Discussion:
WI: Aristarchus of Samos' Heliocentric Theory becomes the standard model for the universe
Add Reply
jerry kraus
2017-05-24 14:31:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos

The Heliocentric Theory of the Universe was actually proposed almost 2,000 years before Copernicus, by Aristarchus of Samos, whose astronomical conceptions, were, actually, remarkably modern in nature. Lets suppose this becomes the accepted doctrine in Greco-Roman times, instead of the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic Terracentric model of the Universe . How does this change history?

Bear in mind, implicit in this conception is the notion that the stars are other suns, like our own, center of their own solar systems. So, this concept becomes the accepted model used by scholars and clerics, 2,000 years earlier than OTL, for Western Civilization.
Rob
2017-05-25 01:16:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos
The Heliocentric Theory of the Universe was actually proposed almost 2,000 years before Copernicus, by Aristarchus of Samos, whose astronomical conceptions, were, actually, remarkably modern in nature. Lets suppose this becomes the accepted doctrine in Greco-Roman times, instead of the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic Terracentric model of the Universe . How does this change history?
Bear in mind, implicit in this conception is the notion that the stars are other suns, like our own, center of their own solar systems. So, this concept becomes the accepted model used by scholars and clerics, 2,000 years earlier than OTL, for Western Civilization.
I would say establishment of this theoretical model does not predetermine or overdetermine any particular technological change.

In a cultural or literary sense, it would probably causes instances of speculation about life on worlds around other suns/stars centuries earlier than it occurred in OTL. However, speculation about life on near planets and the moon that actually can be seen by the naked eye would still be more common than interstellar life. It wouldn't be incredibly detailed it would be more "here be dragons" kind of stuff.
JennyB
2017-05-25 08:53:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I don't see how it could have been adopted. We only know of it because Archimedes wanted the largest model of the Universe he could find to calculate the number of grains of sand it might contain. For all practical purposes, such as calculating where the planets would be at a particular time, he used the Ptolemaic model, which gave the most accurate results until Kep large modelled planetary orbits as ellipses.
SolomonW
2017-05-25 09:32:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JennyB
I don't see how it could have been adopted. We only know of it because Archimedes wanted the largest model of the Universe he could find to calculate the number of grains of sand it might contain. For all practical purposes, such as calculating where the planets would be at a particular time, he used the Ptolemaic model, which gave the most accurate results until Kep large modelled planetary orbits as ellipses.
Johannes Kepler determined his laws from his analysis of Tycho Brahe's
data. The ancient Greeks could have collected the data just as Tycho did
and then some ancient genius could have determined Kepler's law.
Pete Barrett
2017-05-25 19:48:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SolomonW
Post by JennyB
I don't see how it could have been adopted. We only know of it because
Archimedes wanted the largest model of the Universe he could find to
calculate the number of grains of sand it might contain. For all
practical purposes, such as calculating where the planets would be at a
particular time, he used the Ptolemaic model, which gave the most
accurate results until Kep large modelled planetary orbits as ellipses.
Johannes Kepler determined his laws from his analysis of Tycho Brahe's
data. The ancient Greeks could have collected the data just as Tycho did
and then some ancient genius could have determined Kepler's law.
Didn't Ptolemy have some data so accurate that there was a question a few
years ago as to whether he falsified his figures? But he didn't come up with
ellipses; and he didn't even come up with a heliocentric view.

Ptolemy's model had epicycles within epicycles, while Copernicus's model was
simpler (needed less of them); and Kepler then refined it by positing
elliptical orbits, which didn't need _any_. Perhaps the Greeks just didn't
see simplicity as much of an advantage as we do.
--
Pete BARRETT
jerry kraus
2017-05-25 20:24:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by SolomonW
Post by JennyB
I don't see how it could have been adopted. We only know of it because
Archimedes wanted the largest model of the Universe he could find to
calculate the number of grains of sand it might contain. For all
practical purposes, such as calculating where the planets would be at a
particular time, he used the Ptolemaic model, which gave the most
accurate results until Kep large modelled planetary orbits as ellipses.
Johannes Kepler determined his laws from his analysis of Tycho Brahe's
data. The ancient Greeks could have collected the data just as Tycho did
and then some ancient genius could have determined Kepler's law.
Didn't Ptolemy have some data so accurate that there was a question a few
years ago as to whether he falsified his figures? But he didn't come up with
ellipses; and he didn't even come up with a heliocentric view.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Pete Barrett
Ptolemy's model had epicycles within epicycles, while Copernicus's model was
simpler (needed less of them); and Kepler then refined it by positing
elliptical orbits, which didn't need _any_. Perhaps the Greeks just didn't
see simplicity as much of an advantage as we do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah, but don't you see Pete, that's the point. The Copernican view is only "simpler" in the sense that the machinery needed to run the solar system is less complicated. It's also much, much, much more difficult to understand! That's why Galileo got into trouble with the Inquisition, he couldn't come up with the Theory of Universal Gravitation, to explain the mechanism by which the Copernican system would operate. And, once we accept a heliocentric model, the stars become much more plausible candidates to have their own solar systems, in an infinite universe, since the Earth is no longer the be all and end all of the Universe.

The problem is, the Greeks were TOO simplistic and reductionistic in their preferred models, they oversimplified things, despite the superficial mechanical complexities of Ptolemy. Ptolemy's finite universe is still VASTLY SIMPLER than ours. But, if the Greeks had accepted a Heliocentric model, and an infinite universe, they would then have trained their highly analytical approach on discovering just how it operated -- hence, universal gravitation, scientific experimentation, calculus etc., 2,000 years ahead of OTL. That's an interesting ATL, isn't it?
Post by Pete Barrett
--
Pete BARRETT
SolomonW
2017-05-26 06:07:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by SolomonW
Post by JennyB
I don't see how it could have been adopted. We only know of it because
Archimedes wanted the largest model of the Universe he could find to
calculate the number of grains of sand it might contain. For all
practical purposes, such as calculating where the planets would be at a
particular time, he used the Ptolemaic model, which gave the most
accurate results until Kep large modelled planetary orbits as ellipses.
Johannes Kepler determined his laws from his analysis of Tycho Brahe's
data. The ancient Greeks could have collected the data just as Tycho did
and then some ancient genius could have determined Kepler's law.
Didn't Ptolemy have some data so accurate that there was a question a few
years ago as to whether he falsified his figures? But he didn't come up with
ellipses; and he didn't even come up with a heliocentric view.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Pete Barrett
Ptolemy's model had epicycles within epicycles, while Copernicus's model was
simpler (needed less of them); and Kepler then refined it by positing
elliptical orbits, which didn't need _any_. Perhaps the Greeks just didn't
see simplicity as much of an advantage as we do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, but don't you see Pete, that's the point. The Copernican view is only "simpler" in the sense that the machinery needed to run the solar system is less complicated. It's also much, much, much more difficult to understand! That's why Galileo got into trouble with the Inquisition, he couldn't come up with the Theory of Universal Gravitation, to explain the mechanism by which the Copernican system would operate. And, once we accept a heliocentric model, the stars become much more plausible candidates to have their own solar systems, in an infinite universe, since the Earth is no longer the be all and end all of the Universe.
Galileo rejected Kepler's theories

The other problem is that heliocentric model implies a much bigger
universe, so big that it appeared unconvincing.
Post by jerry kraus
The problem is, the Greeks were TOO simplistic and reductionistic in their preferred models, they oversimplified things, despite the superficial mechanical complexities of Ptolemy. Ptolemy's finite universe is still VASTLY SIMPLER than ours. But, if the Greeks had accepted a Heliocentric model, and an infinite universe, they would then have trained their highly analytical approach on discovering just how it operated -- hence, universal gravitation, scientific experimentation, calculus etc., 2,000 years ahead of OTL. That's an interesting ATL, isn't it?
The Greeks wanted perfect and to them a circle was perfect.
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
--
Pete BARRETT
jerry kraus
2017-05-26 13:11:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by SolomonW
Post by JennyB
I don't see how it could have been adopted. We only know of it because
Archimedes wanted the largest model of the Universe he could find to
calculate the number of grains of sand it might contain. For all
practical purposes, such as calculating where the planets would be at a
particular time, he used the Ptolemaic model, which gave the most
accurate results until Kep large modelled planetary orbits as ellipses.
Johannes Kepler determined his laws from his analysis of Tycho Brahe's
data. The ancient Greeks could have collected the data just as Tycho did
and then some ancient genius could have determined Kepler's law.
Didn't Ptolemy have some data so accurate that there was a question a few
years ago as to whether he falsified his figures? But he didn't come up with
ellipses; and he didn't even come up with a heliocentric view.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Pete Barrett
Ptolemy's model had epicycles within epicycles, while Copernicus's model was
simpler (needed less of them); and Kepler then refined it by positing
elliptical orbits, which didn't need _any_. Perhaps the Greeks just didn't
see simplicity as much of an advantage as we do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, but don't you see Pete, that's the point. The Copernican view is only "simpler" in the sense that the machinery needed to run the solar system is less complicated. It's also much, much, much more difficult to understand! That's why Galileo got into trouble with the Inquisition, he couldn't come up with the Theory of Universal Gravitation, to explain the mechanism by which the Copernican system would operate. And, once we accept a heliocentric model, the stars become much more plausible candidates to have their own solar systems, in an infinite universe, since the Earth is no longer the be all and end all of the Universe.
Galileo rejected Kepler's theories
Solomon, Galileo rejected ALL THEORIES!!! Galileo was an anarchist, he thought science should proceed through data and mathematical analysis alone. The Inquisition was quite right to condemn him, his approach didn't make any sense, at all.
Post by SolomonW
The other problem is that heliocentric model implies a much bigger
universe, so big that it appeared unconvincing.
Well, the big problem was that from our perspective everything falls to earth, so, it's far from clear why the earth should revolve around the sun. It requires a huge imaginative, conceptual leap to grasp the fact that although we see everything falling to the earth, this may reflect a broader principle of smaller bodies falling towards larger bodies, in general. We have no general, observable examples of this, except in space, and, these are open to varied interpretations.

That said, it's understandable that people would be frightened of distances so vast that they were entirely unfamiliar. Again, we oversimplify, and tend to see everything in terms of our own prejudices, and experience.
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
The problem is, the Greeks were TOO simplistic and reductionistic in their preferred models, they oversimplified things, despite the superficial mechanical complexities of Ptolemy. Ptolemy's finite universe is still VASTLY SIMPLER than ours. But, if the Greeks had accepted a Heliocentric model, and an infinite universe, they would then have trained their highly analytical approach on discovering just how it operated -- hence, universal gravitation, scientific experimentation, calculus etc., 2,000 years ahead of OTL. That's an interesting ATL, isn't it?
The Greeks wanted perfect and to them a circle was perfect.
Sure. Or, we could say, the Greeks wanted simplicity. Much as we do. So, the Greeks liked circles, we like light, photons and the speed of light as an absolute limit. The Greeks oversimplified, and, so do we. The Greeks saw what they wanted to see in the data, and, so do we.
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
--
Pete BARRETT
Chrysi Cat
2017-05-27 22:41:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 5/26/2017 7:11 AM, jerry kraus wrote:

<snip>
Post by jerry kraus
Sure. Or, we could say, the Greeks wanted simplicity. Much as we do. So, the Greeks liked circles, we like light, photons and the speed of light as an absolute limit. The Greeks oversimplified, and, so do we. The Greeks saw what they wanted to see in the data, and, so do we.
Oh, good Glod. You actually think that if the Greeks and Romans had
accepted heliocentrism that somehow it would have led to FTL travel in
whatever year is equivalent to about 1960 in a universe where
Christianity never arose, and that it's only our trying to oversimplify
the universe that eliminates all possible ways of it or temporal travel
occurring.

Well, it's not like we didn't already know that whenever you get a bee
in your bonnet, the only way we'll ever see your true point is via
asking questions until we figure out the right one to move down your
Socratic dialogue tree...

