Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #370504 > unrolled thread

Re: Where is the center of the universe?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Where is the center of the universe? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 17:45 -0600
    Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-20 23:48 -0800
      Re: Where is the center of the universe? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 10:27 +0100
        Re: Where is the center of the universe? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 05:13 -0500
          Re: Where is the center of the universe? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 12:57 +0100
            Re: Where is the center of the universe? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 13:44 -0500
              Re: Where is the center of the universe? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 20:01 +0100
                Re: Where is the center of the universe? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 14:17 -0500
              Re: Where is the center of the universe? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 20:01 +0100
                Re: Where is the center of the universe? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 14:22 -0500
                  Re: Where is the center of the universe? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-21 12:08 -0800
          Re: Where is the center of the universe? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-21 10:56 -0800
      Re: Where is the center of the universe? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 08:05 -0600
        Re: Where is the center of the universe? Jack Monaco <jacksh@umbertopal.org> - 2015-11-21 14:18 +0000
        Re: Where is the center of the universe? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 13:48 -0500
          Re: Where is the center of the universe? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-23 10:21 -0600
            Re: Where is the center of the universe? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-23 17:34 +0100
            Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-23 11:31 -0800
              Re: Where is the center of the universe? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 15:54 -0500
                Re: Where is the center of the universe? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-11-23 13:04 -0800
                Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-23 13:43 -0800
                  Re: Where is the center of the universe? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 16:49 -0500
                    Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-23 16:17 -0800
                Re: Where is the center of the universe? dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-24 16:52 -0500
                  Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 22:24 +0000
                    Re: Where is the center of the universe? underante <underante@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-24 15:24 -0800
                      Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 23:43 +0000
                    Re: Where is the center of the universe? dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-30 09:55 -0500
                      Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-02 12:50 +0100
    Re: Where is the center of the universe? dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-21 06:43 -0500
      Re: There's nothing special about the start of "the big bang". benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 13:45 -0500
        Re: There's nothing special about the start of "the big bang". Edward Stansfield <stansfield5REM6@linuxmail.org> - 2015-11-21 14:11 -0500
      Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-21 20:37 +0000
        Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-21 21:06 -0800
          Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-22 11:43 +0000
            Re: Where is the center of the universe? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 09:01 -0500
              Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-22 14:59 +0000
                Re: Where is the center of the universe? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-22 07:12 -0800
                  Re: Where is the center of the universe? Walter Ilinois <walin@wej98j5q.org> - 2015-11-22 16:00 +0000
                    Re: Where is the center of the universe? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-22 08:18 -0800
                      Re: Where is the center of the universe? Walter Ilinois <walin@wej98j5q.org> - 2015-11-22 17:50 +0000
                        Re: Where is the center of the universe? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 12:38 -0800
                          Re: Where is the center of the universe? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 14:12 -0800
                  Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-22 23:07 +0000
                    Re: Where is the center of the universe? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-22 16:22 -0800
                      Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-23 22:09 +0000
                        Re: Where is the center of the universe? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-23 15:15 -0800
                          Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 12:01 +0000
                            Re: Where is the center of the universe? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-24 04:52 -0800
                              Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 14:33 +0000
                                Re: Where is the center of the universe? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-24 07:05 -0800
                                  Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 15:23 +0000
                                    Re: Where is the center of the universe? Jack Monaco <jacksh@umbertopal.org> - 2015-11-24 16:30 +0000
            Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-22 14:02 -0800
              Re: Where is the center of the universe? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 16:32 -0600
              Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-22 22:52 +0000
      Re: Where is the center of the universe? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-23 10:51 -0600
        Re: Where is the center of the universe? dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-24 17:07 -0500
          Re: Where is the center of the universe? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 14:21 -0800
            Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 23:14 +0000
              Re: Where is the center of the universe? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 16:27 -0800
                Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-25 01:50 +0000
                  Re: Where is the center of the universe? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 18:18 -0800
                    Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-24 21:44 -0800
                      Re: Where is the center of the universe? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 07:53 -0800
                    Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-25 12:39 +0000
          Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 22:48 +0000
            Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-24 21:47 -0800
              Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-25 10:32 +0000
                Re: Where is the center of the universe? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-25 03:03 -0800
                Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-25 09:47 -0800
                  Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-25 23:31 +0000
                    Re: Where is the center of the universe? Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 19:28 -0600
                    Re: Where is the center of the universe? Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-11-25 21:37 -0700
                      Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-28 23:52 +0100
                        Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-01 21:52 -0800
                    Re: Where is the center of the universe? Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2015-11-26 00:36 -0500
                      Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-27 01:33 +0000
                    Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-25 21:36 -0800
                      Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-26 14:22 -0800
                        Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-26 14:27 -0800
                      Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-27 00:48 +0000
                        Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-26 17:34 -0800
                        Re: Where is the center of the universe? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-26 23:49 -0800
                          Re: Where is the center of the universe? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-27 04:39 -0800
                            Re: Where is the center of the universe? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-27 04:54 -0800
                              Re: Where is the center of the universe? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-27 05:11 -0800
                                Re: Where is the center of the universe? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-27 06:02 -0800
                          Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-28 16:08 +0100
                            Re: Where is the center of the universe? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-28 17:51 +0100
                              Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-29 00:20 +0100
                                Re: Where is the center of the universe? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-29 11:10 +0100
                                  Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-29 11:45 +0100
                                    Re: Where is the center of the universe? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-29 13:01 +0100
                                      Re: Where is the center of the universe? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-29 04:55 -0800
                                        Re: Where is the center of the universe? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-29 14:33 +0100
                                          Re: Where is the center of the universe? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-29 06:24 -0800
                                            Re: Where is the center of the universe? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-29 15:50 +0100
                                              Re: Where is the center of the universe? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-29 07:06 -0800
                                                Re: Where is the center of the universe? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-29 16:11 +0100
                                    Re: Where is the center of the universe? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-29 04:56 -0800
                                      Re: Where is the center of the universe? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-29 05:48 -0800
                                        Re: Where is the center of the universe? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-29 06:16 -0800
                                          Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-30 22:50 +0100
                                            Re: Where is the center of the universe? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 16:27 -0800
                                              Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-01 07:51 +0100
                                                Re: Where is the center of the universe? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 23:09 -0800
                                                  Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-01 08:31 +0100
                                            Re: Where is the center of the universe? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-12-01 00:15 -0800
          Re: Where is the center of the universe? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-25 09:59 -0600
            Re: Where is the center of the universe? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 11:16 -0500
              Re: Where is the center of the universe? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-25 11:02 -0600
                Re: Where is the center of the universe? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-11-25 09:07 -0800
                Re: Where is the center of the universe? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-11-25 09:16 -0800
                Re: Where is the center of the universe? Jack Monaco <jacksh@umbBertopal.org> - 2015-11-25 17:37 +0000
                Re: Where is the center of the universe? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-25 18:47 +0100
                  Re: Where is the center of the universe? Jack Monaco <jacksh@umbBertopal.org> - 2015-11-25 18:11 +0000
                Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-25 10:06 -0800
                  Re: Where is the center of the universe? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 14:04 -0600
                    Re: Where is the center of the universe? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-25 23:09 -0800
            Re: Where is the center of the universe? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-25 17:50 +0100
            Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-25 10:01 -0800
              Re: Where is the center of the universe? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 14:05 -0600
                Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-25 12:42 -0800

Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7  Next page →

#371075

On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 2:45:09 AM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> Because it describes reality so well.  For example, moving clocks, such as 
> on a satellite in orbit, *are* observed to tick slower, and clocks on a 
> higher gravitational potential (lower spacetime curvature), such as in 
> orbit, *are* observed to tick faster.  And those effects do not cancel each 
> other out.  So one has to compensate for those facts.  Think of your hubris 
> now the next time you get lost in a foreign city and have only your car 
> navigation system/smartphone with GPS/GLONASS/GALILEO/BeiDou-2 support to 
> help you out.
> 

Why isn't time skew symmetrical?  
A body orbits, but the Earth spun around it, 
which is the master clock and why?

(This is just a matter of acceleration 
of the inertial rest frame, then.)

Then for gravity, is that always the 
configuration of the clock or the cesium 
clock?  Is it just the accel./decel. of 
taking up and bringing back the clock?  
What if you take the reference clock up 
instead of bringing the sample clock back?

Are any of the ground referenced satellites 
truly dead-reckoning, or do they just point 
to landmarks and update their positions 
they encode over their signal?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#371079

On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 4:56:35 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 2:45:09 AM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > 
> > Because it describes reality so well.  For example, moving clocks, such as 
> > on a satellite in orbit, *are* observed to tick slower, and clocks on a 
> > higher gravitational potential (lower spacetime curvature), such as in 
> > orbit, *are* observed to tick faster.  And those effects do not cancel each 
> > other out.  So one has to compensate for those facts.  Think of your hubris 
> > now the next time you get lost in a foreign city and have only your car 
> > navigation system/smartphone with GPS/GLONASS/GALILEO/BeiDou-2 support to 
> > help you out.
> > 
> 
> Why isn't time skew symmetrical?  
> A body orbits, but the Earth spun around it, 
> which is the master clock and why?
> 
> (This is just a matter of acceleration 
> of the inertial rest frame, then.)
> 
> Then for gravity, is that always the 
> configuration of the clock or the cesium 
> clock?  Is it just the accel./decel. of 
> taking up and bringing back the clock?  
> What if you take the reference clock up 
> instead of bringing the sample clock back?
> 
> Are any of the ground referenced satellites 
> truly dead-reckoning, or do they just point 
> to landmarks and update their positions 
> they encode over their signal?

