.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Dec 30, 2017 14:06:55 GMT
If adjustments to GPS measurements have to be made to correct for relativity then you have too many unknowns to solve the problem. Thankfully for the rest of us, the engineers who actually have to worry about this stuff for a living do not have mental processes that resemble yours in the slightest.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 31, 2017 5:48:34 GMT
If adjustments to GPS measurements have to be made to correct for relativity then you have too many unknowns to solve the problem. Thankfully for the rest of us, the engineers who actually have to worry about this stuff for a living do not have mental processes that resemble yours in the slightest. Again, for those of you who do not know me and for those of you who do know me but have short attention spans, I did not say there is no such thing as relativity. I have never in my whole life, not even as a joke, said there is no such thing as relativity. What I have said is that relativity is not easily proved. Such proof requires speeds and distances quite far beyond mundane experiences and resources. Complete proof would require energies far beyond mundane resources. All proponents of relativity agree that is true. It should be no surprise then that I have not personally seen any proof myself of relativity. So the real issue here is not the science of readily repeatable experiments, but whether I should accept the testimony of those special people who believe they have seen experimental proof. At least it seems important to my opponents that I accept the testimony, to me it doesn't seem to matter. I can and have accepted much testimony all my life on various matters "scientific" and otherwise. I have always recognized the efficiency and safety of accepting the findings of others who have gone before me and perhaps endured trouble they can spare me. Faith is a wonderful thing I have always appreciated and exercised with sober caution. In extremely rare instances I have followed bad advice. Totally avoiding bad advice can be difficult. I have been most fortunate that it was not especially harmful advice as far as I know. I have also been most fortunate in learning very quickly. What I would like my opponents here to notice is that you also have faith. Somewhere along the line you got the notion that faith is a "bad" thing to be totally avoided. It is not always a bad thing as I just explained. Yet when you do have faith you are ashamed to admit it. You obviously do not understand how necessary it often can be. You try to call your faith "science" and lose the point of the definition of science. The same people who believe I should accept relativity on the testimony of specialists refuse to accept the testimony of specialists on the existence of a god. Obviously they are not seeing the irony. Perhaps there are "pictures" that say relativity "did happen" but the elite are holding them back just so they can watch atheists spiral down in the irony. I am not overly suspicious though and do not imagine many conspiracies. I do believe I have a healthy measure of suspicion. The thing about the GPS system is this, it would work fine if relativity did not happen. Any location in three dimensional space can be found knowing the distance it is from four other locations whose position is certain. That is easy and simple math. If relativity happens then the four distances are not correct. They must be corrected for the speed of the satellites with respect to the location to be found. Although the speed and direction of each satellite is known, it is the speed of each satellite with respect to the unknown location that is needed to make each correction. See the problem, that location is not yet known. A satellite might be moving more toward the unknown location or more perpendicular to the unknown location. Obviously more information is required to solve this problem. The math becomes very complicated. However complicated the math is, it should be a simple enough matter to show this finished work to people interested in relativity. Why then has it not?
