Why GPS Atomic Clocks Run More Slowly Before Launch
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: do you need two names for getting this n.g from two servers ??!!
Next: ****Re: Experts doubt Einstein..... but Einstein Dingleberries still worship him
From: Peter Webb on 21 Jun 2010 02:36 > > Well, the time it was sent is given by the GPS satellite along with > the position of that same satellite. Yes, the time and the position > of the receiver is unknown in which the receiver must compute to get > all these four unknowns. However, by acquiring four satellites' time > and position, the receive can form a set of four equations with these > said four unknowns to calculate for these four unknowns. In doing so, > the receiver finally determines its position. <shrug> > Do you agree that the people who designed the GPS factored in Relativistic effects in the mathematics they use, as is claimed?
From: ScienceWins on 21 Jun 2010 11:31 mpc755 <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jun 19, 8:54=A0pm, Ghod Dhammit <g...(a)att.net> wrote: >> On 6/19/2010 2:19 PM, Mitchell Jones wrote: >>> Therefore we can now say that the theory of >>> relativity has been refuted by experiment ROFL!* >> Sure, sure..... It's amusing. Idiots on the Internet like to pretend they're smarter than Einstein by "refuting" him because they don't understand what the hell they're yarking about. --- Does belief in astrology cause insanity? http://www.skeptictank.org/edm.htm It was the spirit of science that sent spacecraft to the moon. It was the spirit of religion that sent aircraft into buildings. - HC1
From: Mitchell Jones on 22 Jun 2010 00:56 In article <hvlh39$3mv$1(a)adenine.netfront.net>, "hanson" <hanson(a)quick.net> wrote: > "Mitchell Jones" <mjones(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote: > I do not post here in hopes of projecting an image to > others, but rather > (a) because I see [to me] substantive discussions as an > efficient vehicle for growing my understanding of the world, and > (b) because I see understanding as the one thing that we can > take with us, as we each move through our own endless cycles > of death and rebirth. > We can take new understandings with us into our next life > because as our understanding grows, we grow. Understandings > are part of the essence of who we are, and, as such, are part > of the recipe that must be fulfilled to bring us back into the world. > --Mitchell Jones > > > hanson wrote: > Mitch, with your part (a) I can go along since this particular > medium/forum here provides so many different viewpoints > & reasons about any given subject that is under discussion. > > > In your part (b) though you come across as a proselytizer > who just converted from Judaism to Hinduism ***{Jewish blood, of which I have my share, does not imply adherence to Judaism, whether of the orthodox, reform, or nut case variety. As for Hinduism, it is like all organized religions: a few gems of truth immersed in an ocean of sewage. Me, I'm a truth seeker--which means: I am willing to listen to the arguments of those with whom I disagree, and, more importantly, I am willing to be convinced by a proof. --MJ}*** > , or if not that, > then you must be in your final twitches, and be absolutely > terrified about the reality setting in that you are about to fold > your tent, close your umbrella and kick the bucket.... ***{As far as I am aware, my health is excellent--good enough, in fact, that I worked out at a dojo three times a week for years, until I took a hiatus starting last month to do some projects on my ranch. If all goes well, I plan to resume my workouts in the fall. Concerning your speculations about why, after believing for most of my life that consciousness ends forever when we die, I now believe otherwise, the answer is simple: I stumbled upon a proof that I was wrong, and was convinced by that proof. What proof? Well, one fine day about 18 years ago I found myself thinking about how consciousness began, rather than about how it ends, and I found myself wondering why, before I came into the world, vast numbers of creatures started their lives and, when they opened their eyes, I did not see. What was it, I asked myself, about the specific human child born of my mother, all those many years ago, which ensured that, when he opened his eyes for the first time, I saw the world through those eyes? Why did the blackness of nonexistence, the total absence of all sensation, end for me when he opened his eyes, yet did not end for me when any of the multitudes of other new creatures opened their eyes? As soon as I asked the question, the answer fell upon me like a thunderbolt: I saw when he opened his eyes, because he had the characteristics necessary to be me. And the reason I didn't see when all those myriad other creatures opened their eyes, is that each of them fell short, in various ways, of having the characteristics necessary to be me. The implication: there is a recipe for me, just as their is a recipe for every other thing that can exist; and when the ingredients required by that recipe are assembled together in the proper way, I come into the world. One of the requirements of the recipe, obviously, is that I not be in the world already--which means: I must be dead. Particular atoms, however, are not required: the atoms in my body have turned over several times already in the course of my life, due to metabolic activity, yet I remain who I am. Specific body parts, for the most part, are also not required: people lose fingers, or hands, or arms, etc., every day, and yet, so long as the lost tissue does not involve certain crucial areas of the brain, they remain who they are. Nor are particular memories required: I came into the world tabula rasa--i.e., without memories--and am remembering new things and forgetting old things every day, yet I remain who