"Clock-driven transmitters send out synchronous 
time signals, tagged with the position and time 
of the transmission event, so that a receiver near 
the earth can determine its position and time by 
decoding navigation messages from four satellites 
to find the transmission event coordinates, and 
then solving four simultaneous one-way signal 
propagation equations." 

"Thus the Sagnac [...] the problem of path-dependent 
inconsistencies."

"Conversely, the elapsed coordinate time can be 
computed by integrating corrections to the proper time. "
 http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html

GR might be never wrong, but, uh, non-Newtonian 
corrections are what are applied to geo-referenced 
satellites, because the path integral isn't solved 
and solar neighbor effects are significant enough 
that GR doesn't solve their n-body system yet.

Quantum mechanics is never wrong....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#371080

On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 5:49:01 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 4:56:35 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 2:45:09 AM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > 
> > > Because it describes reality so well.  For example, moving clocks, such as 
> > > on a satellite in orbit, *are* observed to tick slower, and clocks on a 
> > > higher gravitational potential (lower spacetime curvature), such as in 
> > > orbit, *are* observed to tick faster.  And those effects do not cancel each 
> > > other out.  So one has to compensate for those facts.  Think of your hubris 
> > > now the next time you get lost in a foreign city and have only your car 
> > > navigation system/smartphone with GPS/GLONASS/GALILEO/BeiDou-2 support to 
> > > help you out.
> > > 
> > 
> > Why isn't time skew symmetrical?  
> > A body orbits, but the Earth spun around it, 
> > which is the master clock and why?
> > 
> > (This is just a matter of acceleration 
> > of the inertial rest frame, then.)
> > 
> > Then for gravity, is that always the 
> > configuration of the clock or the cesium 
> > clock?  Is it just the accel./decel. of 
> > taking up and bringing back the clock?  
> > What if you take the reference clock up 
> > instead of bringing the sample clock back?
> > 
> > Are any of the ground referenced satellites 
> > truly dead-reckoning, or do they just point 
> > to landmarks and update their positions 
> > they encode over their signal?
> 
> "Clock-driven transmitters send out synchronous 
> time signals, tagged with the position and time 
> of the transmission event, so that a receiver near 
> the earth can determine its position and time by 
> decoding navigation messages from four satellites 
> to find the transmission event coordinates, and 
> then solving four simultaneous one-way signal 
> propagation equations." 
> 
> "Thus the Sagnac [...] the problem of path-dependent 
> inconsistencies."
> 
> "Conversely, the elapsed coordinate time can be 
> computed by integrating corrections to the proper time. "
>  http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
> 
> GR might be never wrong, but, uh, non-Newtonian 
> corrections are what are applied to geo-referenced 
> satellites, because the path integral isn't solved 
> and solar neighbor effects are significant enough 
> that GR doesn't solve their n-body system yet.
> 
> Quantum mechanics is never wrong....


"At present one cannot easily perform 
tests of relativity with the system because 
the SV clocks are actively steered to be 
within 1 microsecond of Universal 
Coordinated Time (USNO). "

So, thanks, GR, you're too complicated for 
GPS (with any further non-Newtonian 
adjustments or corrections).  Also, _there 
are still offsets_, more of the non-Newtonian, 
just like GR's difference improves the estimate 
of orbits but is yet not _exact_.

"Even without this impetus, the GPS provides 
a rich source of examples for the applications 
of the concepts of relativity. "

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#371188

Your “Ingrid”, as it is called in the German-speaking Usenet at least, is 
giving me opportunity to clarify your misconceptions in one posting.  Thank 
you for that.

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

> On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 5:49:01 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>> On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 4:56:35 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson
>> wrote:
>> > On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 2:45:09 AM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars'
>> > Lahn wrote:

It is called attribution *line*, _not_ attribution novel.
 
>> > > Because it describes reality so well.  For example, moving clocks,
>> > > such as on a satellite in orbit, *are* observed to tick slower, and
>> > > clocks on a higher gravitational potential (lower spacetime
>> > > curvature), such as in
>> > > orbit, *are* observed to tick faster.  And those effects do not
>> > > cancel each
>> > > other out.  So one has to compensate for those facts.  Think of your
>> > > hubris now the next time you get lost in a foreign city and have only
>> > > your car navigation system/smartphone with
>> > > GPS/GLONASS/GALILEO/BeiDou-2 support to help you out.
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > Why isn't time skew symmetrical?

The effect I was talking about is properly called time _dilation_, and it 
*is* symmetrical.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Due_to_relative_velocity_symmetric_between_observers>

>> > A body orbits, but the Earth spun around it,
>> > which is the master clock and why?