|
|
|
Post by socalboy83 on Dec 31, 2017 5:55:26 GMT
After. Satan doctored the evidence to make the fossils appear old and cause mankind to doubt God's creation. OMG!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 31, 2017 6:15:03 GMT
It depends on what you mean by "faith." Depending on how you define it, one could be said to have "faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow. That's a very different kind of faith than religious "faith." The difference is between believing in things for which there is a lot of evidence VS believing in things for which there is no evidence. There is plenty of evidence for the sun rising every day, and for science discovering truths and proving its efficacy; there is none for most religious claims. So that's what I mean by science earning my faith because of the process and what it's proven before. It's not a bad thing in the least to put faith in science, but it's a bad thing to put faith in things for which there is no evidence and no reason to have faith in. Your GPS comment makes no sense. There is relativity so adjustments have to be made for it for GPS to be accurate. Duh. If adjustments to GPS measurements have to be made to correct for relativity then you have too many unknowns to solve the problem. As long as the necessary adjustments are trivial you can guess your way through to an approximate solution. If the necessary adjustments were more significant there would be no solving a problem with that many unknowns. Even the most elegant algorithm would return bad guesses. If relativity does not happen, then no problem, those unknowns are eliminated and no corrections for relativity are necessary. Because there are all sorts of trivial errors the current software must make some allowance for them. It does not mean that proves relativity. It means the errors from whatever sources, equipment specification limits or environmental interference, are trivial enough to discard. Faith in science can be every bit as "bad" as faith in anything else. Faith is faith. Faith in science is usually worse because people don't realize it is faith. Theirs is a blind faith. Many believe that there have been significant advances against cancer in the last twenty years. Life is improving generally. Work is less hard. Food is fresher. Yes, science is wonderful in that regard, but no there is no clear advance against cancer in twenty years. This is just vague gobbledygook. What "unknowns" are you talking about? The math behind General Relativity is extremely precise and well understood, so engineers are just taking them into account when designing GPS systems. There's no "unknowns" about it, and relativity certain doesn't introduce any. So, again, relativity DOES happen, which is why corrections for it are necessary and are done by engineers to make GPS accurate. Pretty simple. I just finished explaining how not all "faith" is the same. Trying to say it is is just the fallacy of compression. Having faith the sun will rise tomorrow is not the same is having faith the sun will explode tomorrow; one of these faiths is not like the other. I equally explained how faith in science is like the "sun will rise tomorrow" kind of faith, and you haven't done anything to dispute that other than claim that faith in science can be as bad as faith in anything else (why?). You've made the cancer claim before, and I already posted links showing that people are living longer now with cancer, so either science is advancing in that regard, or cancer suddenly became less deadly for no reason.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 31, 2017 7:05:55 GMT
If adjustments to GPS measurements have to be made to correct for relativity then you have too many unknowns to solve the problem. As long as the necessary adjustments are trivial you can guess your way through to an approximate solution. If the necessary adjustments were more significant there would be no solving a problem with that many unknowns. Even the most elegant algorithm would return bad guesses. If relativity does not happen, then no problem, those unknowns are eliminated and no corrections for relativity are necessary. Because there are all sorts of trivial errors the current software must make some allowance for them. It does not mean that proves relativity. It means the errors from whatever sources, equipment specification limits or environmental interference, are trivial enough to discard. Faith in science can be every bit as "bad" as faith in anything else. Faith is faith. Faith in science is usually worse because people don't realize it is faith. Theirs is a blind faith. Many believe that there have been significant advances against cancer in the last twenty years. Life is improving generally. Work is less hard. Food is fresher. Yes, science is wonderful in that regard, but no there is no clear advance against cancer in twenty years. This is just vague gobbledygook. What "unknowns" are you talking about? The math behind General Relativity is extremely precise and well understood, so engineers are just taking them into account when designing GPS systems. There's no "unknowns" about it, and relativity certain doesn't introduce any. So, again, relativity DOES happen, which is why corrections for it are necessary and are done by engineers to make GPS accurate. Pretty simple. I just finished explaining how not all "faith" is the same. Trying to say it is is just the fallacy of compression. Having faith the sun will rise tomorrow is not the same is having faith the sun will explode tomorrow; one of these faiths is not like the other. I equally explained how faith in science is like the "sun will rise tomorrow" kind of faith, and you haven't done anything to dispute