...and yes, I know full well this is a dead-end option:-P
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
Pete Barrett
2017-05-27 12:56:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by SolomonW
Post by JennyB
I don't see how it could have been adopted. We only know of it because
Archimedes wanted the largest model of the Universe he could find to
calculate the number of grains of sand it might contain. For all
practical purposes, such as calculating where the planets would be at
a particular time, he used the Ptolemaic model, which gave the most
accurate results until Kep large modelled planetary orbits as ellipses.
Johannes Kepler determined his laws from his analysis of Tycho Brahe's
data. The ancient Greeks could have collected the data just as Tycho
did and then some ancient genius could have determined Kepler's law.
Didn't Ptolemy have some data so accurate that there was a question a few
years ago as to whether he falsified his figures? But he didn't come up
with ellipses; and he didn't even come up with a heliocentric view.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Ptolemy's model had epicycles within epicycles, while Copernicus's model
was simpler (needed less of them); and Kepler then refined it by positing
elliptical orbits, which didn't need _any_. Perhaps the Greeks just
didn't see simplicity as much of an advantage as we do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by jerry kraus
Ah, but don't you see Pete, that's the point. The Copernican view is
only "simpler" in the sense that the machinery needed to run the solar
system is less complicated.
What other meaning of 'simpler' would you use, when considering the
machinery needed to run the solar system?
Post by jerry kraus
It's also much, much, much more difficult to
understand! That's why Galileo got into trouble with the Inquisition, he
couldn't come up with the Theory of Universal Gravitation, to explain the
mechanism by which the Copernican system would operate. And, once we
accept a heliocentric model, the stars become much more plausible
candidates to have their own solar systems, in an infinite universe, since
the Earth is no longer the be all and end all of the Universe.
Not entirely. The Greeks rejected Aristarchus's notions at least partly
because they couldn't see any parallax when observing stars from different
ends of the putative orbit of the earth. So their rejection of an infinite
universe (or at least not understanding the huge distances involved to the
stars) came first.
--
Pete BARRETT
jerry kraus
2017-05-30 13:14:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by SolomonW
Post by JennyB
I don't see how it could have been adopted. We only know of it because
Archimedes wanted the largest model of the Universe he could find to
calculate the number of grains of sand it might contain. For all
practical purposes, such as calculating where the planets would be at
a particular time, he used the Ptolemaic model, which gave the most
accurate results until Kep large modelled planetary orbits as ellipses.
Johannes Kepler determined his laws from his analysis of Tycho Brahe's
data. The ancient Greeks could have collected the data just as Tycho
did and then some ancient genius could have determined Kepler's law.
Didn't Ptolemy have some data so accurate that there was a question a few
years ago as to whether he falsified his figures? But he didn't come up
with ellipses; and he didn't even come up with a heliocentric view.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Ptolemy's model had epicycles within epicycles, while Copernicus's model
was simpler (needed less of them); and Kepler then refined it by positing
elliptical orbits, which didn't need _any_. Perhaps the Greeks just
didn't see simplicity as much of an advantage as we do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by jerry kraus
Ah, but don't you see Pete, that's the point. The Copernican view is
only "simpler" in the sense that the machinery needed to run the solar
system is less complicated.
What other meaning of 'simpler' would you use, when considering the
machinery needed to run the solar system?
Well, Pete, it's not just the solar system, it's the universe as a whole. Specifically, IS the solar system the universe as a whole? This concept is rather key here, of course. You see, what, exactly, is running the universe? If we're just dealing with the earth, surrounded by a few planets, then a mechanical system seems plausible enough. A fairly complex one, but, nevertheless, a kind of clockwork mechanism. If we're dealing with an infinite universe, then we need an entirely different type of system, based on the Theory of Universal Gravitation. This is NOT a simple system. But, it does make the operation of the solar system alone somewhat simpler.
Post by jerry kraus
Post by jerry kraus
It's also much, much, much more difficult to
understand! That's why Galileo got into trouble with the Inquisition, he
couldn't come up with the Theory of Universal Gravitation, to explain the
mechanism by which the Copernican system would operate. And, once we
accept a heliocentric model, the stars become much more plausible
candidates to have their own solar systems, in an infinite universe, since
the Earth is no longer the be all and end all of the Universe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by jerry kraus
Not entirely. The Greeks rejected Aristarchus's notions at least partly
because they couldn't see any parallax when observing stars from different
ends of the putative orbit of the earth. So their rejection of an infinite
universe (or at least not understanding the huge distances involved to the
stars) came first.
So, why did Copernicus, Galileo and Newton feel any differently? They didn't have stellar parallax either, that took centuries yet. You are mistaken, Pete, the egocentric obsession and oversimplification of an earth centered universe, most certainly, came first. The universe limited to our solar system is, actually, and secondary manifestation of this particular scientific neurosis.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1975JRASC..69..153F

Copernicus, Galileo and Newton felt differently -- as did Aristarchus, too, of course -- because once we see the earth as no longer the center of universe, our entire perspective on the universe changes, in a fundamental way, psychologically. Instantly, the parallels between the stars and the sun become readily apparently, and we see an infinite universe as the most plausible. Hence, the Buddhists and Hindus ALWAYS saw the universe as infinite, because they departed from the egocentric perspective.

You see, the fields of science really need to be psychoanalyzed more than a little bit. Scientists inevitably project their own egos and personal practical and emotional needs onto their work, their ideas, their theories. They can't help it. And, we suffered a dark age and 2,000 years of intellectual stagnation specifically because of it, here!

In all probability, the more than century old obsession with the Theory of Relativity is another manifestation of a kind of scientific neurosis, which, no doubt, Einstein himself would readily acknowledge. Oversimplifications of this type are always the enemies of true scientific progress.
Post by jerry kraus
--
Pete BARRETT
Pete Barrett
2017-05-30 18:24:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by SolomonW
Post by JennyB
I don't see how it could have been adopted. We only know of it
because Archimedes wanted the largest model of the Universe he
could find to calculate the number of grains of sand it might
contain. For all practical purposes, such as calculating where the
planets would be at a particular time, he used the Ptolemaic model,
which gave the most accurate results until Kep large modelled
planetary orbits as ellipses.
Johannes Kepler determined his laws from his analysis of Tycho
Brahe's data. The ancient Greeks could have collected the data just
as Tycho did and then some ancient genius could have determined
Kepler's law.
Didn't Ptolemy have some data so accurate that there was a question a
few years ago as to whether he falsified his figures? But he didn't
come up with ellipses; and he didn't even come up with a heliocentric
view.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Ptolemy's model had epicycles within epicycles, while Copernicus's
model was simpler (needed less of them); and Kepler then refined it by
positing elliptical orbits, which didn't need _any_. Perhaps the
Greeks just didn't see simplicity as much of an advantage as we do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by jerry kraus
Ah, but don't you see Pete, that's the point. The Copernican view is
only "simpler" in the sense that the machinery needed to run the solar
system is less complicated.
What other meaning of 'simpler' would you use, when considering the
machinery needed to run the solar system?
Well, Pete, it's not just the solar system, it's the universe as a whole.
Specifically, IS the solar system the universe as a whole? This concept
is rather key here, of course. You see, what, exactly, is running the
universe? If we're just dealing with the earth, surrounded by a few
planets, then a mechanical system seems plausible enough. A fairly
complex one, but, nevertheless, a kind of clockwork mechanism. If we're
dealing with an infinite universe, then we need an entirely different type
of system, based on the Theory of Universal Gravitation. This is NOT a
simple system. But, it does make the operation of the solar system alone
somewhat simpler.
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by jerry kraus
It's also much, much, much more difficult to
understand! That's why Galileo got into trouble with the Inquisition,
he couldn't come up with the Theory of Universal Gravitation, to
explain the
mechanism by which the Copernican system would operate. And, once we
accept a heliocentric model, the stars become much more plausible
candidates to have their own solar systems, in an infinite universe,
since the Earth is no longer the be all and end all of the Universe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Not entirely. The Greeks rejected Aristarchus's notions at least partly
because they couldn't see any parallax when observing stars from
different ends of the putative orbit of the earth. So their rejection of
an infinite universe (or at least not understanding the huge distances
involved to the stars) came first.
So, why did Copernicus, Galileo and Newton feel any differently? They
didn't have stellar parallax either, that took centuries yet.
Of course, but they realised that if the distances involved were great
enough, there would be no observable parallax. The Greeks must have realised
that as well, but rejected the distances involved as unbelievable
Post by jerry kraus
You are
mistaken, Pete, the egocentric obsession and oversimplification of an
earth centered universe, most certainly, came first. The universe
limited to our solar system is, actually, and secondary manifestation of
this particular scientific neurosis.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1975JRASC..69..153F
I haven't read it all, but the first page seems to be saying exactly what I
was saying (but putting iyt much better than I could do).
Post by jerry kraus
Copernicus, Galileo and Newton felt differently -- as did Aristarchus,
too, of course -- because once we see the earth as no longer the center of
universe, our entire perspective on the universe changes, in a fundamental
way, psychologically. Instantly, the parallels between the stars and the
sun become readily apparently, and we see an infinite universe as the most
plausible. Hence, the Buddhists and Hindus ALWAYS saw the universe as
infinite, because they departed from the egocentric perspective.
So why didn't the Indians develop a heliocentric theory before the 16th
century ( which they did then independently of Copernicus)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism#Medieval_Islamic_world suggests
that the Muslim world was questioning geocentrism, but without heliocentrism
becoming widely accepted.
Post by jerry kraus
You see, the fields of science really need to be psychoanalyzed more than
a little bit. Scientists inevitably project their own egos and personal
practical and emotional needs onto their work, their ideas, their
theories. They can't help it. And, we suffered a dark age and 2,000
years of intellectual stagnation specifically because of it, here!
I think we're all aware that scientific theories are highly dependent on the
society they originate in; but they're also dependent on observations, and
if they confict with observation, they don't get very far. There might be a
few which are dependent on the psychology of the individual scientist who
first comes up with the theory, but surely not so many that they need to be
psychoanalysed the way you're doing!
Post by jerry kraus
In all probability, the more than century old obsession with the Theory of
Relativity is another manifestation of a kind of scientific neurosis,
which, no doubt, Einstein himself would readily acknowledge.
Oversimplifications of this type are always the enemies of true scientific
progress.
As far as I know, there are no observations which confict with Relativity,
and a great many which are consistent. That makes it pretty good as a
scientific theory, whatever its origins in European society of the late
19th/early 20th centuries. No doubt eventually there will be such
observations, and then someone will come up with a better theory which
includes Relativity as a special case (just as Relativity contains Newton's
Law of Gravitation as a special case); but there's no sign of needing that
yet.
--
Pete BARRETT
jerry kraus
2017-05-30 19:01:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by SolomonW
Post by JennyB
I don't see how it could have been adopted. We only know of it
because Archimedes wanted the largest model of the Universe he
could find to calculate the number of grains of sand it might
contain. For all practical purposes, such as calculating where the
planets would be at a particular time, he used the Ptolemaic model,
which gave the most accurate results until Kep large modelled
planetary orbits as ellipses.
Johannes Kepler determined his laws from his analysis of Tycho
Brahe's data. The ancient Greeks could have collected the data just
as Tycho did and then some ancient genius could have determined
Kepler's law.
Didn't Ptolemy have some data so accurate that there was a question a
few years ago as to whether he falsified his figures? But he didn't
come up with ellipses; and he didn't even come up with a heliocentric
view.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Ptolemy's model had epicycles within epicycles, while Copernicus's
model was simpler (needed less of them); and Kepler then refined it by
positing elliptical orbits, which didn't need _any_. Perhaps the
Greeks just didn't see simplicity as much of an advantage as we do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by jerry kraus
Ah, but don't you see Pete, that's the point. The Copernican view is
only "simpler" in the sense that the machinery needed to run the solar
system is less complicated.
What other meaning of 'simpler' would you use, when considering the
machinery needed to run the solar system?
Well, Pete, it's not just the solar system, it's the universe as a whole.
Specifically, IS the solar system the universe as a whole? This concept
is rather key here, of course. You see, what, exactly, is running the
universe? If we're just dealing with the earth, surrounded by a few
planets, then a mechanical system seems plausible enough. A fairly
complex one, but, nevertheless, a kind of clockwork mechanism. If we're
dealing with an infinite universe, then we need an entirely different type
of system, based on the Theory of Universal Gravitation. This is NOT a
simple system. But, it does make the operation of the solar system alone
somewhat simpler.
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by jerry kraus
It's also much, much, much more difficult to
understand! That's why Galileo got into trouble with the Inquisition,
he couldn't come up with the Theory of Universal Gravitation, to
explain the
mechanism by which the Copernican system would operate. And, once we
accept a heliocentric model, the stars become much more plausible
candidates to have their own solar systems, in an infinite universe,
since the Earth is no longer the be all and end all of the Universe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Not entirely. The Greeks rejected Aristarchus's notions at least partly
because they couldn't see any parallax when observing stars from
different ends of the putative orbit of the earth. So their rejection of
an infinite universe (or at least not understanding the huge distances
involved to the stars) came first.
So, why did Copernicus, Galileo and Newton feel any differently? They
didn't have stellar parallax either, that took centuries yet.
Of course, but they realised that if the distances involved were great
enough, there would be no observable parallax. The Greeks must have realised
that as well, but rejected the distances involved as unbelievable
Post by jerry kraus
You are
mistaken, Pete, the egocentric obsession and oversimplification of an
earth centered universe, most certainly, came first. The universe
limited to our solar system is, actually, and secondary manifestation of
this particular scientific neurosis.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1975JRASC..69..153F
I haven't read it all, but the first page seems to be saying exactly what I
was saying (but putting iyt much better than I could do).
Post by jerry kraus
Copernicus, Galileo and Newton felt differently -- as did Aristarchus,
too, of course -- because once we see the earth as no longer the center of
universe, our entire perspective on the universe changes, in a fundamental
way, psychologically. Instantly, the parallels between the stars and the
sun become readily apparently, and we see an infinite universe as the most
plausible. Hence, the Buddhists and Hindus ALWAYS saw the universe as
infinite, because they departed from the egocentric perspective.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by jerry kraus
So why didn't the Indians develop a heliocentric theory before the 16th
century ( which they did then independently of Copernicus)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism#Medieval_Islamic_world suggests
that the Muslim world was questioning geocentrism, but without heliocentrism
becoming widely accepted.
Good point, Pete, but, I've already addressed it in this thread. The Buddhists are so transcendental in their thinking that they don't really care much about the structure of the universe, in applied detail. They didn't really have a structured model for the universe at all, it just seemed obvious to them that it was infinite, from all the stars in the sky. As I've indicated, the much more practical, and analytical Greeks were the ones who came up with detailed, structured models for things, and the Chinese Buddhists simply borrowed from them. Unfortunately, because of the desired to oversimplify and gratify their egos, the Greeks chose the more familiar geocentric concepts over the more abstract heliocentric ones. To everyone's cost!
Post by jerry kraus
Post by jerry kraus
You see, the fields of science really need to be psychoanalyzed more than
a little bit. Scientists inevitably project their own egos and personal
practical and emotional needs onto their work, their ideas, their
theories. They can't help it. And, we suffered a dark age and 2,000
years of intellectual stagnation specifically because of it, here!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by jerry kraus
I think we're all aware that scientific theories are highly dependent on the
society they originate in; but they're also dependent on observations, and
if they confict with observation, they don't get very far.
Don't count on that, Pete! You're swallowing the scientist's line, hook, ball and sinker! Remember Pete, between 1700 and 1960, scientists used to say that meteorites never struck the earth at all. There was no money in saying that they did. Once modern rocketry started being developed, and the potential for money being spent intercepting meteorites and comets became apparent, suddenly scientists did an about face! Now, apparently, meteorites have suddenly become the most important threat facing humanity. All, because there's big money in intercepting them.

