MacM

ooo' date=' someones envoking controversy in the relativity field.

 

I also think the factors implemented into GPS are outside the now infamous SR formula that so many are currently quoting. Maybe when quantum mechanics becomes as run of the mill as newtonian physics is, the assumptions and flaws will become more clearer. Then we can have all the answers without quoting equations and apparent (ambiguous) relationships with real life.[/quote']

 

Sounds like a fair proposition.

To do the proper SR calculation, though, you have to compare to an observer at rest. Even though we want to think of ourselves as being in an inertial frame, we are not.

 

Our reference clocks are referenced to be on the geoid - the idealized average sea-level. The earth is an oblate spheroid - there is an equitorial bulge and flattening at the poles - and one must also account for gravitational redshifts. If you solve for the equipotential surface of the geoid, you find that the kinetic term (time dilation) cancels the deformation term (gravitational redshift) so that a clock on the geoid always runs at the same rate, regardless of rotation speed. The rotational velocity is not "disregarded."

I appreciate your response. However, I cannot accept it as being signifigant in regard to defense of SRT. We all know the earth is an oblate spheroid. We all know gravity redshift is accounted for. I saw a figure that GPS uses 15 adjustments to achieve its current accuracy. However there are only two primary ones that regulate the overwhelming range of performance. That is GR due to orbit distance and Velocity affect of orbit.

GPS satellites are in inclined orbits at about 55 degrees, not equatorial orbits, so your relative velocity calculation is flawed anyway, as velocity is a vector.

I believe I indicated that the surface clock was at the equator and hence the maximum and that at other latitudes the affect would be even less. Surely you can see that the inclination of the earth's axis to the orbit plane has minimal affect on the issue. Of course it must be taken into account but that does not address the issue, nor alter the results.

The surface clock V2 (assumed at the equator) has an absolute velocity, with the pole being "0", of 463.8 m/s.

For this clock I calculate 1.195058E-16 * 24 * 3,600 = 10.325E-12 or -10.325 Pico-seconds per day

Based on SRT measurements one gets -5.58 micro-seconds per day because the earth's surface clock gamma affect is negligable and will be disregarded .

Perhaps you would care to address the issue which is the fact that GPS uses the earth's axis as a local preferred rest frame, a view prohibited in SRT.

Using relative veloicty between clocks one gets -5.58 micro-seconds.

As I have shown computing velocity gamma affect for absolute velocity of surface clocks and orbiting clocks relative to the rest frame produces a different result (the correct result and the one used by GPS is -7.2 micro-seconds).

I would be interested in some feedback on this issue:

GPS uses the eath's rotating axis (Pole) as a local preferred rest referance frame.

The earth's equator has a velocity of 463.8 m/s.

GPS satellites have a velocity of 3,874.5 m/s. The "Relative Velocity" between the orbiting clock and a clock at the equator is (3,874.5m/s - 463.8m/s) = 3,410.7m/s.

Using SRT in GPS one gets: 3,410.7/c = 1.1369E-5, squared = 1.2925E-10. Divided by 2 = 6.4627E-11.

Time loss would be 6.4627E-11 * 24 * 3,600 = 5.58378E-6 or - 5.58 micro-seconds per day maximum deviation by being at the equator. Other latitudes would be less.

HOWEVER: Using the absolute velocity of orbit of 3,874.5 m/s and NOT "Relative Velocity" per SRT one gets 1.2915E-5c, squared = 1.66797E-10. Divided by 2 = 8.33986E-11.

8.33986E-11 * 24 * 3,600 = 7.205E-6 or 7.2 micro-seconds per day due to orbit velocity.

In this case earth's equitorial velocity produces a dilation only in the pico-seconds/day and is disregarded.

Over a dozen considerations are made in the GPS system but prelaunch adjusments of GPS orbiting clocks consist of only two primary ones.

About +45 micro-seconds gain due to GR (Gravity) and for a -7.2 micro-second loss due to velocity, for a net adjustment of -38 micro-seconds.

Since it is known that GPS clocks are preadjusted for 7.2 microseconds loss per day (which matches absolute velocity of orbit and not SRT's Relative Velocity, GPS does not use SRT. It uses the Lorentz Relativity concept of absolute velocities and not SRT Relative velocity. The other adjusments are generally made by software based on signal data.

Further since the velocites and calculations are based on absolute velocities relative to a common preferred rest frame the two components are not reversable as they are in SRT where each can claim to be at rest. In this format the orbiting clock always has higher velocity and always is the clock which shows dilation.

Why is it so many physicists (Relativists) are so quick to claim GPS "Proves" SRT? It actually only proves the Lorentz Gamma function and discredits the SRT view where there is reciprocity between observers. SRT prohibits the use of local absolute rest frames and claims either observer can be at rest. It doesn't work that way in GPS. It appears GPS favors Lorentz over Einstein.