that other than claim that faith in science can be as bad as faith in anything else (why?). You've made the cancer claim before, and I already posted links showing that people are living longer now with cancer, so either science is advancing in that regard, or cancer suddenly became less deadly for no reason. People believe things they should, some believe things they shouldn't, and some believe things that don't really make much difference in this life. They believe all those things when they believe in science just as much as when they believe in anything else. Faith in science tends to be the worst because it is so blind. You are not admitting that it is faith. You have an unqualified yet adamant stance. I suppose there are lots of people who believe things about a god that are obviously harmful to others, but I have never met any of them. I have met several people who believe science is any help where it obviously is not. What unknowns? These.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 31, 2017 7:52:59 GMT
This is just vague gobbledygook. What "unknowns" are you talking about? The math behind General Relativity is extremely precise and well understood, so engineers are just taking them into account when designing GPS systems. There's no "unknowns" about it, and relativity certain doesn't introduce any. So, again, relativity DOES happen, which is why corrections for it are necessary and are done by engineers to make GPS accurate. Pretty simple. I just finished explaining how not all "faith" is the same. Trying to say it is is just the fallacy of compression. Having faith the sun will rise tomorrow is not the same is having faith the sun will explode tomorrow; one of these faiths is not like the other. I equally explained how faith in science is like the "sun will rise tomorrow" kind of faith, and you haven't done anything to dispute that other than claim that faith in science can be as bad as faith in anything else (why?). You've made the cancer claim before, and I already posted links showing that people are living longer now with cancer, so either science is advancing in that regard, or cancer suddenly became less deadly for no reason. People believe things they should, some believe things they shouldn't, and some believe things that don't really make much difference in this life. They believe all those things when they believe in science just as much as when they believe in anything else. Faith in science tends to be the worst because it is so blind. You are not admitting that it is faith. You have an unqualified yet adamant stance. I suppose there are lots of people who believe things about a god that are obviously harmful to others, but I have never met any of them. I have met several people who believe science is any help where it obviously is not. Are you utterly incapable of addressing the points being made and doing anything besides writing in non-sequitur generalities? Is it "faith" to believe the sun will rise tomorrow? Is it "faith" to believe the sun will explode tomorrow? Are these two faiths the same, and if so/not, why so/not? Yeah, you're clueless. The issue with GPS isn't just distance but time. GPS works by timing the signals sent from the satellites to the GPS, but since time is moving faster for the satellites away from Earth's gravity (and slightly slower because of their movement, but faster overall), if you don't take this into account the distance will be off because the clocks will be off. It's not a matter of knowing where the satellites are. This is explained fully here. The mathematical calculations for the correction are available on Wikipedia.The same people who believe I should accept relativity on the testimony of specialists refuse to accept the testimony of specialists on the existence of a god. We've been over this before; experts/specialists are not the same. When you're in a field that has no methodological standard for arriving at truths, there's no reason to trust any claims being made by anyone in that field. There is no such standard in religion and other pseudosciences. There is in science. It's why there is 100% agreement among physicists that relativity is true, and there isn't 100% agreement among all religious experts on anything in religion.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Dec 31, 2017 8:02:35 GMT
If adjustments to GPS measurements have to be made to correct for relativity then you have too many unknowns to solve the problem. As long as the necessary adjustments are trivial you can guess your way through to an approximate solution. If the necessary adjustments were more significant there would be no solving a problem with that many unknowns. Even the most elegant algorithm would return bad guesses. If relativity does not happen, then no problem, those unknowns are eliminated and no corrections for relativity are necessary. Because there are all sorts of trivial errors the current software must make some allowance for them. It does not mean that proves relativity. It means the errors from whatever sources, equipment specification limits or environmental interference, are trivial enough to discard. Faith in science can be every bit as "bad" as faith in anything else. Faith is faith. Faith in science is usually worse because people don't realize it is faith. Theirs is a blind faith. Many believe that there have been significant advances against cancer in the last twenty years. Life is improving generally. Work is less hard. Food is fresher. Yes, science is wonderful in that regard, but no there is no clear advance against cancer in twenty years. This is just vague gobbledygook. What "unknowns" are you talking about? The math behind General Relativity is extremely