Look at all the research that's suddenly sprung up in the U.S. about how wonderful marijuana is, now that it's becoming legalized. Look at the scientific praises heaped on Freudian psychoanalysis decades ago, and, now on psychoactive drugs. Trust me, Pete. Scientists will say ANYTHING if there's a buck in it! Look at the scientific wars over Global Warming. There are few if any scientific facts here, at all. Just rhetoric and money.


There might be a
Post by jerry kraus
few which are dependent on the psychology of the individual scientist who
first comes up with the theory, but surely not so many that they need to be
psychoanalysed the way you're doing!
Post by jerry kraus
In all probability, the more than century old obsession with the Theory of
Relativity is another manifestation of a kind of scientific neurosis,
which, no doubt, Einstein himself would readily acknowledge.
Oversimplifications of this type are always the enemies of true scientific
progress.
As far as I know, there are no observations which confict with Relativity,
and a great many which are consistent. That makes it pretty good as a
scientific theory, whatever its origins in European society of the late
19th/early 20th centuries. No doubt eventually there will be such
observations, and then someone will come up with a better theory which
includes Relativity as a special case (just as Relativity contains Newton's
Law of Gravitation as a special case); but there's no sign of needing that
yet.
http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/GPSmythology2.htm


GPS is often cited by physicists as the best "proof" of relativity. See, above and below

http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/GPSmythology2.htm

for how complex the situation REALLY is. And, how little actual correlation there is between these sacrosanct theoretical concepts and the actual data. Scientists are THE disinformation specialists, on the entire planet!
Post by jerry kraus
--
Pete BARRETT
Pete Barrett
2017-05-31 16:56:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Don't count on that, Pete! You're swallowing the scientist's line, hook,
ball and sinker! Remember Pete, between 1700 and 1960, scientists used
to say that meteorites never struck the earth at all.
Who used to say that? When it was well known that early iron swords were
made out of meteoritic iron, when it was well known that there were impact
craters on the Earth, and it was considered that the craters on the Moon
were due to the impact of meteors? You might be able to find someone who
questioned it, but the general view was that meteor strikes were uncommon,
but hardly that they were unknown.
Post by jerry kraus
There was no money
in saying that they did. Once modern rocketry started being developed,
and the potential for money being spent intercepting meteorites and comets
became apparent, suddenly scientists did an about face! Now, apparently,
meteorites have suddenly become the most important threat facing humanity.
All, because there's big money in intercepting them.
What you're thinking about, I suppose, is that the idea of a meteor strike
being responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs at the end of the
Cretaceous was rejected almost universally before the 1970s, whereas it's
now almost as universally accepted. It was rejected because the idea of
sudden changes that that implies was rejected - too much like creation _ex
nihilo_ or the action of a god - and gradualism had worked very well in
biology, because most of the _non_-gradualist theories (saltationism, for
instance) had been shown to be untenable. In the 1960s, when I was young,
the most common theory was that that they were outcompeted by mammals, as I
recall, but even then it was clear there were problems with that.

Why is it now accepted? _Evidence_ - the KT layer, and the remnants of the
impact crater, and a _lot_ more fossils of late dinoraurs than were
available until recently. And perhaps the _zeitgeist_ actually is a bit more
accepting of discontinuities than it used to be.
Post by jerry kraus
Look at all the research that's suddenly sprung up in the U.S. about how
wonderful marijuana is, now that it's becoming legalized. Look at the
scientific praises heaped on Freudian psychoanalysis decades ago, and, now
on psychoactive drugs. Trust me, Pete.
You're asking me not to trust scientists - so why should I trust _you_?!
Post by jerry kraus
Scientists will say ANYTHING if
there's a buck in it! Look at the scientific wars over Global Warming.
There are few if any scientific facts here, at all. Just rhetoric and
money.
--
Pete BARRETT
jerry kraus
2017-05-31 18:09:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by jerry kraus
Don't count on that, Pete! You're swallowing the scientist's line, hook,
ball and sinker! Remember Pete, between 1700 and 1960, scientists used
to say that meteorites never struck the earth at all.
Who used to say that? When it was well known that early iron swords were
made out of meteoritic iron, when it was well known that there were impact
craters on the Earth, and it was considered that the craters on the Moon
were due to the impact of meteors? You might be able to find someone who
questioned it, but the general view was that meteor strikes were uncommon,
but hardly that they were unknown.
Post by jerry kraus
There was no money
in saying that they did. Once modern rocketry started being developed,
and the potential for money being spent intercepting meteorites and comets
became apparent, suddenly scientists did an about face! Now, apparently,
meteorites have suddenly become the most important threat facing humanity.
All, because there's big money in intercepting them.
What you're thinking about, I suppose, is that the idea of a meteor strike
being responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs at the end of the
Cretaceous was rejected almost universally before the 1970s, whereas it's
now almost as universally accepted. It was rejected because the idea of
sudden changes that that implies was rejected - too much like creation _ex
nihilo_ or the action of a god - and gradualism had worked very well in
biology, because most of the _non_-gradualist theories (saltationism, for
instance) had been shown to be untenable. In the 1960s, when I was young,
the most common theory was that that they were outcompeted by mammals, as I
recall, but even then it was clear there were problems with that.
Why is it now accepted? _Evidence_ - the KT layer, and the remnants of the
impact crater, and a _lot_ more fossils of late dinoraurs than were
available until recently. And perhaps the _zeitgeist_ actually is a bit more
accepting of discontinuities than it used to be.
Post by jerry kraus
Look at all the research that's suddenly sprung up in the U.S. about how
wonderful marijuana is, now that it's becoming legalized. Look at the
scientific praises heaped on Freudian psychoanalysis decades ago, and, now
on psychoactive drugs. Trust me, Pete.
You're asking me not to trust scientists - so why should I trust _you_?!
Post by jerry kraus
Scientists will say ANYTHING if
there's a buck in it! Look at the scientific wars over Global Warming.
There are few if any scientific facts here, at all. Just rhetoric and
money.
--
Pete BARRETT
Well, alright Pete, you don't have to trust me. Trust the facts! Here's a detailed analysis of the best supposed "proof" of Einstein's theory of Relativity, the GPS data:

http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/GPSmythology2.htm

As you can see, as you read on, from actual government documents referred to and analyzed in detail, there is, in fact, virtually NO CORRELATION between actual GPS data, and Einstein's theory of relativity. The GPS data comes far closer to DISPROVING Einstein's theory of Relativity, than to proving it. Physicists are lying their heads off about this, and are quite happy to do so, aren't they now?
jerry kraus
2017-05-31 18:26:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by jerry kraus
Don't count on that, Pete! You're swallowing the scientist's line, hook,
ball and sinker! Remember Pete, between 1700 and 1960, scientists used
to say that meteorites never struck the earth at all.
Who used to say that? When it was well known that early iron swords were
made out of meteoritic iron, when it was well known that there were impact
craters on the Earth, and it was considered that the craters on the Moon
were due to the impact of meteors? You might be able to find someone who
questioned it, but the general view was that meteor strikes were uncommon,
but hardly that they were unknown.
Post by jerry kraus
There was no money
in saying that they did. Once modern rocketry started being developed,
and the potential for money being spent intercepting meteorites and comets
became apparent, suddenly scientists did an about face! Now, apparently,
meteorites have suddenly become the most important threat facing humanity.
All, because there's big money in intercepting them.
What you're thinking about, I suppose, is that the idea of a meteor strike
being responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs at the end of the
Cretaceous was rejected almost universally before the 1970s, whereas it's
now almost as universally accepted. It was rejected because the idea of
sudden changes that that implies was rejected - too much like creation _ex
nihilo_ or the action of a god - and gradualism had worked very well in
biology, because most of the _non_-gradualist theories (saltationism, for
instance) had been shown to be untenable. In the 1960s, when I was young,
the most common theory was that that they were outcompeted by mammals, as I
recall, but even then it was clear there were problems with that.
Why is it now accepted? _Evidence_ - the KT layer, and the remnants of the
impact crater, and a _lot_ more fossils of late dinoraurs than were
available until recently. And perhaps the _zeitgeist_ actually is a bit more
accepting of discontinuities than it used to be.
Post by jerry kraus
Look at all the research that's suddenly sprung up in the U.S. about how
wonderful marijuana is, now that it's becoming legalized. Look at the
scientific praises heaped on Freudian psychoanalysis decades ago, and, now
on psychoactive drugs. Trust me, Pete.
You're asking me not to trust scientists - so why should I trust _you_?!
Post by jerry kraus
Scientists will say ANYTHING if
there's a buck in it! Look at the scientific wars over Global Warming.
There are few if any scientific facts here, at all. Just rhetoric and
money.
--
Pete BARRETT
Actually, Pete, the preceding chapter in the online text I referred to is an even better demolition of the Theory of Relativity on the basis of GPS than the one I've cited, already. It is accessible from the one I've cited, already:

http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/GPSmythology.htm
Pete Barrett
2017-06-01 17:40:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by jerry kraus
Don't count on that, Pete! You're swallowing the scientist's line, hook,
ball and sinker! Remember Pete, between 1700 and 1960, scientists
used to say that meteorites never struck the earth at all.
Who used to say that? When it was well known that early iron swords were
made out of meteoritic iron, when it was well known that there were
impact craters on the Earth, and it was considered that the craters on
the Moon were due to the impact of meteors? You might be able to find
someone who questioned it, but the general view was that meteor strikes
were uncommon, but hardly that they were unknown.
Post by jerry kraus
There was no money
in saying that they did. Once modern rocketry started being
developed, and the potential for money being spent intercepting
meteorites and comets
became apparent, suddenly scientists did an about face! Now,
apparently, meteorites have suddenly become the most important threat
facing humanity.
All, because there's big money in intercepting them.
What you're thinking about, I suppose, is that the idea of a meteor
strike being responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs at the end
of the Cretaceous was rejected almost universally before the 1970s,
whereas it's now almost as universally accepted. It was rejected because
the idea of sudden changes that that implies was rejected - too much like
creation _ex nihilo_ or the action of a god - and gradualism had worked
very well in biology, because most of the _non_-gradualist theories
(saltationism, for instance) had been shown to be untenable. In the
1960s, when I was young, the most common theory was that that they were
outcompeted by mammals, as I recall, but even then it was clear there
were problems with that.
Why is it now accepted? _Evidence_ - the KT layer, and the remnants of
the impact crater, and a _lot_ more fossils of late dinoraurs than were
available until recently. And perhaps the _zeitgeist_ actually is a bit
more accepting of discontinuities than it used to be.
Post by jerry kraus
Look at all the research that's suddenly sprung up in the U.S. about how
wonderful marijuana is, now that it's becoming legalized. Look at the
scientific praises heaped on Freudian psychoanalysis decades ago, and, now
on psychoactive drugs. Trust me, Pete.
You're asking me not to trust scientists - so why should I trust _you_?!
Post by jerry kraus
Scientists will say ANYTHING if
there's a buck in it! Look at the scientific wars over Global Warming.
There are few if any scientific facts here, at all. Just rhetoric and
money.
--
Pete BARRETT
Actually, Pete, the preceding chapter in the online text I referred to is
an even better demolition of the Theory of Relativity on the basis of GPS
than the one I've cited, already. It is accessible from the one I've
http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/GPSmythology.htm
From my reading of this, it's saying that the operation of GPS isn't
affected by General Relativity, and therefore doesn't constitute a proof of
it. Nothing about demolishing Relativity that I could see.
--
Pete BARRETT
jerry kraus
2017-06-01 18:08:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by jerry kraus
Don't count on that, Pete! You're swallowing the scientist's line, hook,
ball and sinker! Remember Pete, between 1700 and 1960, scientists
used to say that meteorites never struck the earth at all.
Who used to say that? When it was well known that early iron swords were
made out of meteoritic iron, when it was well known that there were
impact craters on the Earth, and it was considered that the craters on
the Moon were due to the impact of meteors? You might be able to find
someone who questioned it, but the general view was that meteor strikes
were uncommon, but hardly that they were unknown.
Post by jerry kraus
There was no money
in saying that they did. Once modern rocketry started being
developed, and the potential for money being spent intercepting
meteorites and comets
became apparent, suddenly scientists did an about face! Now,
apparently, meteorites have suddenly become the most important threat
facing humanity.
All, because there's big money in intercepting them.
What you're thinking about, I suppose, is that the idea of a meteor
strike being responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs at the end
of the Cretaceous was rejected almost universally before the 1970s,
whereas it's now almost as universally accepted. It was rejected because
the idea of sudden changes that that implies was rejected - too much like
creation _ex nihilo_ or the action of a god - and gradualism had worked
very well in biology, because most of the _non_-gradualist theories
(saltationism, for instance) had been shown to be untenable. In the
1960s, when I was young, the most common theory was that that they were
outcompeted by mammals, as I recall, but even then it was clear there
were problems with that.
Why is it now accepted? _Evidence_ - the KT layer, and the remnants of
the impact crater, and a _lot_ more fossils of late dinoraurs than were
available until recently. And perhaps the _zeitgeist_ actually is a bit
more accepting of discontinuities than it used to be.
Post by jerry kraus
Look at all the research that's suddenly sprung up in the U.S. about how
wonderful marijuana is, now that it's becoming legalized. Look at the
scientific praises heaped on Freudian psychoanalysis decades ago, and, now
on psychoactive drugs. Trust me, Pete.
You're asking me not to trust scientists - so why should I trust _you_?!
Post by jerry kraus
Scientists will say ANYTHING if
there's a buck in it! Look at the scientific wars over Global Warming.
There are few if any scientific facts here, at all. Just rhetoric and
money.
--
Pete BARRETT
Actually, Pete, the preceding chapter in the online text I referred to is
an even better demolition of the Theory of Relativity on the basis of GPS
than the one I've cited, already. It is accessible from the one I've
http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/GPSmythology.htm
From my reading of this, it's saying that the operation of GPS isn't
affected by General Relativity, and therefore doesn't constitute a proof of
it. Nothing about demolishing Relativity that I could see.
--
Pete BARRETT
Yes, Pete, that IS how the author is choosing to present it. He's saying that Relativity is "unnecessary" to "correct" the empirically determined values for GPS. Of course if we did choose to apply relativity directly to these values, they would be highly inaccurate.

Now, why do physicists insist that GPS is a "proof of relativity"? Why do they insist that GPS couldn't possibly function without the Theory of Relativity being used to correct it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System


"A number of sources of error exist due to relativistic effects[14] that would render the system useless if uncorrected. Three relativistic effects are the time dilation, gravitational frequency shift, and eccentricity effects. Examples include the relativistic time slowing due to the speed of the satellite of about 1 part in 1010, the gravitational time dilation that makes a satellite run about 5 parts in 1010 faster than an Earth-based clock, and the Sagnac effect due to rotation relative to receivers on Earth."
Pete Barrett
2017-06-02 13:56:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Yes, Pete, that IS how the author is choosing to present it. He's saying
that Relativity is "unnecessary" to "correct" the empirically determined
values for GPS. Of course if we did choose to apply relativity directly
to these values, they would be highly inaccurate.
Now, why do physicists insist that GPS is a "proof of relativity"? Why
do they insist that GPS couldn't possibly function without the Theory of
Relativity being used to correct it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System
Post by jerry kraus
"A number of sources of error exist due to relativistic effects[14] that
would render the system useless if uncorrected. Three relativistic effects
are the time dilation, gravitational frequency shift, and eccentricity
effects. Examples include the relativistic time slowing due to the speed
of the satellite of about 1 part in 1010, the gravitational time dilation
that makes a satellite run about 5 parts in 1010 faster than an
Earth-based clock, and the Sagnac effect due to rotation relative to
receivers on Earth."
I'm not an expert on the way GPS works, so I wouldn't presume to comment on
whether General Relativity correction is necessary for its working. All I
was commenting on was whether the source you referenced supported your
position, and as far as I could see, it doesn't, or even try to.
--
Pete BARRETT
jerry kraus
2017-06-02 14:08:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Post by jerry kraus
Yes, Pete, that IS how the author is choosing to present it. He's saying
that Relativity is "unnecessary" to "correct" the empirically determined
values for GPS. Of course if we did choose to apply relativity directly
to these values, they would be highly inaccurate.
Now, why do physicists insist that GPS is a "proof of relativity"? Why
do they insist that GPS couldn't possibly function without the Theory of
Relativity being used to correct it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System
Post by jerry kraus
"A number of sources of error exist due to relativistic effects[14] that
would render the system useless if uncorrected. Three relativistic effects
are the time dilation, gravitational frequency shift, and eccentricity
effects. Examples include the relativistic time slowing due to the speed
of the satellite of about 1 part in 1010, the gravitational time dilation
that makes a satellite run about 5 parts in 1010 faster than an
Earth-based clock, and the Sagnac effect due to rotation relative to
receivers on Earth."
I'm not an expert on the way GPS works, so I wouldn't presume to comment on
whether General Relativity correction is necessary for its working. All I
was commenting on was whether the source you referenced supported your
position, and as far as I could see, it doesn't, or even try to.
--
Pete BARRETT
Well, I'm connecting the dots, Pete. The source I'm referencing provides clear proof that General Relativity is NOT necessary for GPS to work. Indeed, it provides clear proof that if General Relativity were applied to GPS, GPS would not work, at all. This, despite the clear contention of the "experts", as cited in the wikipedia article, that GPS cannot work without relativity corrections. In other words, these views are in total contradiction. Are you so unwilling to question experts, Pete?
Dean
2017-06-02 14:54:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Post by jerry kraus
Post by jerry kraus
Yes, Pete, that IS how the author is choosing to present it. He's saying
that Relativity is "unnecessary" to "correct" the empirically determined
values for GPS. Of course if we did choose to apply relativity directly
to these values, they would be highly inaccurate.
Now, why do physicists insist that GPS is a "proof of relativity"? Why
do they insist that GPS couldn't possibly function without the Theory of
Relativity being used to correct it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System
Post by jerry kraus
"A number of sources of error exist due to relativistic effects[14] that
would render the system useless if uncorrected. Three relativistic effects
are the time dilation, gravitational frequency shift, and eccentricity
effects. Examples include the relativistic time slowing due to the speed
of the satellite of about 1 part in 1010, the gravitational time dilation
that makes a satellite run about 5 parts in 1010 faster than an
Earth-based clock, and the Sagnac effect due to rotation relative to
receivers on Earth."
I'm not an expert on the way GPS works, so I wouldn't presume to comment on
whether General Relativity correction is necessary for its working. All I
was commenting on was whether the source you referenced supported your
position, and as far as I could see, it doesn't, or even try to.
--
Pete BARRETT
Well, I'm connecting the dots, Pete. The source I'm referencing provides clear proof that General Relativity is NOT necessary for GPS to work. Indeed, it provides clear proof that if General Relativity were applied to GPS, GPS would not work, at all. This, despite the clear contention of the "experts", as cited in the wikipedia article, that GPS cannot work without relativity corrections. In other words, these views are in total contradiction. Are you so unwilling to question experts, Pete?
You are conflating two different things. GPS will work without relativity corrections. It's accuracy will drift however eventually leading to large errors. The relativity error corrections ARE applied which keeps it more accurate. Jerry, you are always too quick to deny anything science-related. Perhaps that's why you like the fantasy of what-ifs.
jerry kraus
2017-06-02 15:01:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by jerry kraus
Post by jerry kraus
Yes, Pete, that IS how the author is choosing to present it. He's saying
that Relativity is "unnecessary" to "correct" the empirically determined
values for GPS. Of course if we did choose to apply relativity directly
to these values, they would be highly inaccurate.
Now, why do physicists insist that GPS is a "proof of relativity"? Why
do they insist that GPS couldn't possibly function without the Theory of
Relativity being used to correct it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System
Post by jerry kraus
"A number of sources of error exist due to relativistic effects[14] that
would render the system useless if uncorrected. Three relativistic effects
are the time dilation, gravitational frequency shift, and eccentricity
effects. Examples include the relativistic time slowing due to the speed
of the satellite of about 1 part in 1010, the gravitational time dilation
that makes a satellite run about 5 parts in 1010 faster than an
Earth-based clock, and the Sagnac effect due to rotation relative to
receivers on Earth."
I'm not an expert on the way GPS works, so I wouldn't presume to comment on
whether General Relativity correction is necessary for its working. All I
was commenting on was whether the source you referenced supported your
position, and as far as I could see, it doesn't, or even try to.
--
Pete BARRETT
Well, I'm connecting the dots, Pete. The source I'm referencing provides clear proof that General Relativity is NOT necessary for GPS to work. Indeed, it provides clear proof that if General Relativity were applied to GPS, GPS would not work, at all. This, despite the clear contention of the "experts", as cited in the wikipedia article, that GPS cannot work without relativity corrections. In other words, these views are in total contradiction. Are you so unwilling to question experts, Pete?
You are conflating two different things. GPS will work without relativity corrections. It's accuracy will drift however eventually leading to large errors. The relativity error corrections ARE applied which keeps it more accurate. Jerry, you are always too quick to deny anything science-related. Perhaps that's why you like the fantasy of what-ifs.
Well, you see, Dean, that's the point. The theoretical relativity corrections are not applied. Empirical corrections are applied. If the theoretical relativity corrections were applied, GPS wouldn't function, at all, because relativity is false.