The observer is on the surface of Earth.  The clocks onboard the GNSS 
satellites tick *in total* faster relative to the observer’s clock (with 
GPS, about 38 µs per day, which are 37'970 ns too many).  So you could say 
that the observer’s clock or, more generally, the observer’s proper time,
is the "master clock/time".

Why?  We want to know the position of the observer on the surface of Earth, 
and for that we need to know the distance between them and at least 3 GNSS 
satellites (and one more for verification) for trilateration.  Lacking a 
tape measure that is up to 20'000 km long, the distance is measured 
by comparing the time the signal is sent from a satellite (which is the 
time encoded in the signal) to the time it is received, taking 
relativistic effects into account.  There are one observer and, with GPS, 
about 4 to 12 GPS satellites in direct sight to them at any one time.
 
>> > (This is just a matter of acceleration
>> > of the inertial rest frame, then.)

*Inertial* frames of reference are _not_ accelerated frames.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference>

>> > Then for gravity, is that always the
>> > configuration of the clock or the cesium
>> > clock?

Probably the answers to all your questions, all ill-worded so far, can be 
found in the resource cited on the bottom of my posting.

>> > Is it just the accel./decel. of
>> > taking up and bringing back the clock?
>> > What if you take the reference clock up
>> > instead of bringing the sample clock back?

No clocks are "brought back" with a GNSS.  How did you get that idea?

>> > Are any of the ground referenced satellites
>> > truly dead-reckoning, or do they just point
>> > to landmarks and update their positions
>> > they encode over their signal?

No.

<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>
 
>> "Clock-driven transmitters send out synchronous
>> time signals, tagged with the position and time
>> of the transmission event, so that a receiver near
>> the earth can determine its position and time by
>> decoding navigation messages from four satellites
>> to find the transmission event coordinates, and
>> then solving four simultaneous one-way signal
>> propagation equations."

AISB.

>> "Thus the Sagnac [...] the problem of path-dependent
                   ^effect…
>> inconsistencies."

Do you even realize that your snipping has turned the original well-worded 
text into gibberish?

>> "Conversely, the elapsed coordinate time can be
>> computed by integrating corrections to the proper time. "

Obviously.  (Do you even know what “coordinate time” and “proper time” are?)

>>  http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
>> 
>> GR might be never wrong,

There are strong indications, namely a century of confirmations, that it is 
not.  Or, as a popular professor of physics in Germany, Harald Lesch, likes 
to put it: “If relativity is wrong, it is damn well wrong.”

>> but, uh, non-Newtonian corrections are what are applied to geo-
>> referenced satellites,

So what?  It is obvious that Newton’s laws alone do not quite cut it.

>> because the path integral isn't solved
>> and solar neighbor effects are significant enough
>> that GR doesn't solve their n-body system yet.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

The n-body _problem_, and its only partial solution, has nothing to do with 
this.  And “solar neighbor effects”?  Gimme a break.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem>
 
>> Quantum mechanics is never wrong....

There are strong indications, namely more than half of a century of 
conformation, that it is not.  The functionality of the device that you are 
using to read this posting depends on the correctness of quantum 
electrodynamics (QED), and therefore on special relativity.  And that the 
system time on your device is kept in sync with atomic clocks over a 
computer network (via NTP) depends at least on the correctness of general 
relativity, because clocks on different elevations already tick differently 
(you do not have to go to orbit to see that).

When I say “correctness of X” I mean, of course, some theory X has been 
confirmed by experiments/observation and not falsified by such.

> "At present one cannot easily perform
> tests of relativity with the system because
> the SV clocks are actively steered to be
> within 1 microsecond of Universal
> Coordinated Time (USNO). "
> 
> So, thanks, GR, you're too complicated for
> GPS (with any further non-Newtonian
> adjustments or corrections).
> 
> Also, _there
> are still offsets_, more of the non-Newtonian,
> just like GR's difference improves the estimate
> of orbits but is yet not _exact_.

Utter nonsense.

> "Even without this impetus, the GPS provides
> a rich source of examples for the applications
> of the concepts of relativity. "

A slightly less out of date, less second-hand resource (note that you are 
citing a document by Prof. Jorge Pullin, last updated in 1997, which is 
quoting a text by now-Professor *Emeritus* Neil Ashby [of the University of 
Chicago] of unknown date and origin, but presumably not newer than 1995 when 
he ceased to be a member the International Committee on General Relativity 
and Gravitation):

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

(“Real-World Relativity: The GPS Navigation System” by Prof. Richard W. 
Pogge; last updated “2015 October 25”)


PointedEars
-- 
Q: What did the nuclear physicist post on the laboratory door
   when he went camping?  
A: 'Gone fission'.
(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#371197

