Res Ipsa Loquitor-- Disproved:The Impossiblity of absolute motion detection.

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by geistkiesel, Oct 23, 2004.

  1. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    This isn't fact but is only wrongfully assumed.

    You were upset when I lashed out at you and I recanted and gave you my apology saying you had indicated that you had the skills and I would not address you in that fashion in the future. Perhaps I forfeited to quickly.

    Continue to try using my name in vain and I will begin to return the favor.

    I haven't seen you rebutt nor explain the gravity test data and its implications which while not in my garage for intent of this posted reference we will say it was.

    My garage at least has new activity, yours seems intent on replaying the same old tuteral video tapes.

    Nor have I seen you effectively address the fact that where the earth's pole is referenced:

    Vo is velocity of orbit
    Ve is surface velociy at the equator of earth and

    Vn= Vo - Ve, that (1 - Vn<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>
    (SRT according to Yuriy) yields an incorrect answer but:

    Gamma Orbit - Gamma Earth (My view) yields the correct answer. GPS indeed shows SRT is flawed.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2005
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Yuriy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,080
    Readers,
    This is a lie. This formula is absolutely correct (with precision of VoVe/c^2), but has nothing to do with that, what MacM incriminates to it. Reason: MacM never understood the sense of GPS!
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Data Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    81
    Well, it's probably just because noone has explained to him yet that the point is to synchronize GPS clocks in the ECI frame. I guess he hasn't read Dr. Asby's online publication on the subject.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,844
    Putting "absolute" in front of the term "velocity" contradicts the term.
     
  8. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Wrong. I have read Ashby and many others. Now care to address the issue?

    The GPS uses the earth's pole as a local preferred "rest" referance frame. ECI (Earth Centered), not clock "A" and clock "B".

    Yuriy's whinning is not a scientific response, nor is your wrongfull assumptions.

    GPS is formulated such that the orbiting clock will always be the one with the higher velocity and hence the one that displays the dilation affect. Relative velocity between clocks (SRT view) is not used and for damn good reason. You cannot, and the GPS nor the real world does not, allow one to reverse who is at rest, which SRT claims to be a valid view.
     
  9. Yuriy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,080
    Readers!
    I officially claim that MacM systematically and deliberately lies on the pages of this Forum.
    His assertion that:
    is lie. No one GPS designer or spokesman ever said that.
    His assertion that I ever said that GPS is using Einstein’s formula
    Vn= (Vo – Ve)/(1-VoVe/c^2) – the relative velocity of Earth surface resting clock and orbiting clock - for any pre-launch correction of the orbiting clocks is lie.
    (His assertion that SRT claims that reverse of which clock – the Earth surface rested or orbiting one – is valid is lie too, but only because MacM never understood what SRT is saying and allowing.)

    The real important question is: How long this Forum will keep this lair acting? How more lies he should produce to force our Moderator say: “Enough is enough!”
     
  10. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    I wrote:Vn= Vo - Ve, that (1 - Vn<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>


    Not VoVe/c^2. Billy T is correct you are [post=770761]Dishonest[/post].

    Go learn [post=767299]High School Physics[/post] before mouthing off to me.
    *******************Extract Last paragraph ****************
    I will stop here as I growing tired of tying to set you straight about some highschool level physics -
    ***************************************************

    [post=763200]Here[/post]
    [post=766588]Here[/post]
    [post=766797]Here[/post]
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2005
  11. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Enough is enough is correct. You sir are dishonest, a distorter of fact and a wishy washy fraud. You assaulted me in the GPS thread and argued that it used SRT and relative velocity between clocks. It does not sir.

    Now address the issue. Considering you can't, we understand why you chose to use the low road of personal attacks and innuendo. But that is not scientific.

    Now answer only "Yes" or "No":

    1 - Is not the SRT view of relative velocity properly encompased by (Orbit clock velocity - earth surface clock velocity)?

    (Yes is the correct answer)

    2 - Does not SRT claim either clock may be viewed as being at rest?

    (Yes is the correct answer)

    3 - Does number 1 above produce a correct prelaunch calibration adjustment of GPS orbiting clocks?

    (No is the correct answer)

    4 - Are clocks in GPS reversable as to who is at rest?

    (No is the correct answer)

    Get real you are lost.

    I officially declare you a liar and a physics fraud on these forums.
     
  12. Yuriy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,080
    Readers!
    One more time MacM tries to avoid direct and clear explanations why he lies. Instead it he even now is trying to take issue away of straight discussion of his lies: "I said Vn = Vo-Ve, not Vn = (Vo-Ve)/(1-VoVe/c^2)", exactly knowing that first formula is the short version of second - exact one - because of very small value of VoVe/c^2 ! It was explained to him in the thread
    "A Question for Relativists" very well...
    Instead of bringing on even the one citation that would support his constantly repeated lie like
    or
    he brings on several old questions that already were answered many times...
    If moderator can not do or want not to do anything with this lair - we can. There is my proposal to all of you - stop any reaction on any of his posts! No matter what he will bring on, no matter how funny things he will post, even if a miracle happens and he will say something really smart - do not answer, do not respond!
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2005
  13. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Typical Yuriy babble. Perhaps now others can see why Billy T, a Phd Physicist, says you don't know Highschool Physics.

    Where Vn = (Vo - Ve) and 1/(1 - Vn<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup> is delta Vn between orbit and a surface clock produces an incorrect gamma for GPS; does not equate to your Vn = (Vo-Ve)/(1-VoVe/c^2) or VoVe/c^2.