precise and well understood, so engineers are just taking them into account when designing GPS systems. There's no "unknowns" about it, and relativity certain doesn't introduce any. So, again, relativity DOES happen, which is why corrections for it are necessary and are done by engineers to make GPS accurate. Pretty simple. I just finished explaining how not all "faith" is the same. Trying to say it is is just the fallacy of compression. Having faith the sun will rise tomorrow is not the same is having faith the sun will explode tomorrow; one of these faiths is not like the other. I equally explained how faith in science is like the "sun will rise tomorrow" kind of faith, and you haven't done anything to dispute that other than claim that faith in science can be as bad as faith in anything else (why?). You've made the cancer claim before, and I already posted links showing that people are living longer now with cancer, so either science is advancing in that regard, or cancer suddenly became less deadly for no reason. About cancer... Before I was born, my father's mother died of breast cancer. When I was 12, my father's sister died of breast cancer after multiple surgeries and damaging early radiation - cobalt. When I was 35, I was diagnosed with Stage 2 adenocarcinoma of the breast. I was treated aggressively, first surgery, then high-dose multi-drug chemotherapy and then anti-hormone therapy. 27 years later, I am still in remission. Five years ago, a close friend was diagnosed with breast cancer. They did chemo first, to make certain the chemo drugs were affecting the tumor, then surgery was done and anti-hormone therapy. She is still in remission. I am alive because of advances in medical science.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 31, 2017 8:33:25 GMT
Are you utterly incapable of addressing the points being made and doing anything besides writing in non-sequitur generalities? Not usually, however in your case it can be difficult knowing where you are going. Is it "faith" to believe the sun will rise tomorrow? Is it "faith" to believe the sun will explode tomorrow? Are these two faiths the same, and if so/not, why so/not? They are very different. One is a straw man argument. There are probably more scientists than theologians who think the sun will explode tomorrow. Prove me wrong. The issue with GPS isn't just distance but time. Yes, in Newtonian physics the distance to each satellite is the time (duration) the EM signal takes to travel from the satellite to the receiver at the unknown location multiplied by the speed of the EM propagation, which should be the speed of light (a constant) in any case. The time (of day (or night)) on the satellite and the receiver at the unknown location is kept updated to some standard (probably GMT). The Newtonian distance is the one you're arguing against. To argue the distance is different, to use those formulas you linked, you need to know whether the motion of the satellite is perpendicular to the unknown location and how much perpendicular (actual instantaneous bearing). Neither of your links address this problem of unknown bearing. Thank you for not even trying.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 31, 2017 9:16:05 GMT
Is it "faith" to believe the sun will rise tomorrow? Is it "faith" to believe the sun will explode tomorrow? Are these two faiths the same, and if so/not, why so/not? They are very different. Good, so you agree there are different kinds of faith, so why do you keep disingenuously conflating "faith" in science with "faith" in religion? The two are not remotely comparable as I've explained before. The issue with GPS isn't just distance but time. Yes, in Newtonian physics the distance to each satellite is the time (duration) the EM signal takes to travel from the satellite to the receiver at the unknown location multiplied by the speed of the EM propagation, which should be the speed of light (a constant) in any case. The time (of day (or night)) on the satellite and the receiver at the unknown location is kept updated to some standard (probably GMT). The Newtonian distance is the one you're arguing against. To argue the distance is different, to use those formulas you linked, you need to know whether the motion of the satellite is perpendicular to the unknown location and how much perpendicular (actual instantaneous bearing). Neither of your links address this problem of unknown bearing. Thank you for not even trying. And Newtonian physics doesn't take into account that the clocks on the satellites will be running faster than those on the receiver, so any signal sent using it would be inaccurate on the distance. The motion of the satellites is known and factored into it. You're inventing unknowns that only exist in your ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 31, 2017 10:42:23 GMT
Good, so you agree there are different kinds of faith, so why do you keep disingenuously conflating "faith" in science with "faith" in religion? The two are not remotely comparable as I've explained before. Yes, in Newtonian physics the distance to each satellite is the time (duration) the EM signal takes to travel from the satellite to the receiver at the unknown location multiplied by the speed of the EM propagation, which should be the speed of light (a constant) in any case. The time (of day (or night)) on the satellite and the receiver at the unknown location is kept updated to some standard (probably GMT). The Newtonian distance is the one you're arguing against. To argue the distance is different, to use those formulas you linked, you need to know whether the motion of the satellite is perpendicular to the unknown location and how much perpendicular (actual