On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 1:50:44 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Your "Ingrid", as it is called in the German-speaking Usenet at least, is 
> giving me opportunity to clarify your misconceptions in one posting.  Thank 
> you for that.
> 
> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> 
> > On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 5:49:01 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >> On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 4:56:35 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 2:45:09 AM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> >> > Lahn wrote:
> 
> It is called attribution *line*, _not_ attribution novel.
>  
> >> > > Because it describes reality so well.  For example, moving clocks,
> >> > > such as on a satellite in orbit, *are* observed to tick slower, and
> >> > > clocks on a higher gravitational potential (lower spacetime
> >> > > curvature), such as in
> >> > > orbit, *are* observed to tick faster.  And those effects do not
> >> > > cancel each
> >> > > other out.  So one has to compensate for those facts.  Think of your
> >> > > hubris now the next time you get lost in a foreign city and have only
> >> > > your car navigation system/smartphone with
> >> > > GPS/GLONASS/GALILEO/BeiDou-2 support to help you out.
> >> > > 
> >> > 
> >> > Why isn't time skew symmetrical?
> 
> The effect I was talking about is properly called time _dilation_, and it 
> *is* symmetrical.
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Due_to_relative_velocity_symmetric_between_observers>
> 
> >> > A body orbits, but the Earth spun around it,
> >> > which is the master clock and why?
> 
> The observer is on the surface of Earth.  The clocks onboard the GNSS 
> satellites tick *in total* faster relative to the observer's clock (with 
> GPS, about 38 µs per day, which are 37'970 ns too many).  So you could say 
> that the observer's clock or, more generally, the observer's proper time,
> is the "master clock/time".
> 
> Why?  We want to know the position of the observer on the surface of Earth, 
> and for that we need to know the distance between them and at least 3 GNSS 
> satellites (and one more for verification) for trilateration.  Lacking a 
> tape measure that is up to 20'000 km long, the distance is measured 
> by comparing the time the signal is sent from a satellite (which is the 
> time encoded in the signal) to the time it is received, taking 
> relativistic effects into account.  There are one observer and, with GPS, 
> about 4 to 12 GPS satellites in direct sight to them at any one time.
>  
> >> > (This is just a matter of acceleration
> >> > of the inertial rest frame, then.)
> 
> *Inertial* frames of reference are _not_ accelerated frames.
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference>
> 
> >> > Then for gravity, is that always the
> >> > configuration of the clock or the cesium
> >> > clock?
> 
> Probably the answers to all your questions, all ill-worded so far, can be 
> found in the resource cited on the bottom of my posting.
> 
> >> > Is it just the accel./decel. of
> >> > taking up and bringing back the clock?
> >> > What if you take the reference clock up
> >> > instead of bringing the sample clock back?
> 
> No clocks are "brought back" with a GNSS.  How did you get that idea?
> 
> >> > Are any of the ground referenced satellites
> >> > truly dead-reckoning, or do they just point
> >> > to landmarks and update their positions
> >> > they encode over their signal?
> 
> No.
> 
> <http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>
>  
> >> "Clock-driven transmitters send out synchronous
> >> time signals, tagged with the position and time
> >> of the transmission event, so that a receiver near
> >> the earth can determine its position and time by
> >> decoding navigation messages from four satellites
> >> to find the transmission event coordinates, and
> >> then solving four simultaneous one-way signal
> >> propagation equations."
> 
> AISB.
> 
> >> "Thus the Sagnac [...] the problem of path-dependent
>                    ^effect...
> >> inconsistencies."
> 
> Do you even realize that your snipping has turned the original well-worded 
> text into gibberish?
> 
> >> "Conversely, the elapsed coordinate time can be
> >> computed by integrating corrections to the proper time. "
> 
> Obviously.  (Do you even know what "coordinate time" and "proper time" are?)
> 
> >>  http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
> >> 
> >> GR might be never wrong,
> 
> There are strong indications, namely a century of confirmations, that it is 
> not.  Or, as a popular professor of physics in Germany, Harald Lesch, likes 
> to put it: "If relativity is wrong, it is damn well wrong."
> 
> >> but, uh, non-Newtonian corrections are what are applied to geo-
> >> referenced satellites,
> 
> So what?  It is obvious that Newton's laws alone do not quite cut it.
> 
> >> because the path integral isn't solved
> >> and solar neighbor effects are significant enough
> >> that GR doesn't solve their n-body system yet.
> 
> You have no clue what you are talking about.
> 
> The n-body _problem_, and its only partial solution, has nothing to do with 
> this.  And "solar neighbor effects"?  Gimme a break.
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem>
>  
> >> Quantum mechanics is never wrong....
> 
> There are strong indications, namely more than half of a century of 
> conformation, that it is not.  The functionality of the device that you are 
> using to read this posting depends on the correctness of quantum 
> electrodynamics (QED), and therefore on special relativity.  And that the 
> system time on your device is kept in sync with atomic clocks over a 
> computer network (via NTP) depends at least on the correctness of general 
> relativity, because clocks on different elevations already tick differently 
> (you do not have to go to orbit to see that).
> 
> When I say "correctness of X" I mean, of course, some theory X has been 
> confirmed by experiments/observation and not falsified by such.
> 
> > "At present one cannot easily perform
> > tests of relativity with the system because
> > the SV clocks are actively steered to be
> > within 1 microsecond of Universal
> > Coordinated Time (USNO). "
> > 
> > So, thanks, GR, you're too complicated for
> > GPS (with any further non-Newtonian
> > adjustments or corrections).
> > 
> > Also, _there
> > are still offsets_, more of the non-Newtonian,
> > just like GR's difference improves the estimate
> > of orbits but is yet not _exact_.
> 
> Utter nonsense.
> 
> > "Even without this impetus, the GPS provides
> > a rich source of examples for the applications
> > of the concepts of relativity. "
> 
> A slightly less out of date, less second-hand resource (note that you are 
> citing a document by Prof. Jorge Pullin, last updated in 1997, which is 
> quoting a text by now-Professor *Emeritus* Neil Ashby [of the University of 
> Chicago] of unknown date and origin, but presumably not newer than 1995 when 
> he ceased to be a member the International Committee on General Relativity 
> and Gravitation):
> 
> <http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html>
> 
> ("Real-World Relativity: The GPS Navigation System" by Prof. Richard W. 
> Pogge; last updated "2015 October 25")
> 