What do you all think, do animals think? I say yes they do. I would have posted this in a poll but I guess I am not special enough to do that.

Definitely. A recent story was on national news about a dog in Atlanta Georgia. He had gotten loose from the family yard and got on a main road and was struck by a car.

He was severly injured but from that point crawlwed 8 miles. NOT HOME but to the front door of the family vetinarian clinic.!

it`s all about overcoming skin resistance' date=' a supply of 1 volt at a million amps will not kill you, it might just about power a digital watch (they use 1.5 volts generaly).

a few thousand volts at pico amps won`t kill you either (think static elec).

 

you MUST factor in the load (resistance) before making ANY calcs about power and lethality

The above numbers are grossly in error.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/AprilDunetz.shtml

http://van.hep.uiuc.edu/van/qa/section/Electricity_and_Magnets/Electrocution/20020825144219.htm

http://www.csao.org/uploadfiles/magazine/vol11no1/shock.htm

This last one shows death at less than sufficient current to light a 100 W light bulb. At 120 V that means death occurs less than 13/16 of an amp.

Not posting this to make a claim. But to address the issue of patents. Patents do not mean something works.

Here is a link to my first patent.

http://my.voyager.net/~jrrandall/McCoinPatent.html

I have changed the valve to use electrorehological and/or ferro-fluids and to be thicker than the width of the spheres such that the sphere never feels the differential pressure across the valve and moves through by gravity and controlled timing in causing the valve to form a pressure barrier at the top and/or bottom of the valve. The bottom has an elastomeric membrane with a stretchable hole which in theory would hold back the fluid (like a wiper) as the sphere drops through the bottom by gravity while the top is forming the barrier and allowing the lower pressure to be applied through the fluid to the entire surface of the sphere.

It is not considered practical by any means (even if it worked) because the amount of energy per mass of the system just isn't a viable source. However, it does present some rather interesting academic questions.

I know from contact over the years that infact my patent has been used in some colleges in physics quizes.

1 - Does it work? If so explain how.

2 - Does it not work? If not why not?.

I have been interested in gravity for over 50 years and have done some actual testing which shows that gravity is not what they currently think it is.

It is a product of energy transfer. See:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4934

Have fun.

Dan K. McCoin

I personally doubt it does. At least not as some exotic matter but only as some minor unobserved components. The galatic rotational velocity issues has an alternative gravity explanation.

See:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4934

This is my own idea so take it for what it is worth.

He could always have meant megaamps, which would be really quite dangerous.

I would think so.

Internet Explorer is the problem' date=' not Windows.

 

Anyone using a Mozilla, Gecko, or Opera build under Windows will have problems. If they don't work, you can bet that people using Safari on the Mac or Konqueror/equivalents under Linux will have problems too.

 

Some handy links:

Why design for cross-browser compatibility?

Accessible site design

More resources

Thanks for the links. I have put them in Favorites for further reading.

I heard that 1.1-1.2 MA (not sure the amount) is the most dangerous to human body.

It is fatal to human. Less than 1.1MA' date=' that have no problem for strong,healthy man.

Bigger than 1.2, the victims fall down and heart stops beating, but we can save him.

But I am not sure about the voltage,such as which amount is fatal.[/quote']

 

I am not sure about lethal currents but the "MA" seems mighty low to me. It is also normally written in lower case i.e. - 1.0 ma. That stands for milli-amps. 1,000 ma = 1.0 amp.

 

My point however is (was) that it is the current and not the voltage that kills.

 

Voltage causes current:

 

E = I*R (Voltage = Current times Resistance)

 

I = E/R (Current = Voltage divided by Resistance)

 

Hence a perfectly insulated body (high resistance) suffers no current even at elevated (Millions) of volts.

That's the worst name ever.

Don't blame me. Blame the Relavitists.

God knows the name. It's just recession speed ( a+b/1+ab/c^2 ).

It is called "Velocity Addition Formula"

MacM, you may want to redo that website to make it more accessible to people that don't use that virus called Internet Exploiter which is installed by that insidious backdoor trojan known as Windoze.

I take it you don't like Windows. Well I don't either. We have been discussing making some changes. Have any recommendations?

Thanks

AC is used in power production and transmission in that it is much more efficient.

In DC you would actually push the electron down the line from the power plant to your house and through your computer.

In AC you merely jiggle the existing electrons in the wires. They move back and forth and it actually takes an electron hours to move from your wall outlet to your computer due to some intrinsic losses, etc.

Voltage is not dangerous but current kills. AC or DC current are dangerous. You can actually insulate yourself and hold onto a Van De Graff DC generator that charges your body to a million volts (I've personally done it to 250,000 Volts).