instantaneous bearing). Neither of your links address this problem of unknown bearing. Thank you for not even trying. And Newtonian physics doesn't take into account that the clocks on the satellites will be running faster than those on the receiver, so any signal sent using it would be inaccurate on the distance. The motion of the satellites is known and factored into it. You're inventing unknowns that only exist in your ignorance. I'm only asking questions like Socrates to get you to think through and properly defend your position if you can. The answer to my question by the way is that the scalar speed of the satellite with respect to the receiver at the unknown position is not needed because the vector velocity with respect to it will be the same (or close enough) as with respect to the Earth. Having accomplished that, your proof of relativity is that the clocks on the satellites are "known" to run slower in orbit than when assembled on Earth. That's nice. Does that mean they are not constantly updated? I suspect they are constantly updated to correct for all sorts of maladies, especially because of the costs of trying to keep time that far away from service. Would it not make more sense to you to use a very highly accurate yet smaller, less expensive and lighter clock on the satellites and depend on the updates for certainty? What would Socrates ask? One more time, at least, I never said there was no such thing as relativity. Very long edit > I want to note something very important here. Whether relativity is determined by scalar speed (change in distance only) or vector velocity (change in distance and direction) are both assumptions until convincing data comes in. Assuming relativity is determined by vector velocity with respect to the reference frame is the more convenient assumption since it disregards the need for those "unknowns" that still are very much unknown before the final location is determined. That doesn't mean it's a bad assumption if convincing data comes in to support it. Please also notice that if you constantly update (as in not every hour or every second but actually a constant stream of data) the satellites from equipment on Earth that accurately monitors and maintains their orbits and what time it actually is you don't even need any clock at all on the satellite, accurate or not. Then the argument that relativity must be true because those satellite clocks would have to be very accurate and take relativity into account does fall apart. Please also notice that if you use one clock on Earth to inform all the equipment it doesn't even have to be the right "time." As long as they all get the same information it doesn't matter what it is. It only needs to take into account how long it is to each satellite through whatever wires on Earth and through any intervening space to each particular satellite.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 31, 2017 18:50:45 GMT
Very long edit > I want to note something very important here. Whether relativity is determined by scalar speed (change in distance only) or vector velocity (change in distance and direction) are both assumptions until convincing data comes in. Assuming relativity is determined by vector velocity with respect to the reference frame is the more convenient assumption since it disregards the need for those "unknowns" that still are very much unknown before the final location is determined. That doesn't mean it's a bad assumption if convincing data comes in to support it. Please also notice that if you constantly update (as in not every hour or every second but actually a constant stream of data) the satellites from equipment on Earth that accurately monitors and maintains their orbits and what time it actually is you don't even need any clock at all on the satellite, accurate or not. Then the argument that relativity must be true because those satellite clocks would have to be very accurate and take relativity into account does fall apart. Please also notice that if you use one clock on Earth to inform all the equipment it doesn't even have to be the right "time." As long as they all get the same information it doesn't matter what it is. It only needs to take into account how long it is to each satellite through whatever wires on Earth and through any intervening space to each particular satellite. Even longer edit > A very major concern for many very logical people is with the assumption that time is "slowed" when one frame of reference is moving especially fast with respect to another frame of reference. It has not been made clear how to tell which frame will experience slowed time. How for example do we know that if time is slowed in one frame of reference in the GPS system as it is described on Wikipedia that the frame experiencing slower time is the satellite's frame of reference?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 1, 2018 5:30:57 GMT