This quote "At present one cannot easily perform 
 tests of relativity with the system because 
 the SV clocks are actively steered to be 
 within 1 microsecond of Universal 
 Coordinated Time (USNO). " seems to speak to 
 that the coordinated timing is more or less 
a constant correction (as of, "real-time" systems).

You are having solved the path integral and 
N-body systems?  Great....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#371210

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

> On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 1:50:44 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn wrote:
>> A slightly less out of date, less second-hand resource (note that you are
>> citing a document by Prof. Jorge Pullin, last updated in 1997, which is
>> quoting a text by now-Professor *Emeritus* Neil Ashby [of the University
>> of Chicago] of unknown date and origin, but presumably not newer than
>> 1995 when he ceased to be a member the International Committee on General
>> Relativity and Gravitation):
>> 
>> <http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html>
>> 
>> ("Real-World Relativity: The GPS Navigation System" by Prof. Richard W.
>> Pogge; last updated "2015 October 25")
> 
> This quote "At present one cannot easily perform
>  tests of relativity with the system because
>  the SV clocks are actively steered to be
>  within 1 microsecond of Universal
>  Coordinated Time (USNO). " seems to speak to
>  that the coordinated timing is more or less
> a constant correction (as of, "real-time" systems).

Again, full-quoting googlodyte, due to the type of reference you are citing 
and quoting, “at present” can mean at most 1995.  The year is 2015 now.

> You are having solved the path integral and
> N-body systems?  Great....

You still have no clue what you are talking about.


PointedEars
-- 
Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out?  
A: Sherlock Ohms.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#371211

On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 10:51:47 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> 
> > On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 1:50:44 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> > Lahn wrote:
> >> A slightly less out of date, less second-hand resource (note that you are
> >> citing a document by Prof. Jorge Pullin, last updated in 1997, which is
> >> quoting a text by now-Professor *Emeritus* Neil Ashby [of the University
> >> of Chicago] of unknown date and origin, but presumably not newer than
> >> 1995 when he ceased to be a member the International Committee on General
> >> Relativity and Gravitation):
> >> 
> >> <http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html>
> >> 
> >> ("Real-World Relativity: The GPS Navigation System" by Prof. Richard W.
> >> Pogge; last updated "2015 October 25")
> > 
> > This quote "At present one cannot easily perform
> >  tests of relativity with the system because
> >  the SV clocks are actively steered to be
> >  within 1 microsecond of Universal
> >  Coordinated Time (USNO). " seems to speak to
> >  that the coordinated timing is more or less
> > a constant correction (as of, "real-time" systems).
> 
> Again, full-quoting googlodyte, due to the type of reference you are citing 
> and quoting, "at present" can mean at most 1995.  The year is 2015 now.
> 
> > You are having solved the path integral and
> > N-body systems?  Great....
> 
> You still have no clue what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> PointedEars

You haven't solved 
the path integral 
and N-body systems?

Great....

The satellites are 
not dead-reckoning 
of their clock
and are quite mostly
constantly synchronizing 
(about Earth).

Mann kann nur eine Kleine 
sprechen aber Mann sagt nichts.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#371215

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

> On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 10:51:47 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' 
> Lahn wrote:

Attribution *line*?

>>> You are having solved the path integral and N-body systems?
>>> Great....
>> You still have no clue what you are talking about.
> 
> You haven't solved the path integral and N-body systems?
> 
> Great....