I am. So what is required? What are the characteristics which a newly formed creature must be given, in whatever DNA controlled developmental process he is subject to, on whatever far-flung planet or in whatever starship he may appear, in order that he have the characteristics necessary to bring me back into the world again after my death? Well, that's a difficult question, but I've thought about it quite a lot in the last 18 years, and in general terms my conclusions are as follows: (1) I would have to be dead. (You can't be in two places at once. :-) (2) The brain of the new creature would have to be capable of supporting faculties of consciousness, imagination, memory, understanding, judgment, choice, and will, all functioning at a high enough level to support the use of language and, thus, of reason. (3) While the storage area known as memory may be blank, the storage area that holds understandings must exactly match, in terms of its content, the understandings I had at the time of my death. (4) The body of the new creature must be capable of supporting that type of brain, delivering sensory inputs to it, and responding in accordance with its acts of will. If those conditions are met, then when that new creature opens his eyes, perhaps billions of years after my death in a galaxy far away, I will see, and live, again. To sum up: (a) we know that the material universe has the capacity to bring us into the world, because we are here right now, and we were not here before; (b) we know that there must be a recipe for each of us, because of the reasons explained above; and so (c) when our recipes are fulfilled again, in some unspeakable remove of space and time after our deaths, we will be born, and live, again. How could it be otherwise? What power could take from the material universe an ability that it has exercised already? How could it be that the causal process that brought us into the world this time could be held in abeyance FOR ETERNITY, prevented FOREVER from acting again? Enquiring minds want to know. :-) --Mitchell Jones}*** > Your way out seems to be by adopting the ancient Hindu > hope of reincarnation. Well, no body ever came back ***{Until you can explain what can take from the material universe a power we know it had in the past--to wit: the power to bring each of us from a state of nonexistence into a state of existence--that statement will rest on religious faith, nothing more, and nothing less. --MJ}*** > , just > like no younger Einstein twin was ever seen... > > > Therefore consider alternativesand be macho (like Marlon > Brando...) and say: > "It�s a long lonely journey... but now I know why it is called the > magnificent horror with its moral terror & endless darkness. > Horror has a face and you must make friends with horror. > Horror and moral terror are your friends, for if they are not, > then they are enemies to be feared. They are truly enemies > who bury your monotone & monochromatic religious happiness. > > So, what happened to you, Mitch? ***{I stumbled on a proof, and was convinced by that proof. --MJ}*** > hanson > > > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net --- ***************************************************************** If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility that you are in my killfile. --MJ
From: Mitchell Jones on 22 Jun 2010 22:12
In article <hvr2c3$1nl1$1(a)adenine.netfront.net>, "hanson" <hanson(a)quick.net> wrote: > Mitch Jones wrote: > > ***{Hanson, that "complete version" which you snipped out, > > is the key to the whole idea. > > > hanson wrote: > I didn't snip anything. Look at the refs [1] & [2] below. > It'll just take one click. But I know that each word of yours > is precious to yourself... to see it upclose and upfront. > To me however what I did distill out of your litany were > the operative portions with which you did reach me. > > > Now, in your latest response which I left untouched, > below, you said: > >> > hanson wrote: > >> Your Weltbild is gentle and therefore I will not disturb you > >> with mine that yields a very different outcome than yours... > > > Mitch wrote: > > I will not be disturbed by your arguments, and I encourage > > you to state them. > > > hanson wrote: > ... That is not necessary because you seem to be happy > with what you got. Why argue over it?... > > > Mitch wrote: > > I am first and foremost a truth seeker. > > feel free to poke holes in my present belief, if you can. > > > > hanson wrote: > No. Why should I, Mitch? ***{Because opinions need to be tested. There are at least two reasons for doing so: (1) Most people can't trust themselves, where criticizing their own long-held beliefs is concerned. (2) Those few who can be trusted will almost never be smart enough to think of all the things that committed opponents, intent on defending cherished beliefs, will think of. Bottom line: if you are a truth seeker, you will function more efficiently if you test your opinions than if you do not. It is, of course, your call. By the way, have you ever paused to reflect on what the world would be like if people regarded argumentation as a fun sport, like ping-pong, billiards, or chess, rather than as a terrifying, hideous torture? My answer: all the ills of mankind would be cured in short order. --Mitchell Jones}*** > ... When we meet at the trainstation > where the intergalactic freight train picks us up... for destiny > unknown and classified, we'll have all the time we need to > pontificate to each other... Till then thanks for the laughs, Mitch > and I hope that till then you'll find others to argue with you. > ahahahaha... ahahahahanson > > > --------- Mitch, here's your entire post, untouched ----- [snip] ***************************************************************** If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility that you are in my killfile. --MJ |