Good, so you agree there are different kinds of faith, so why do you keep disingenuously conflating "faith" in science with "faith" in religion? The two are not remotely comparable as I've explained before. And Newtonian physics doesn't take into account that the clocks on the satellites will be running faster than those on the receiver, so any signal sent using it would be inaccurate on the distance. The motion of the satellites is known and factored into it. You're inventing unknowns that only exist in your ignorance. I'm only asking questions like Socrates to get you to think through and properly defend your position if you can. The answer to my question by the way is that the scalar speed of the satellite with respect to the receiver at the unknown position is not needed because the vector velocity with respect to it will be the same (or close enough) as with respect to the Earth. Having accomplished that, your proof of relativity is that the clocks on the satellites are "known" to run slower in orbit than when assembled on Earth. That's nice. Does that mean they are not constantly updated? I suspect they are constantly updated to correct for all sorts of maladies, especially because of the costs of trying to keep time that far away from service. Would it not make more sense to you to use a very highly accurate yet smaller, less expensive and lighter clock on the satellites and depend on the updates for certainty? What would Socrates ask? One more time, at least, I never said there was no such thing as relativity. Very long edit > I want to note something very important here. Whether relativity is determined by scalar speed (change in distance only) or vector velocity (change in distance and direction) are both assumptions until convincing data comes in. Assuming relativity is determined by vector velocity with respect to the reference frame is the more convenient assumption since it disregards the need for those "unknowns" that still are very much unknown before the final location is determined. That doesn't mean it's a bad assumption if convincing data comes in to support it. Please also notice that if you constantly update (as in not every hour or every second but actually a constant stream of data) the satellites from equipment on Earth that accurately monitors and maintains their orbits and what time it actually is you don't even need any clock at all on the satellite, accurate or not. Then the argument that relativity must be true because those satellite clocks would have to be very accurate and take relativity into account does fall apart. Please also notice that if you use one clock on Earth to inform all the equipment it doesn't even have to be the right "time." As long as they all get the same information it doesn't matter what it is. It only needs to take into account how long it is to each satellite through whatever wires on Earth and through any intervening space to each particular satellite. I didn't notice you asked a question. Actually, the satellite clocks run FASTER in orbit (being away from Earth's gravity causes them to run faster; their speed makes them run slower, but overall the effect is that they run faster). No, they aren't constantly updated (at least, not for this). Engineers program in the relativity difference when building them on Earth. You may haven't outright said there's no such thing as relativity, but you doubt Einstein, all physicists, all GPS engineers, and claim that there are no proofs and when proofs are provided just complain that you can't test them yourself. Relativity is determined by speed and gravity (one's Special Relativity, the other is General Relativity). GPS corrects for both. I don't know what "data" you need to come in outside of GPSs working and engineers saying "we factor in relativity when building the clocks." Unless you're going to go build some yourself, you pretty much have to take their word for it, and there's no reason for them to be lying. There are also plenty of other proofs (the precession of Mercury) that you won't accept for the same reason. You seem to think all physicists, engineers, astronomers, etc. have united and agreed that Relativity is true without them having shared, collective proof of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2018 5:40:07 GMT
One day, I will travel back and brave to read this entire thread... this is not that day.
|
|
|
Post by simianscrote on Jan 2, 2018 11:06:09 GMT
obviously human brain 1.0 made by yahwehsoft is still on the version 1.0, you need upgrades boy
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 2, 2018 16:04:54 GMT
It depends on what you mean by "faith." Depending on how you define it, one could be said to have "faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow. That's a very different kind of faith than religious "faith." The difference is between believing in things for which there is a lot of evidence VS believing in things for which there is no evidence. There is plenty of evidence for the sun rising every day, and for science discovering truths and proving its efficacy; there is none for most religious claims. So that's what I mean by science earning my faith because of the process and what it's proven before. It's not a bad thing in the least to put faith in science, but it's a bad thing to put faith in things for which there is no evidence and no reason to have faith in. Your GPS comment makes no sense. There is relativity so adjustments have to be made for it for GPS to be accurate. Duh. If adjustments to GPS measurements have to be made to correct for relativity then you have too many unknowns to solve the problem. Nonsense. The procedure for calibrating a GPS system is simple enough for a 5-year-old to understand. In the end a GPS system is expected to yield the location of an instrument which can be compared with the known location coordinates obtained by traditional surveying methods. One simply has to refine the GPS system to produce numbers that agree with traditional surveying methods (itself a system that is several centuries old and has lots of cross checking techniques to boost confidence in its results). GPS engineers find that their results are much closer to the traditional survey results when they incorporate relativistic equations in their GPS calculations.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 2, 2018 16:09:06 GMT
I just like to look at them! There is just somethign about those little small traditions. Careful with that river Ophelia, it's not as calm as it looks.
|
|