If only you knew what nonsense you are blathering.

> The satellites are not dead-reckoning of their clock

What does that even mean?

> and are quite mostly constantly synchronizing (about Earth).

No.

> Mann kann nur eine Kleine sprechen aber Mann sagt nichts.

That adds German to the already very long list of things which you have no
clue about.

Signatures and other content are not to be quoted unless referred to.

Get yourself at least a *minimum* clue, would you, *please*?


PointedEars
-- 
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#371217

W dniu poniedziałek, 30 listopada 2015 22:50:44 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 

> Why?  We want to know the position of the observer on the surface of Earth, 

After explaining, why your Shit's tales of clocks
have nothing in common with reality, they still 
have nothing in common with reality.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370869

On 11/24/15 11/24/15 - 4:07 PM, dvus wrote:
> It seems as though no one can say what the "shape" of the Universe really is,

Yes. Because we're pretty sure that the universe extends considerably beyond 
what we can observe.

But within the region we can observe, it structure is consistent with being 
spatially flat to high accuracy.


> If someone said we lived on the surface of a sphere of some determinate size I
> could visualize that,

Of course that does hold for us, approximately, here on earth -- only a handful 
of people have ever been more than 0.1% away from the mean radius of the earth's 
surface.


> But all I see are explanations of a Universe
> that's "bounded" or "not bounded" without an explanation of just what the heck
> that really means.

"Bounded" means of finite spatial size, "not bounded" means of infinite spatial 
size.

	"Bounded" is not really the correct term, it should be
	"compact" (a topological term), or "finite" (here a
	geometrical term).


> I suppose if you live in a Universe which you consider has no
> "outside" it's tough to give its shape except in mathematical terms.

Yes.


> I'd even prefer it if someone said "we have no idea" rather than these murky
> non-explanations.

But they _ARE_ reasonable descriptions to the people who count: experts 
interested in the issues involved. That lay people like yourself don't 
understand them is not of concern, except to those people themselves. There is a 
"cure": STUDY.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370870

On 11/25/2015 10:59 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 11/24/15 11/24/15 - 4:07 PM, dvus wrote:
>> It seems as though no one can say what the "shape" of the Universe
>> really is,
>
> Yes. Because we're pretty sure that the universe extends considerably
> beyond what we can observe.
>
> But within the region we can observe, it structure is consistent with
> being spatially flat to high accuracy.
>
>
>> If someone said we lived on the surface of a sphere of some
>> determinate size I
>> could visualize that,
>
> Of course that does hold for us, approximately, here on earth -- only a
> handful of people have ever been more than 0.1% away from the mean
> radius of the earth's surface.
>
>
>> But all I see are explanations of a Universe
>> that's "bounded" or "not bounded" without an explanation of just what
>> the heck
>> that really means.
>
> "Bounded" means of finite spatial size, "not bounded" means of infinite
> spatial size.
>
>      "Bounded" is not really the correct term, it should be
>      "compact" (a topological term), or "finite" (here a
>      geometrical term).
>
>
>> I suppose if you live in a Universe which you consider has no
>> "outside" it's tough to give its shape except in mathematical terms.
>
> Yes.
>
>
>> I'd even prefer it if someone said "we have no idea" rather than these
>> murky
>> non-explanations.
>
> But they _ARE_ reasonable descriptions to the people who count: experts
> interested in the issues involved. That lay people like yourself don't
> understand them is not of concern, except to those people themselves.
> There is a "cure": STUDY.

Actually there is another option: Fantasy and arrogance. Simply make up 
your own stories and and arrogantly assure anyone who will listen that 
they are all how it is even though they really don't make common sense. 
Then YOU will be an "expert". Your reputation then being proportional to 
the number of other people you can get to believe and repeat your 
fantasies.


-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370878

On 11/25/15 11/25/15 - 10:16 AM, benj wrote:
> On 11/25/2015 10:59 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> But they _ARE_ reasonable descriptions to the people who count: experts
>> interested in the issues involved.
>
> Actually there is another option: Fantasy and arrogance. Simply make up your
> own stories and and arrogantly assure anyone who will listen that they are
> all how it is even though they really don't make common sense.

Yes, all too may people around here behave that way.

But physicists like myself do not. Our theories/models have an important aspect 
that those others do not: experimental and observational confirmation, and 
absence of refutation.

	Note that common sense has no place in physics, except
	for regimes in which it was developed (i.e. at size
	scales from mm to km, time scales from seconds to years,
	and speeds up to a km/sec or so.

	IOW: there is no requirement that nature make sense.
	(It is our remarkable good fortune that much of nature
	can be described mathematically.)


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370879

The physical spatial center of space is "In time"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370880

Electro-magnetic radiation is "conductance in Siemens. 