Your hair stands on end and your clothes move around as though you were in the wind but it is all static electricity. The trick is to discharge yourself "Slowly" and not create damaging current.

Or better yet don't grab hold of the generator.

I just got an idea. What if there was no Big Bang. WHat if the expansion is the universes answer to gravity. You could say that the universe "wants" equelibrium, so maybe it is just compensating for gravity. I haven't anywhere near thought this all the way out yet.

Hi,

I'm new here and I just wanted to draw your attention to my first post:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4934

It has bearing on your comments above.

It may be that:

1 - Dark Matter is very limited and not as prevelant as currently believed. Indeed probably negligable.

2 - Dark Energy doesn't exist as an exotic anti-gravity energy field.

3 - That gravity has a common function which inherently results in a different calculation of gravity that explains both the star rotational velocity anomaly at galatic scales (AD HOC Dark Matter solution) and the accelerating expansion of the universe (AD HOC Dark Energy solution).

The "UniKEF Gravity Testing" section of the site has been repaired.

http://www.unikef-gravity.com/

Digesting the text to understand the function is the hard part (I think). This could all be BS but in 50 years that I have been wroking on this there have been over a dozen predictions that have come to pass. It seems highly unlikely that it is total BS but that there is some underlying truth in the concept.

If supported mathematically it should cause a major shift in our thinking about current physics, cosmology, etc. Imagine being able to show that a "Finite" universe can account for all observed gravitational functions from inverse square to Mercury's orbit, rotational velocity of stars around galaxies and the accelerated expansion of the universe!. All as one natural function.

The calculus section should give those knowledgable in the mathematics some idea of what effort is involved.

Please contact me by PM or e-mail if you have questions or if you choose post your questions here so others mights follow the development. Assuming we are sucessful those that contribute can (at their choosing) be listed on the paper if it becomes published.

Thanks.

That site doesn't work with either Firefox or Opera. It makes me a sad panda.

Sorry you can't get to the site. You might try the Home Page which is MSN. It is not as well presented but you might be able to get the information.

http://groups.msn.com/McCoinUniKEFTheory/home.htm

1 - The Summary Graph 2 on Page 4. This is the function which needs completion by calculus.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I've just had a quick look at your website and found the graph' date=' but what is the function? Could you post the function explicitly here? Sorry if I've missed something, but I'm confused as to what you are asking.[/quote']

 

Thanks for responding. The function is not detailed mathematically but logically derived from the process as described in the text. That is only a portion of the local inverse square has been verified but the manner in which it works predicts a general curvature as shown.

 

If I am correct once the "External" and "Internal" calculus functions have been detailed the function can be scaled to a time-space diameter which results in a correct gravity result for the orbit of Mercury. Then compare the function at a distance of galatic spirals and verify that the observed rotational velocity of stars is correct without undue AD HOC Dark Matter.

 

If these two points are correct then the expansion of the universe is also inherent in the concept without the creation of AD HOC Dark Energy.

Hi,

I should probably have named this thread "Challenged New Member".

I am 63 and have a highly technical background training and experience. I have joined here for several reasons but one in particular is the apparent number of members that are good in Calculus.

I had introductory Calculus 40 years ago but have never used it and at this late stage simply consider that I do not do calculus. I do algebra and write my own engineering and physics programs in GWBasic. But while I understand the functions of calculus I certainly do not perform it.

i.e. - I am a handicap!

I have my own web site:

http://www.unikef-gravity.com/

Which is part of a theory I put together in 1954. It has been absolutely a thrill to see numerous rather bizzar "Priori Predictions" from that concept become standard views of science but I'll save that for another day.

The theory is virtually devoid of any testing or mathematical support; except in the area of gravity; which was the emputus for the theory's development.

As is indicated on site the concept has both testing data and some calculus (done by a physicist friend in 1965) which tend to support the concept.

My challenge is for any member interested that can do the required calculus completion, with step by step recital; including graphics, to offer either pay and/or credits in a formalized version for submission to peer review for a scientific paper on the subject.

Let me draw interested parties attention to:

1 - The Summary Graph 2 on Page 4. This is the function which needs completion by calculus.

2 - The Testing Section and photo album.

3 - And the Calculus Section

The paper is to be dedicated only to the gravity calculus and not include esoteric consequences of the concept.

The theory seems to provide a complete gravity function.

a - Is inverse square locally.

b - Flattens to be stronger at galatic scales which mitigates the amount of Dark Matter.

c - Becomes repulsive and predicted the accelerating expansion of the universe without Dark Energy.

I look forward to your input.

Thanks

Dan K. McCoin

lmccoin@elp.rr.com

PS: Note: This is a new site and I have just noticed that the "Testing Section" isn't coming up. I have contacted the person responsible and hopefully that will be fixed quickly. ((Now repaired))