    A product of velocity (VoVe) does not equal the differential (relative) velocity (Vo - Ve) between clocks. :bugeye:


    I didn't think you could answer scientifically, now it should be clear to all that is the case.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2005
  14. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    HeHe. I haven't time this morning to try and sketch and follow your scenario in detail but off hand I am inclined to trust the auto pilot more than SRT's arbitrary "Velocity Addittion" limit.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,844
    In order to postulate "absolute velocity", mustn't one presume there is some property of the universe that doesn't move? Since accepted theory (as I'm aware of it) seems to contradict this notion (expansion of space-time), isn't the concept of absolute velocity basically useless?
     
  16. Yuriy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,080
    Exactly, wesmorris, exactly!
     
  17. Vern Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    695
    Yes in the context of the standard model theories. But if we limit our discussions to the standard model, we only need text books; no contrary thought allowed

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    But then; all scientific progress would stop if we limited ourselves to such.
     
  18. Yuriy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,080
    No, Vern, you are wrong with conclusion.
    If you speak about "absolute property" you have two logical possibilities: either this property is the same no matter who measures it (like speed of light) or you assume that there is some "absolute measurer" whose measurement is "final and absolute". In this case you have to define who is this "absolute measurer", i.e. define the "absolute reference frame". Of course, this absolute reference frame should be joined with some "absolute" and "reachable" physical body, otherwise you never will be able to check out the objectiveness of "absolute value of the property" you are talking about. If you can not determine this "absolute" physical body and can not control its physical state, all what you are saying is out of natural science.
    That is what textbooks are saying. If you will not limit yourself with this simple rule you will be not on the way to progress, but contrary - you will be on the way to regression of entire Science.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2005
  19. 2inquisitive The Devil is in the details Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    Yuriy, why do you state the speed of light is an "absolute property"? If the speed of
    light is absolute, so is the defined length of a meter and the defined duration of a second. Remember, a meter is defined as the distance light travels in 1/299,792,458
    second. The length of a meter, the duration of a second, and 'c' are all absolute values
    in some reference frame (the frame within which the measurer resides) but are relative
    values with regards to some other reference frame. Is there a flaw in my argument?
     
  20. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,844
    If you don't want to use a standard model theory, shouldn't you state exactly the model you're using before making such claims? If you reject these standard models, shouldn't you offer tons of supportive evidence and peer review before stating them as proofs? The standard models are standard for good reason.

    I'm not saying "let's reject all new ideas", but that it doesn't seem in this case that a model or its support was provided. The model needs to be tested rigorously before any claims of relevance will get much attention, besides for folks to point out crackpots. I'd say you're a crackpot if you're promoting ideas as undoubtedly true when they haven't been subjected to the process. There's nothing wrong with crackpot ideas, so long as they are acknowledged as such - ideas that you're not sure are true or not.

    - and science would be useless if every crackpot theorist had their way. It's important that if you're a crackpot theorist like myself, you at least acknowledge that you can't fully support your assertions due to lacking testing, peer review and perhaps - mathematical support. People latch onto ideas that scratch some itch in their minds - perhaps related to ego - and seem to lose track of the process of getting their ideas accepted, often because they have already accepted them. That's bad practice.
     
  21. Dilbert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    361
    about 2I's response to Yuriy's post.

    Isn't space itself is expanding faster than the speed of light?
     
  22. 2inquisitive The Devil is in the details Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    According to the latest WMAP and SDSS data, that is correct. In fact, evidence indicates the 'Big Bang', or the beginning of the universe, was
    approximately 13.8 billion years ago. Astronomers believe the universe is
    'now' 158 billion light years in diameter. However, some physicists do not use the same red shift formula as the astronomers and cosmologists involved in
    the studies, resulting in 'less' than the speed of light expansion according to
    them. Regardless, I feel an observer would still measure the speed of light as
    'c' while in any location in the universe, but that 'c' IS a property of the location
    and velocity of the frame of reference within which it is measured. Just as
    time is a property that is relative to frame of reference, I believe 'c' is a
    property relative to frame of reference. It is, in fact, DEFINED as such.
     
  23. Yuriy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,080
    2inquisitive,
    As long you are out of active participation in our discussions as your stock of knowledge becomes “eroded”.
    Let me remind you the basics of SRT, you obviously forgot:
    1. If some observer makes some measurements then data he gets are absolute: any other observer will say: “He got value A as a result of his measurements”. And this “A” will be the same for any observer in the entire World! For instance, if you have measured some rod an get 1.5m and wrote this data on the paper – this writing will be forever the same for any other observer in Universe: 1.5m! Particularly, it concerns also to all measurements made over rested bodies. SRT states this in general form as the assertion:
    “All proper values of any physical characteristics of things in Nature are absolute.” (“Proper value” here and always means “measured in the RF of the rest of object”).
    2. The problem is that some physical characteristics have different values in respect of different observers. These characteristics SRT calls as “relative”. Velocities of massive bodies, time, length, masses, etc, etc are relative characteristics of things and of Nature. But “proper mass”, “proper time”, “proper length”, etc, etc are absolute characteristics for any things in Nature. Velocity is relative notion, but relative velocity - velocity of one body in respect to another one - is absolute notion. This is why saying "velocity' you should immediately refer in respect to which body. That is why phrase "Body A has velocity 10 m/sec" is meaningless if somewhere was or is not emphasized in respect to what reference frame...
    3. Another problem is that not all things in Nature have “the rest reference frame”, i.e. the reference frame where those things are in state of rest (do not move). Example – the light. For such things notions with “proper” are not applicable, by the definition!
    4. And there are characteristics that are absolute for entire Universe by its nature: example – the speed of light in vacuum. No matter who measures it, where and when it measures it, no matter whom, when and where did create this light, the speed of light in vacuum is the same. No matter what happens with Universe speed of light in vacuum is the same. No matter what we think about it speed of light in vacuum is the same…
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2005

Share This Page