Gravity  Provides a path to (increase conductivity /decrease impedance ), reducing the "photon pressure", lowering the speed of light, causing increased entropy. 

Time is the center of space. 

Find the corner of a spherical room and stick your nose in it for the rest of class 

The siemens (SI unit symbol: S) is the unit of electric conductance, electric susceptance and electric admittance in the International System of Units (SI). Conductance, susceptance, and admittance are the reciprocals of resistance, reactance, and impedance respectively; hence one siemens is equal to the reciprocal of one ohm, and is also referred to as the mho.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370884

Tom Roberts wrote:

> But physicists like myself do not. Our theories/models have an important
> aspect that those others do not: experimental and observational
> confirmation, and absence of refutation.

I agree, we physicist behave in this way exactly. I can't stop wondering 
my feet being pushed upwards by the surface of Earth (electromagnetically 
coerced soil), phenomenon embraced by my theory of Divergent Matter.

> 
>Note that common sense has no place in physics, except for regimes in
>which it was developed (i.e. at size scales from mm to km, time scales
>from seconds to years, and speeds up to a km/sec or so.

Common Sense is not about scales (only). It is much more than that. You 
can't pass an Exam without Common Sense entirely. Or writing a Scientific 
Paper. This is how the many morons around here are detected. They have no 
Common Sense.

> 	IOW: there is no requirement that nature make sense. (It is our
> 	remarkable good fortune that much of nature can be described
> 	mathematically.)

We disagree. If your Nature is not Obeying Logic, then your Nature must be 
wrong. This is what I call for Common Sense. A lot of physicists are 
unbeknown with what a Commons Sense is standing for.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370887

Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:VtidnVUyobkTdMjLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com...


> Actually there is another option: Fantasy and arrogance. Simply make up 
> your
> own stories and and arrogantly assure anyone who will listen that they are
> all how it is even though they really don't make common sense.

|Yes, all too may people around here behave that way.
|But physicists like myself do not.
| Our theories/models have an important aspect
|that those others do not: experimental and observational confirmation, and
|absence of refutation.

Yes. True, real clocks of GPS do indicate t'=t, just
like clocks always did, but it doesn't mean our Shit
is refuted! It does mean reality is UNPROPER!!!!
Besides, if they indicated as The Shit told, they would
indicate exactly as The Shit told!!!!! So, The Shit
is confirmed!!!
And those, who don't believe, are
STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Right, poor idiot? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370891

Maciej Woźniak wrote:

> Yes. True, real clocks of GPS do indicate t'=t, just like clocks always
> did, but it doesn't mean our Shit is refuted! It does mean reality is
> UNPROPER!!!! Besides, if they indicated as The Shit told, they would
> indicate exactly as The Shit told!!!!! So, The Shit is confirmed!!!
> And those, who don't believe, are STUPID! Right, poor idiot?

Of course not. Just you. Time Dilation is logical to take place. It 
reveals that you and Thomas Pointhead are the only two morons around here 
not understanding the phenomena taking place in Physics. Relativity is 
just something explaining it. If this doesn't make pretty much sense to 
you, I am here to help. Also in Divergent Matter terminology if you really 
want me to.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370890

Tom Roberts wrote:
> 
> On 11/25/15 11/25/15 - 10:16 AM, benj wrote:
> > On 11/25/2015 10:59 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> But they _ARE_ reasonable descriptions to the people who count: experts
> >> interested in the issues involved.
> >
> > Actually there is another option: Fantasy and arrogance. Simply make up your
> > own stories and and arrogantly assure anyone who will listen that they are
> > all how it is even though they really don't make common sense.
> 
> Yes, all too may people around here behave that way.
> 
> But physicists like myself do not. Our theories/models have an important aspect
> that those others do not: experimental and observational confirmation, and
> absence of refutation.
> 
>         Note that common sense has no place in physics, except
>         for regimes in which it was developed (i.e. at size
>         scales from mm to km, time scales from seconds to years,
>         and speeds up to a km/sec or so.
> 
>         IOW: there is no requirement that nature make sense.
>         (It is our remarkable good fortune that much of nature
>         can be described mathematically.)
> 
> Tom Roberts


Nature makes no sense, Math makes sense. Which do you prefer?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370900

On 11/25/15 12:06 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Nature makes no sense, Math makes sense. Which do you prefer?


   Mathematics models the nature that makes no sense to you!  :-o



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370921

W dniu środa, 25 listopada 2015 21:04:21 UTC+1 użytkownik Sam Wormley napisał:
> On 11/25/15 12:06 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Nature makes no sense, Math makes sense. Which do you prefer?
> 
> 
>    Mathematics models the nature that makes no sense to you!  :-o

Mathematics doesn't. Models often use some math procedures,
but, in general, math is too weak to do something serious
on its own.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web