http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/GPSmythology.htm
jerry kraus
2017-06-02 18:11:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by jerry kraus
Post by jerry kraus
Yes, Pete, that IS how the author is choosing to present it. He's saying
that Relativity is "unnecessary" to "correct" the empirically determined
values for GPS. Of course if we did choose to apply relativity directly
to these values, they would be highly inaccurate.
Now, why do physicists insist that GPS is a "proof of relativity"? Why
do they insist that GPS couldn't possibly function without the Theory of
Relativity being used to correct it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System
Post by jerry kraus
"A number of sources of error exist due to relativistic effects[14] that
would render the system useless if uncorrected. Three relativistic effects
are the time dilation, gravitational frequency shift, and eccentricity
effects. Examples include the relativistic time slowing due to the speed
of the satellite of about 1 part in 1010, the gravitational time dilation
that makes a satellite run about 5 parts in 1010 faster than an
Earth-based clock, and the Sagnac effect due to rotation relative to
receivers on Earth."
I'm not an expert on the way GPS works, so I wouldn't presume to comment on
whether General Relativity correction is necessary for its working. All I
was commenting on was whether the source you referenced supported your
position, and as far as I could see, it doesn't, or even try to.
--
Pete BARRETT
Well, I'm connecting the dots, Pete. The source I'm referencing provides clear proof that General Relativity is NOT necessary for GPS to work. Indeed, it provides clear proof that if General Relativity were applied to GPS, GPS would not work, at all. This, despite the clear contention of the "experts", as cited in the wikipedia article, that GPS cannot work without relativity corrections. In other words, these views are in total contradiction. Are you so unwilling to question experts, Pete?
You are conflating two different things. GPS will work without relativity corrections. It's accuracy will drift however eventually leading to large errors. The relativity error corrections ARE applied which keeps it more accurate. Jerry, you are always too quick to deny anything science-related. Perhaps that's why you like the fantasy of what-ifs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cfd9/892e8f8e5683ddc15d1ffcbb7272a543d3e3.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228912418_Mixed-mode_GPS_network_processing_for_deformation_monitoring_applications_in_the_equatorial_region

http://www.trimble.com/gps_tutorial/howgps-error.aspx

http://www.cmmacs.ernet.in/cmmacs/pdf/gpserrors.pdf


Dean, we see above a number of analyses of error in GPS, and how they are corrected. Relativity is not mentioned, but a wide variety of empirical correction techniques are. You see, relativity is patently false, or, it would have to be used in correcting errors in GPS. Relativity is not used, at all, ever. Because relativity doesn't work. Relativity should apply to GPS, but, you see, it doesn't. At all. Relativity is simply a science fiction fantasy, as Einstein was well aware. Why do you think Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for the Photoelectric Effect, while Relativity was ignored, although that was Einstein's best known concept, by far? The Nobel Committee realized, as Einstein did, that relativity was untestable. The Nobel Committee can be very shrewd, you know.
Pete Barrett
2017-06-03 14:50:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by jerry kraus
Yes, Pete, that IS how the author is choosing to present it. He's
saying that Relativity is "unnecessary" to "correct" the
empirically determined
values for GPS. Of course if we did choose to apply relativity
directly to these values, they would be highly inaccurate.
Now, why do physicists insist that GPS is a "proof of relativity"?
Why do they insist that GPS couldn't possibly function without
the Theory of Relativity being used to correct it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by jerry kraus
"A number of sources of error exist due to relativistic effects[14]
that would render the system useless if uncorrected. Three
relativistic effects are the time dilation, gravitational frequency
shift, and eccentricity effects. Examples include the relativistic
time slowing due to the speed of the satellite of about 1 part in
1010, the gravitational time dilation that makes a satellite run
about 5 parts in 1010 faster than an Earth-based clock, and the
Sagnac effect due to rotation relative to receivers on Earth."
I'm not an expert on the way GPS works, so I wouldn't presume to
comment on whether General Relativity correction is necessary for its
working. All I was commenting on was whether the source you
referenced supported your position, and as far as I could see, it
doesn't, or even try to.
--
Pete BARRETT
Well, I'm connecting the dots, Pete. The source I'm referencing
provides clear proof that General Relativity is NOT necessary for GPS
to work. Indeed, it provides clear proof that if General Relativity
were applied to GPS, GPS would not work, at all. This, despite the
clear contention of the "experts", as cited in the wikipedia article,
that GPS cannot work without relativity corrections. In other words,
these views are in total contradiction. Are you so unwilling to
question experts, Pete?
You are conflating two different things. GPS will work without
relativity corrections. It's accuracy will drift however eventually
leading to large errors. The relativity error corrections ARE applied
which keeps it more accurate. Jerry, you are always too quick to deny
anything science-related. Perhaps that's why you like the fantasy of
what-ifs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cfd9/892e8f8e5683ddc15d1ffcbb7272a543d3e3.pdf
Post by jerry kraus
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228912418_Mixed-mode_GPS_network_processing_for_deformation_monitoring_applications_in_the_equatorial_region
http://www.trimble.com/gps_tutorial/howgps-error.aspx
http://www.cmmacs.ernet.in/cmmacs/pdf/gpserrors.pdf
Dean, we see above a number of analyses of error in GPS, and how they are
corrected. Relativity is not mentioned, but a wide variety of empirical
correction techniques are. You see, relativity is patently false, or, it
would have to be used in correcting errors in GPS. Relativity is not
used, at all, ever. Because relativity doesn't work. Relativity should
apply to GPS, but, you see, it doesn't. At all. Relativity is simply a
science fiction fantasy, as Einstein was well aware. Why do you think
Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for the Photoelectric Effect, while
Relativity was ignored, although that was Einstein's best known concept,
by far? The Nobel Committee realized, as Einstein did, that relativity
was untestable. The Nobel Committee can be very shrewd, you know.
Einstein published his paper on General Relativity in 1915 (I think - during
WWI, anyway), and was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1922. The Nobel committee
like to leave about 10 years between the publication and the award, to give
time for the theory to be disproved. Therefore, the award didn't mention
General Relativity, but did mention his three publications of 1905, on
Brownian Motion, the Photoelectric Effect, and Special Relativity. Special
Relativity was still controversial at the time, but the other two weren't,
so it was awarded with a mention of one of them (why the committee didn't
mention the paper on Brownian Motion, I don't know).
--
Pete BARRETT
jerry kraus
2017-06-05 13:26:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by jerry kraus
Yes, Pete, that IS how the author is choosing to present it. He's
saying that Relativity is "unnecessary" to "correct" the
empirically determined
values for GPS. Of course if we did choose to apply relativity
directly to these values, they would be highly inaccurate.
Now, why do physicists insist that GPS is a "proof of relativity"?
Why do they insist that GPS couldn't possibly function without
the Theory of Relativity being used to correct it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by jerry kraus
"A number of sources of error exist due to relativistic effects[14]
that would render the system useless if uncorrected. Three
relativistic effects are the time dilation, gravitational frequency
shift, and eccentricity effects. Examples include the relativistic
time slowing due to the speed of the satellite of about 1 part in
1010, the gravitational time dilation that makes a satellite run
about 5 parts in 1010 faster than an Earth-based clock, and the
Sagnac effect due to rotation relative to receivers on Earth."
I'm not an expert on the way GPS works, so I wouldn't presume to
comment on whether General Relativity correction is necessary for its
working. All I was commenting on was whether the source you
referenced supported your position, and as far as I could see, it
doesn't, or even try to.
--
Pete BARRETT
Well, I'm connecting the dots, Pete. The source I'm referencing
provides clear proof that General Relativity is NOT necessary for GPS
to work. Indeed, it provides clear proof that if General Relativity
were applied to GPS, GPS would not work, at all. This, despite the
clear contention of the "experts", as cited in the wikipedia article,
that GPS cannot work without relativity corrections. In other words,
these views are in total contradiction. Are you so unwilling to
question experts, Pete?
You are conflating two different things. GPS will work without
relativity corrections. It's accuracy will drift however eventually
leading to large errors. The relativity error corrections ARE applied
which keeps it more accurate. Jerry, you are always too quick to deny
anything science-related. Perhaps that's why you like the fantasy of
what-ifs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cfd9/892e8f8e5683ddc15d1ffcbb7272a543d3e3.pdf
Post by jerry kraus
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228912418_Mixed-mode_GPS_network_processing_for_deformation_monitoring_applications_in_the_equatorial_region
http://www.trimble.com/gps_tutorial/howgps-error.aspx
http://www.cmmacs.ernet.in/cmmacs/pdf/gpserrors.pdf
Dean, we see above a number of analyses of error in GPS, and how they are
corrected. Relativity is not mentioned, but a wide variety of empirical
correction techniques are. You see, relativity is patently false, or, it
would have to be used in correcting errors in GPS. Relativity is not
used, at all, ever. Because relativity doesn't work. Relativity should
apply to GPS, but, you see, it doesn't. At all. Relativity is simply a
science fiction fantasy, as Einstein was well aware. Why do you think
Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for the Photoelectric Effect, while
Relativity was ignored, although that was Einstein's best known concept,
by far? The Nobel Committee realized, as Einstein did, that relativity
was untestable. The Nobel Committee can be very shrewd, you know.
Einstein published his paper on General Relativity in 1915 (I think - during
WWI, anyway), and was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1922. The Nobel committee
like to leave about 10 years between the publication and the award, to give
time for the theory to be disproved. Therefore, the award didn't mention
General Relativity, but did mention his three publications of 1905, on
Brownian Motion, the Photoelectric Effect, and Special Relativity. Special
Relativity was still controversial at the time, but the other two weren't,
so it was awarded with a mention of one of them (why the committee didn't
mention the paper on Brownian Motion, I don't know).
--
Pete BARRETT
The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921 was awarded to Albert Einstein "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect".

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/

Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1921 for "his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect",[4]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect

Oh, come off it Pete! The Nobel Committee was obviously trying to acknowledge Einstein as a "genius" while steering clear of his best known work! Because everyone knew Relativity was merely very, very good science fiction. It intrigued the public, attracted attention to science, so, scientists supported it. It's total invalidity was irrelevant to them, they're politicians and bureaucrats, at heart.

The theory of relativity "sells", so the scientific community simply cannot admit that it's completely inaccurate, that would undermine their credibility. However, in real practical applications like GPS the actual technical manuals have to ignore it, because it doesn't work, at all. That's the actual situation, quite obviously. So, we have general encyclopedia-type overviews like Wikipedia saying that Relativity is regularly applied to GPS, when it isn't, in practice.
Pete Barrett
2017-06-05 17:06:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by jerry kraus
Yes, Pete, that IS how the author is choosing to present it.
He's saying that Relativity is "unnecessary" to "correct" the
empirically determined
values for GPS. Of course if we did choose to apply relativity
directly to these values, they would be highly inaccurate.
Now, why do physicists insist that GPS is a "proof of relativity"?
Why do they insist that GPS couldn't possibly function without
the Theory of Relativity being used to correct it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by jerry kraus
"A number of sources of error exist due to relativistic
effects[14] that would render the system useless if uncorrected.
Three relativistic effects are the time dilation, gravitational
frequency shift, and eccentricity effects. Examples include the
relativistic time slowing due to the speed of the satellite of
about 1 part in 1010, the gravitational time dilation that makes
a satellite run about 5 parts in 1010 faster than an Earth-based
clock, and the Sagnac effect due to rotation relative to
receivers on Earth."
I'm not an expert on the way GPS works, so I wouldn't presume to
comment on whether General Relativity correction is necessary for
its working. All I was commenting on was whether the source you
referenced supported your position, and as far as I could see, it
doesn't, or even try to.
--
Pete BARRETT
Well, I'm connecting the dots, Pete. The source I'm referencing
provides clear proof that General Relativity is NOT necessary for GPS
to work. Indeed, it provides clear proof that if General Relativity
were applied to GPS, GPS would not work, at all. This, despite the
clear contention of the "experts", as cited in the wikipedia article,
that GPS cannot work without relativity corrections. In other words,
these views are in total contradiction. Are you so unwilling to
question experts, Pete?
You are conflating two different things. GPS will work without
relativity corrections. It's accuracy will drift however eventually
leading to large errors. The relativity error corrections ARE applied
which keeps it more accurate. Jerry, you are always too quick to deny
anything science-related. Perhaps that's why you like the fantasy of
what-ifs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cfd9/892e8f8e5683ddc15d1ffcbb7272a543d3e3.pdf
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by jerry kraus
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228912418_Mixed-mode_GPS_network_processing_for_deformation_monitoring_applications_in_the_equatorial_region
http://www.trimble.com/gps_tutorial/howgps-error.aspx
http://www.cmmacs.ernet.in/cmmacs/pdf/gpserrors.pdf
Dean, we see above a number of analyses of error in GPS, and how they are
corrected. Relativity is not mentioned, but a wide variety of empirical
correction techniques are. You see, relativity is patently false, or, it
would have to be used in correcting errors in GPS. Relativity is not
used, at all, ever. Because relativity doesn't work. Relativity should
apply to GPS, but, you see, it doesn't. At all. Relativity is simply a
science fiction fantasy, as Einstein was well aware. Why do you think
Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for the Photoelectric Effect,
while Relativity was ignored, although that was Einstein's best known
concept,
by far? The Nobel Committee realized, as Einstein did, that relativity
was untestable. The Nobel Committee can be very shrewd, you know.
Einstein published his paper on General Relativity in 1915 (I think -
during WWI, anyway), and was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1922. The Nobel
committee like to leave about 10 years between the publication and the
award, to give time for the theory to be disproved. Therefore, the award
didn't mention General Relativity, but did mention his three publications
of 1905, on Brownian Motion, the Photoelectric Effect, and Special
Relativity. Special Relativity was still controversial at the time, but
the other two weren't, so it was awarded with a mention of one of them
(why the committee didn't mention the paper on Brownian Motion, I don't
know).
--
Pete BARRETT
The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921 was awarded to Albert Einstein "for his
services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the
law of the photoelectric effect".
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/
Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1921 for "his discovery of the law
of the photoelectric effect",[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect
Oh, come off it Pete! The Nobel Committee was obviously trying to
acknowledge Einstein as a "genius" while steering clear of his best known
work! Because everyone knew Relativity was merely very, very good
science fiction. It intrigued the public, attracted attention to
science, so, scientists supported it. It's total invalidity was
irrelevant to them, they're politicians and bureaucrats, at heart.
The theory of relativity "sells", so the scientific community simply
cannot admit that it's completely inaccurate, that would undermine their
credibility. However, in real practical applications like GPS the actual
technical manuals have to ignore it, because it doesn't work, at all.
That's the actual situation, quite obviously. So, we have general
encyclopedia-type overviews like Wikipedia saying that Relativity is
regularly applied to GPS, when it isn't, in practice.
Healthy scepticism is one thing, but unhealthy scepticism is quite another.
That a product of engineering like the GPS system uses empirical
corrections is not particularly surprising - it would probably do so even if
Relativity was false, because it involves a three-body problem, which is
known not to be solvable analytically, and empirical corrections are easier
than continually solving the problem approximately.

If you really want us to believe that General Relativity 'doesn't work, at
all', and is 'merely very, very good science fiction', then you're going to
have to rubbish all this lot as well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

Good luck with that.
--
Pete BARRETT
jerry kraus
2017-06-05 18:19:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by jerry kraus
Yes, Pete, that IS how the author is choosing to present it.
He's saying that Relativity is "unnecessary" to "correct" the
empirically determined
values for GPS. Of course if we did choose to apply relativity
directly to these values, they would be highly inaccurate.
Now, why do physicists insist that GPS is a "proof of relativity"?
Why do they insist that GPS couldn't possibly function without
the Theory of Relativity being used to correct it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by jerry kraus
"A number of sources of error exist due to relativistic
effects[14] that would render the system useless if uncorrected.
Three relativistic effects are the time dilation, gravitational
frequency shift, and eccentricity effects. Examples include the
relativistic time slowing due to the speed of the satellite of
about 1 part in 1010, the gravitational time dilation that makes
a satellite run about 5 parts in 1010 faster than an Earth-based
clock, and the Sagnac effect due to rotation relative to
receivers on Earth."
I'm not an expert on the way GPS works, so I wouldn't presume to
comment on whether General Relativity correction is necessary for
its working. All I was commenting on was whether the source you
referenced supported your position, and as far as I could see, it
doesn't, or even try to.
--
Pete BARRETT
Well, I'm connecting the dots, Pete. The source I'm referencing
provides clear proof that General Relativity is NOT necessary for GPS
to work. Indeed, it provides clear proof that if General Relativity
were applied to GPS, GPS would not work, at all. This, despite the
clear contention of the "experts", as cited in the wikipedia article,
that GPS cannot work without relativity corrections. In other words,
these views are in total contradiction. Are you so unwilling to
question experts, Pete?
You are conflating two different things. GPS will work without
relativity corrections. It's accuracy will drift however eventually
leading to large errors. The relativity error corrections ARE applied
which keeps it more accurate. Jerry, you are always too quick to deny
anything science-related. Perhaps that's why you like the fantasy of
what-ifs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cfd9/892e8f8e5683ddc15d1ffcbb7272a543d3e3.pdf
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by jerry kraus
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228912418_Mixed-mode_GPS_network_processing_for_deformation_monitoring_applications_in_the_equatorial_region
http://www.trimble.com/gps_tutorial/howgps-error.aspx
http://www.cmmacs.ernet.in/cmmacs/pdf/gpserrors.pdf
Dean, we see above a number of analyses of error in GPS, and how they are
corrected. Relativity is not mentioned, but a wide variety of empirical
correction techniques are. You see, relativity is patently false, or, it
would have to be used in correcting errors in GPS. Relativity is not
used, at all, ever. Because relativity doesn't work. Relativity should
apply to GPS, but, you see, it doesn't. At all. Relativity is simply a
science fiction fantasy, as Einstein was well aware. Why do you think
Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for the Photoelectric Effect,
while Relativity was ignored, although that was Einstein's best known
concept,
by far? The Nobel Committee realized, as Einstein did, that relativity
was untestable. The Nobel Committee can be very shrewd, you know.
Einstein published his paper on General Relativity in 1915 (I think -
during WWI, anyway), and was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1922. The Nobel
committee like to leave about 10 years between the publication and the
award, to give time for the theory to be disproved. Therefore, the award
didn't mention General Relativity, but did mention his three publications
of 1905, on Brownian Motion, the Photoelectric Effect, and Special
Relativity. Special Relativity was still controversial at the time, but
the other two weren't, so it was awarded with a mention of one of them
(why the committee didn't mention the paper on Brownian Motion, I don't
know).
--
Pete BARRETT
The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921 was awarded to Albert Einstein "for his
services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the
law of the photoelectric effect".
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/
Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1921 for "his discovery of the law
of the photoelectric effect",[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect
Oh, come off it Pete! The Nobel Committee was obviously trying to
acknowledge Einstein as a "genius" while steering clear of his best known
work! Because everyone knew Relativity was merely very, very good
science fiction. It intrigued the public, attracted attention to
science, so, scientists supported it. It's total invalidity was
irrelevant to them, they're politicians and bureaucrats, at heart.
The theory of relativity "sells", so the scientific community simply
cannot admit that it's completely inaccurate, that would undermine their
credibility. However, in real practical applications like GPS the actual
technical manuals have to ignore it, because it doesn't work, at all.
That's the actual situation, quite obviously. So, we have general
encyclopedia-type overviews like Wikipedia saying that Relativity is
regularly applied to GPS, when it isn't, in practice.
Healthy scepticism is one thing, but unhealthy scepticism is quite another.
That a product of engineering like the GPS system uses empirical
corrections is not particularly surprising - it would probably do so even if
Relativity was false, because it involves a three-body problem, which is
known not to be solvable analytically, and empirical corrections are easier
than continually solving the problem approximately.
If you really want us to believe that General Relativity 'doesn't work, at
all', and is 'merely very, very good science fiction', then you're going to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
Good luck with that.
--
Pete BARRETT
Splendid, Pete, lots of nice, remote astrophysical proofs of relativity. All almost as unambiguous as the many and varied astrophysical proofs of the Ptolemaic Universe!!!

Which is why physicists all claim the relativity must be used to correct GPS, although it never is. GPS is the only truly "practical" application of relativity, that there really is. Unfortunately, it's a practical application that doesn't, and can't exist! Which, by this stage, even you seem willing to acknowledge, Pete. As I've indicated repeatedly Pete, no one lies as brilliantly, and as systematically as a scientist. They are, without question, the masters of disinformation, bar none, on the planet!
Dean
2017-06-05 19:23:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Post by jerry kraus
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by jerry kraus
Yes, Pete, that IS how the author is choosing to present it.
He's saying that Relativity is "unnecessary" to "correct" the
empirically determined
values for GPS. Of course if we did choose to apply relativity
directly to these values, they would be highly inaccurate.
Now, why do physicists insist that GPS is a "proof of
relativity"?
Why do they insist that GPS couldn't possibly function without
the Theory of Relativity being used to correct it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by jerry kraus
"A number of sources of error exist due to relativistic
effects[14] that would render the system useless if uncorrected.
Three relativistic effects are the time dilation, gravitational
frequency shift, and eccentricity effects. Examples include the
relativistic time slowing due to the speed of the satellite of
about 1 part in 1010, the gravitational time dilation that makes
a satellite run about 5 parts in 1010 faster than an Earth-based
clock, and the Sagnac effect due to rotation relative to
receivers on Earth."
I'm not an expert on the way GPS works, so I wouldn't presume to
comment on whether General Relativity correction is necessary for
its working. All I was commenting on was whether the source you
referenced supported your position, and as far as I could see, it
doesn't, or even try to.
--
Pete BARRETT
Well, I'm connecting the dots, Pete. The source I'm referencing
provides clear proof that General Relativity is NOT necessary for GPS
to work. Indeed, it provides clear proof that if General Relativity
were applied to GPS, GPS would not work, at all. This, despite the
clear contention of the "experts", as cited in the wikipedia article,
that GPS cannot work without relativity corrections. In other words,
these views are in total contradiction. Are you so unwilling to
question experts, Pete?
You are conflating two different things. GPS will work without
relativity corrections. It's accuracy will drift however eventually
leading to large errors. The relativity error corrections ARE applied
which keeps it more accurate. Jerry, you are always too quick to deny
anything science-related. Perhaps that's why you like the fantasy of
what-ifs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cfd9/892e8f8e5683ddc15d1ffcbb7272a543d3e3.pdf
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by jerry kraus
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228912418_Mixed-mode_GPS_network_processing_for_deformation_monitoring_applications_in_the_equatorial_region
http://www.trimble.com/gps_tutorial/howgps-error.aspx
http://www.cmmacs.ernet.in/cmmacs/pdf/gpserrors.pdf
Dean, we see above a number of analyses of error in GPS, and how they are
corrected. Relativity is not mentioned, but a wide variety of empirical
correction techniques are. You see, relativity is patently false, or, it
would have to be used in correcting errors in GPS. Relativity is not
used, at all, ever. Because relativity doesn't work. Relativity should
apply to GPS, but, you see, it doesn't. At all. Relativity is simply a
science fiction fantasy, as Einstein was well aware. Why do you think
Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for the Photoelectric Effect,
while Relativity was ignored, although that was Einstein's best known
concept,
by far? The Nobel Committee realized, as Einstein did, that relativity
was untestable. The Nobel Committee can be very shrewd, you know.
Einstein published his paper on General Relativity in 1915 (I think -
during WWI, anyway), and was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1922. The Nobel
committee like to leave about 10 years between the publication and the
award, to give time for the theory to be disproved. Therefore, the award
didn't mention General Relativity, but did mention his three publications
of 1905, on Brownian Motion, the Photoelectric Effect, and Special
Relativity. Special Relativity was still controversial at the time, but
the other two weren't, so it was awarded with a mention of one of them
(why the committee didn't mention the paper on Brownian Motion, I don't
know).
--
Pete BARRETT
The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921 was awarded to Albert Einstein "for his
services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the
law of the photoelectric effect".
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/
Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1921 for "his discovery of the law
of the photoelectric effect",[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect
Oh, come off it Pete! The Nobel Committee was obviously trying to
acknowledge Einstein as a "genius" while steering clear of his best known
work! Because everyone knew Relativity was merely very, very good
science fiction. It intrigued the public, attracted attention to
science, so, scientists supported it. It's total invalidity was
irrelevant to them, they're politicians and bureaucrats, at heart.
The theory of relativity "sells", so the scientific community simply
cannot admit that it's completely inaccurate, that would undermine their
credibility. However, in real practical applications like GPS the actual
technical manuals have to ignore it, because it doesn't work, at all.
That's the actual situation, quite obviously. So, we have general
encyclopedia-type overviews like Wikipedia saying that Relativity is
regularly applied to GPS, when it isn't, in practice.
Healthy scepticism is one thing, but unhealthy scepticism is quite another.
That a product of engineering like the GPS system uses empirical
corrections is not particularly surprising - it would probably do so even if
Relativity was false, because it involves a three-body problem, which is
known not to be solvable analytically, and empirical corrections are easier
than continually solving the problem approximately.
If you really want us to believe that General Relativity 'doesn't work, at
all', and is 'merely very, very good science fiction', then you're going to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
Good luck with that.
--
Pete BARRETT
Splendid, Pete, lots of nice, remote astrophysical proofs of relativity. All almost as unambiguous as the many and varied astrophysical proofs of the Ptolemaic Universe!!!
Which is why physicists all claim the relativity must be used to correct GPS, although it never is. GPS is the only truly "practical" application of relativity, that there really is. Unfortunately, it's a practical application that doesn't, and can't exist! Which, by this stage, even you seem willing to acknowledge, Pete. As I've indicated repeatedly Pete, no one lies as brilliantly, and as systematically as a scientist. They are, without question, the masters of disinformation, bar none, on the planet!
Just because you can't understand it, doesn't mean its not true.
jerry kraus
2017-06-05 19:33:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by jerry kraus
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by jerry kraus
Yes, Pete, that IS how the author is choosing to present it.
He's saying that Relativity is "unnecessary" to "correct" the
empirically determined
values for GPS. Of course if we did choose to apply relativity
directly to these values, they would be highly inaccurate.
Now, why do physicists insist that GPS is a "proof of
relativity"?
Why do they insist that GPS couldn't possibly function without
the Theory of Relativity being used to correct it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by jerry kraus
"A number of sources of error exist due to relativistic
effects[14] that would render the system useless if uncorrected.
Three relativistic effects are the time dilation, gravitational
frequency shift, and eccentricity effects. Examples include the
relativistic time slowing due to the speed of the satellite of
about 1 part in 1010, the gravitational time dilation that makes
a satellite run about 5 parts in 1010 faster than an Earth-based
clock, and the Sagnac effect due to rotation relative to
receivers on Earth."
I'm not an expert on the way GPS works, so I wouldn't presume to
comment on whether General Relativity correction is necessary for
its working. All I was commenting on was whether the source you
referenced supported your position, and as far as I could see, it
doesn't, or even try to.
--
Pete BARRETT
Well, I'm connecting the dots, Pete. The source I'm referencing
provides clear proof that General Relativity is NOT necessary for
GPS
to work. Indeed, it provides clear proof that if General Relativity
were applied to GPS, GPS would not work, at all. This, despite the
clear contention of the "experts", as cited in the wikipedia
article,
that GPS cannot work without relativity corrections. In other
words,
these views are in total contradiction. Are you so unwilling to
question experts, Pete?
You are conflating two different things. GPS will work without
relativity corrections. It's accuracy will drift however eventually
leading to large errors. The relativity error corrections ARE applied
which keeps it more accurate. Jerry, you are always too quick to deny
anything science-related. Perhaps that's why you like the fantasy of
what-ifs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cfd9/892e8f8e5683ddc15d1ffcbb7272a543d3e3.pdf
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by jerry kraus
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228912418_Mixed-mode_GPS_network_processing_for_deformation_monitoring_applications_in_the_equatorial_region
http://www.trimble.com/gps_tutorial/howgps-error.aspx
http://www.cmmacs.ernet.in/cmmacs/pdf/gpserrors.pdf
Dean, we see above a number of analyses of error in GPS, and how they are
corrected. Relativity is not mentioned, but a wide variety of empirical
correction techniques are. You see, relativity is patently false, or,
it
would have to be used in correcting errors in GPS. Relativity is not
used, at all, ever. Because relativity doesn't work. Relativity should
apply to GPS, but, you see, it doesn't. At all. Relativity is
simply a
science fiction fantasy, as Einstein was well aware. Why do you think
Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for the Photoelectric Effect,
while Relativity was ignored, although that was Einstein's best known
concept,
by far? The Nobel Committee realized, as Einstein did, that relativity
was untestable. The Nobel Committee can be very shrewd, you know.
Einstein published his paper on General Relativity in 1915 (I think -
during WWI, anyway), and was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1922. The Nobel
committee like to leave about 10 years between the publication and the
award, to give time for the theory to be disproved. Therefore, the award
didn't mention General Relativity, but did mention his three publications
of 1905, on Brownian Motion, the Photoelectric Effect, and Special
Relativity. Special Relativity was still controversial at the time, but
the other two weren't, so it was awarded with a mention of one of them
(why the committee didn't mention the paper on Brownian Motion, I don't
know).
--
Pete BARRETT
The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921 was awarded to Albert Einstein "for his
services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the
law of the photoelectric effect".
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/
Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1921 for "his discovery of the law
of the photoelectric effect",[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect
Oh, come off it Pete! The Nobel Committee was obviously trying to
acknowledge Einstein as a "genius" while steering clear of his best known
work! Because everyone knew Relativity was merely very, very good
science fiction. It intrigued the public, attracted attention to
science, so, scientists supported it. It's total invalidity was
irrelevant to them, they're politicians and bureaucrats, at heart.
The theory of relativity "sells", so the scientific community simply
cannot admit that it's completely inaccurate, that would undermine their
credibility. However, in real practical applications like GPS the actual
technical manuals have to ignore it, because it doesn't work, at all.
That's the actual situation, quite obviously. So, we have general
encyclopedia-type overviews like Wikipedia saying that Relativity is
regularly applied to GPS, when it isn't, in practice.
Healthy scepticism is one thing, but unhealthy scepticism is quite another.
That a product of engineering like the GPS system uses empirical
corrections is not particularly surprising - it would probably do so even if
Relativity was false, because it involves a three-body problem, which is
known not to be solvable analytically, and empirical corrections are easier
than continually solving the problem approximately.
If you really want us to believe that General Relativity 'doesn't work, at
all', and is 'merely very, very good science fiction', then you're going to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
Good luck with that.
--
Pete BARRETT
Splendid, Pete, lots of nice, remote astrophysical proofs of relativity. All almost as unambiguous as the many and varied astrophysical proofs of the Ptolemaic Universe!!!
Which is why physicists all claim the relativity must be used to correct GPS, although it never is. GPS is the only truly "practical" application of relativity, that there really is. Unfortunately, it's a practical application that doesn't, and can't exist! Which, by this stage, even you seem willing to acknowledge, Pete. As I've indicated repeatedly Pete, no one lies as brilliantly, and as systematically as a scientist. They are, without question, the masters of disinformation, bar none, on the planet!
Just because you can't understand it, doesn't mean its not true.
They're all perfectly easy to understand Dean. They're all, also, totally ambiguous. Open to varied interpretations, as virtually all of our cosmological observations are. Of course, ambiguity, obscurity and disinformation are splendid control strategies, as any politician or lawyer will tell you. Scientists of course, only tell that to their own graduate students!

Now, if you want to really test relativity, develop a nice, controlled nuclear fusion reactor, and use it to power a nice space-ship to, say, half the speed of light. At which point, evaluate relativistic effects on real world objects, at speeds approaching light speed. Don't use subatomic particles in accelerators, we really don't understand those very well, anyway.

And, as I've said, there's no such thing as a really unambiguous cosmological observation, looking deep into outer space is instant ambiguity. Whether scientists choose to publicly acknowledge that readily demonstrable fact, or not.
Bradipus
2017-06-06 18:35:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
*we* really don't understand those very well, anyway.
And *we* see that.
:-)
--
Bradipus
jerry kraus
2017-06-06 19:07:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bradipus
*we* really don't understand those very well, anyway.
And *we* see that.
:-)
--
Bradipus
You're not actually implying that someone does understand subatomic particles very well, are you, Bradipus?
Dean
2017-06-06 19:57:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Bradipus
*we* really don't understand those very well, anyway.
And *we* see that.
:-)
--
Bradipus
You're not actually implying that someone does understand subatomic particles very well, are you, Bradipus?
Whooosh! LOL!
jerry kraus
2017-06-06 20:00:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Bradipus
*we* really don't understand those very well, anyway.
And *we* see that.
:-)
--
Bradipus
You're not actually implying that someone does understand subatomic particles very well, are you, Bradipus?
Whooosh! LOL!
Dean, are you so very desperate for emotional support? I realize that the scientific community is an utterly corrupt mess, but, I didn't realize the extent of the emotional instability!
Dean
2017-06-07 11:54:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Bradipus
*we* really don't understand those very well, anyway.
And *we* see that.
:-)
--
Bradipus
You're not actually implying that someone does understand subatomic particles very well, are you, Bradipus?
Whooosh! LOL!
Dean, are you so very desperate for emotional support? I realize that the scientific community is an utterly corrupt mess, but, I didn't realize the extent of the emotional instability!
Jerry, we all know you're trolling. But it was funny to see something go right over your head.
jerry kraus
2017-06-07 13:16:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Bradipus
*we* really don't understand those very well, anyway.
And *we* see that.
:-)
--
Bradipus
You're not actually implying that someone does understand subatomic particles very well, are you, Bradipus?
Whooosh! LOL!
Dean, are you so very desperate for emotional support? I realize that the scientific community is an utterly corrupt mess, but, I didn't realize the extent of the emotional instability!
Jerry, we all know you're trolling. But it was funny to see something go right over your head.
Well, Dean, I think Bradipus was suggesting that I don't understand the subject very well, however, I obviously disagree. I think physicists don't understand their own subject very well, and I'm NOT trolling. I'm simply telling the truth.
Dean
2017-06-07 18:24:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Bradipus
*we* really don't understand those very well, anyway.
And *we* see that.
:-)
--
Bradipus
You're not actually implying that someone does understand subatomic particles very well, are you, Bradipus?
Whooosh! LOL!
Dean, are you so very desperate for emotional support? I realize that the scientific community is an utterly corrupt mess, but, I didn't realize the extent of the emotional instability!
Jerry, we all know you're trolling. But it was funny to see something go right over your head.
Well, Dean, I think Bradipus was suggesting that I don't understand the subject very well, however, I obviously disagree. I think physicists don't understand their own subject very well, and I'm NOT trolling. I'm simply telling the truth.
So now you're saying you understand subatomic particles better than the phyicists who work with them? Sorry Jerry, you need to stick to fictional what-ifs.
jerry kraus
2017-06-07 18:28:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Bradipus
*we* really don't understand those very well, anyway.
And *we* see that.
:-)
--
Bradipus
You're not actually implying that someone does understand subatomic particles very well, are you, Bradipus?
Whooosh! LOL!
Dean, are you so very desperate for emotional support? I realize that the scientific community is an utterly corrupt mess, but, I didn't realize the extent of the emotional instability!
Jerry, we all know you're trolling. But it was funny to see something go right over your head.
Well, Dean, I think Bradipus was suggesting that I don't understand the subject very well, however, I obviously disagree. I think physicists don't understand their own subject very well, and I'm NOT trolling. I'm simply telling the truth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Dean
So now you're saying you understand subatomic particles better than the phyicists who work with them? Sorry Jerry, you need to stick to fictional what-ifs.
Well, I suppose there are degrees of ignorance in everything, Dean, but, the ignorance of physicists regarding subatomic particles does seem to be absolute. This, despite the tens of billions of dollars spent on particle accelerators.
Dean
2017-06-07 19:57:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Bradipus
*we* really don't understand those very well, anyway.
And *we* see that.
:-)
--
Bradipus
You're not actually implying that someone does understand subatomic particles very well, are you, Bradipus?
Whooosh! LOL!
Dean, are you so very desperate for emotional support? I realize that the scientific community is an utterly corrupt mess, but, I didn't realize the extent of the emotional instability!
Jerry, we all know you're trolling. But it was funny to see something go right over your head.
Well, Dean, I think Bradipus was suggesting that I don't understand the subject very well, however, I obviously disagree. I think physicists don't understand their own subject very well, and I'm NOT trolling. I'm simply telling the truth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Dean
So now you're saying you understand subatomic particles better than the phyicists who work with them? Sorry Jerry, you need to stick to fictional what-ifs.
Well, I suppose there are degrees of ignorance in everything, Dean, but, the ignorance of physicists regarding subatomic particles does seem to be absolute. This, despite the tens of billions of dollars spent on particle accelerators.
Here you go:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tinfoil-Hat-/292079690697?hash=item44014e63c9:g:1PAAAOSwSypY9p62
jerry kraus
2017-06-08 13:07:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Bradipus
*we* really don't understand those very well, anyway.
And *we* see that.
:-)
--
Bradipus
You're not actually implying that someone does understand subatomic particles very well, are you, Bradipus?
Whooosh! LOL!
Dean, are you so very desperate for emotional support? I realize that the scientific community is an utterly corrupt mess, but, I didn't realize the extent of the emotional instability!
Jerry, we all know you're trolling. But it was funny to see something go right over your head.
Well, Dean, I think Bradipus was suggesting that I don't understand the subject very well, however, I obviously disagree. I think physicists don't understand their own subject very well, and I'm NOT trolling. I'm simply telling the truth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Dean
So now you're saying you understand subatomic particles better than the phyicists who work with them? Sorry Jerry, you need to stick to fictional what-ifs.
Well, I suppose there are degrees of ignorance in everything, Dean, but, the ignorance of physicists regarding subatomic particles does seem to be absolute. This, despite the tens of billions of dollars spent on particle accelerators.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tinfoil-Hat-/292079690697?hash=item44014e63c9:g:1PAAAOSwSypY9p62
So, what you're saying Dean, is that the Tin Foil Hat accessory is absolutely essential, before I can make any claim to being a "real" physicist?
Dean
2017-06-08 17:46:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Bradipus
*we* really don't understand those very well, anyway.
And *we* see that.
:-)
--
Bradipus
You're not actually implying that someone does understand subatomic particles very well, are you, Bradipus?
Whooosh! LOL!
Dean, are you so very desperate for emotional support? I realize that the scientific community is an utterly corrupt mess, but, I didn't realize the extent of the emotional instability!
Jerry, we all know you're trolling. But it was funny to see something go right over your head.
Well, Dean, I think Bradipus was suggesting that I don't understand the subject very well, however, I obviously disagree. I think physicists don't understand their own subject very well, and I'm NOT trolling. I'm simply telling the truth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Dean
So now you're saying you understand subatomic particles better than the phyicists who work with them? Sorry Jerry, you need to stick to fictional what-ifs.
Well, I suppose there are degrees of ignorance in everything, Dean, but, the ignorance of physicists regarding subatomic particles does seem to be absolute. This, despite the tens of billions of dollars spent on particle accelerators.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tinfoil-Hat-/292079690697?hash=item44014e63c9:g:1PAAAOSwSypY9p62
So, what you're saying Dean, is that the Tin Foil Hat accessory is absolutely essential, before I can make any claim to being a "real" physicist?
Are you claiming to be a "real" physicist?
jerry kraus
2017-06-08 18:00:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Bradipus
*we* really don't understand those very well, anyway.
And *we* see that.
:-)
--
Bradipus
You're not actually implying that someone does understand subatomic particles very well, are you, Bradipus?
Whooosh! LOL!
Dean, are you so very desperate for emotional support? I realize that the scientific community is an utterly corrupt mess, but, I didn't realize the extent of the emotional instability!
Jerry, we all know you're trolling. But it was funny to see something go right over your head.
Well, Dean, I think Bradipus was suggesting that I don't understand the subject very well, however, I obviously disagree. I think physicists don't understand their own subject very well, and I'm NOT trolling. I'm simply telling the truth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Dean
So now you're saying you understand subatomic particles better than the phyicists who work with them? Sorry Jerry, you need to stick to fictional what-ifs.
Well, I suppose there are degrees of ignorance in everything, Dean, but, the ignorance of physicists regarding subatomic particles does seem to be absolute. This, despite the tens of billions of dollars spent on particle accelerators.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tinfoil-Hat-/292079690697?hash=item44014e63c9:g:1PAAAOSwSypY9p62
So, what you're saying Dean, is that the Tin Foil Hat accessory is absolutely essential, before I can make any claim to being a "real" physicist?
Are you claiming to be a "real" physicist?
Well, I don't have the tin foil hat, so, I guess you'd argue I wasn't.
The Old Man
2017-06-08 19:05:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Bradipus
*we* really don't understand those very well, anyway.
And *we* see that.
:-)
--
Bradipus
You're not actually implying that someone does understand subatomic particles very well, are you, Bradipus?
Whooosh! LOL!
Dean, are you so very desperate for emotional support? I realize that the scientific community is an utterly corrupt mess, but, I didn't realize the extent of the emotional instability!
Jerry, we all know you're trolling. But it was funny to see something go right over your head.
Well, Dean, I think Bradipus was suggesting that I don't understand the subject very well, however, I obviously disagree. I think physicists don't understand their own subject very well, and I'm NOT trolling. I'm simply telling the truth.
So now you're saying you understand subatomic particles better than the phyicists who work with them? Sorry Jerry, you need to stick to fictional what-ifs.
I THOUGHT that was a fictional what-if!!!

Regards,
John Braungart
Who hasn't had as much fun since Gywer left us!

jerry kraus
2017-06-07 14:28:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Bradipus
*we* really don't understand those very well, anyway.
And *we* see that.
:-)
--
Bradipus
You're not actually implying that someone does understand subatomic particles very well, are you, Bradipus?
Whooosh! LOL!
Dean, are you so very desperate for emotional support? I realize that the scientific community is an utterly corrupt mess, but, I didn't realize the extent of the emotional instability!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Dean
Jerry, we all know you're trolling. But it was funny to see something go right over your head.
As I've indicated Dean, disinformation is the only thing scientists really know how to do. Right, Dean?
Dean
2017-06-07 18:25:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Bradipus
*we* really don't understand those very well, anyway.
And *we* see that.
:-)
--
Bradipus
You're not actually implying that someone does understand subatomic particles very well, are you, Bradipus?
Whooosh! LOL!
Dean, are you so very desperate for emotional support? I realize that the scientific community is an utterly corrupt mess, but, I didn't realize the extent of the emotional instability!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Dean
Jerry, we all know you're trolling. But it was funny to see something go right over your head.
As I've indicated Dean, disinformation is the only thing scientists really know how to do. Right, Dean?
Dammit, you've caught on.
jerry kraus
2017-06-07 18:29:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Bradipus
*we* really don't understand those very well, anyway.
And *we* see that.
:-)
--
Bradipus
You're not actually implying that someone does understand subatomic particles very well, are you, Bradipus?
Whooosh! LOL!
Dean, are you so very desperate for emotional support? I realize that the scientific community is an utterly corrupt mess, but, I didn't realize the extent of the emotional instability!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Dean
Jerry, we all know you're trolling. But it was funny to see something go right over your head.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Dean
Post by jerry kraus
As I've indicated Dean, disinformation is the only thing scientists really know how to do. Right, Dean?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Dean
Dammit, you've caught on.
Well, I've been saying that, all along. I just keep getting additional evidence confirming this particular point!
Dean
2017-06-06 19:56:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bradipus
*we* really don't understand those very well, anyway.
And *we* see that.
:-)
--
Bradipus
+1
jerry kraus
2017-06-06 20:23:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bradipus
*we* really don't understand those very well, anyway.
And *we* see that.
:-)
Well, let's be more specific then, Bradipus. If there's any field in the entire world that EVERYONE knows is UTTERLY MEANINGLESS, it's the field of subatomic physics! Even the physicists know they're lost in that one, with their GOD particles, etc.
Post by Bradipus
--
Bradipus
jerry kraus
2017-06-02 14:19:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Post by jerry kraus
Yes, Pete, that IS how the author is choosing to present it. He's saying
that Relativity is "unnecessary" to "correct" the empirically determined
values for GPS. Of course if we did choose to apply relativity directly
to these values, they would be highly inaccurate.
Now, why do physicists insist that GPS is a "proof of relativity"? Why
do they insist that GPS couldn't possibly function without the Theory of
Relativity being used to correct it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System
Post by jerry kraus
"A number of sources of error exist due to relativistic effects[14] that
would render the system useless if uncorrected. Three relativistic effects
are the time dilation, gravitational frequency shift, and eccentricity
effects. Examples include the relativistic time slowing due to the speed
of the satellite of about 1 part in 1010, the gravitational time dilation
that makes a satellite run about 5 parts in 1010 faster than an
Earth-based clock, and the Sagnac effect due to rotation relative to
receivers on Earth."
I'm not an expert on the way GPS works, so I wouldn't presume to comment on
whether General Relativity correction is necessary for its working. All I
was commenting on was whether the source you referenced supported your
position, and as far as I could see, it doesn't, or even try to.
--
Pete BARRETT
To put it another way, Pete, the relativity theorists are flipping a coin, and saying "heads, I win, tails, you lose". If they present GPS as a test of relativity, and relativity is empirically determined not to apply, then, they say relativity is irrelevant. Which doesn't stop them from saying relativity applies, in any case! It's just double talk, quite consistently.
jerry kraus
2017-05-25 18:12:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 2:53:16 AM UTC-6, JennyB wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by JennyB
I don't see how it could have been adopted. We only know of it because Archimedes wanted the largest model of the Universe he could find to calculate the number of grains of sand it might contain. For all practical purposes, such as calculating where the planets would be at a particular time, he used the Ptolemaic model, which gave the most accurate results until Kep large modelled planetary orbits as ellipses.
Jenny, I think the very reason that it was very unlikely that the Greeks would adopt the Heliocentric model, is precisely why it would be so very significant and interesting if they HAD adopted the Heliocentric model. The Greeks were reductionistic, analytical and mechanistic in their approach to existence itself. Everything had to be understood, and have a functional purpose. It's so much simpler to simply assume the Earth is unique, and that everything else exists in a simple mechanical relationship to the earth specifically, and uniquely.

Now, we can see from the Eastern Buddhist conception of the Universe that prevailed in India and China in ancient times, that the notion of an infinite universe and an infinite number of worlds, is not a new one. And, it seems a perfectly reasonable inference from the myriad stars in the Heavens.

So, it was really the reductionistic approach of Greek science that inclined them to reject this obvious complexity, in favor of a simpler, more easily definable model.

However, if, for whatever reason, the Greeks had felt compelled to accept Aristarchus's hypothesis, we have the potential for an enormous advancement in science, 2,000 years ahead of schedule. Universal gravitation, systematic experimentation, the Calculus etc. All, 2,000 years ahead of schedule. Could the failure to adopt the Heliocentric hypothesis when it was first proposed, in favor of the oversimplifications of the geocentric view of Ptolemy and Aristotle, have been directly responsible for the collapse of Greco-Roman society and the Dark Age of Western Civilization itself?
jerry kraus
2017-05-25 13:13:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rob
Post by jerry kraus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos
The Heliocentric Theory of the Universe was actually proposed almost 2,000 years before Copernicus, by Aristarchus of Samos, whose astronomical conceptions, were, actually, remarkably modern in nature. Lets suppose this becomes the accepted doctrine in Greco-Roman times, instead of the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic Terracentric model of the Universe . How does this change history?
Bear in mind, implicit in this conception is the notion that the stars are other suns, like our own, center of their own solar systems. So, this concept becomes the accepted model used by scholars and clerics, 2,000 years earlier than OTL, for Western Civilization.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Rob
I would say establishment of this theoretical model does not predetermine or overdetermine any particular technological change.
Not directly, no, Rob. However, I think, given the highly analytical, mechanistic orientation of Greco-Roman thought, in general, it would tend to lead to some very serious thinking about the structure and mechanisms underlying such a model. In the East, Buddhist philosophy essentially accepted an infinite universe with infinite worlds and stars, quite complacently. But, Greco-Roman philosophy was NOT complacent. It sought maximum control, at all times. While a single earth-centered Ptolemaic solar system allowed for a comparatively straightforward -- although still fairly complex, mechanically -- system of spheres, cycles and epicycles to explain the operation of the Heavens, such would not be the case with a Heliocentric model, and an unlimited number of other solar systems. Wouldn't the Greek philosophers and mathematicians have been obsessing over the actual mechanisms underlying the operation of such a system? Wouldn't they have had to have found some, much earlier conception of universal gravitation to explain it? And, if universal gravitation is conceived of 2,000 years early ATL, how, exactly, does that affect the subsequent development of science and technology?
Post by Rob
In a cultural or literary sense, it would probably causes instances of speculation about life on worlds around other suns/stars centuries earlier than it occurred in OTL. However, speculation about life on near planets and the moon that actually can be seen by the naked eye would still be more common than interstellar life. It wouldn't be incredibly detailed it would be more "here be dragons" kind of stuff.
SolomonW
2017-05-25 09:34:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Bear in mind, implicit in this conception is the notion that the stars are other suns, like our own, center of their own solar systems. So, this concept becomes the accepted model used by scholars and clerics, 2,000 years earlier than OTL, for Western Civilization.
Acceptance of the Heliocentric Theory does not require one considers the
stars to be suns.
Loading...