15 ms·

There are tens of thousands of regurgitations of the basic idea of including relativistic effects but very few sources that have looked directly at the necessit

by Shiva2012 11y ago

There are tens of thousands of regurgitations of the basic idea of including relativistic effects but very few sources that have looked directly at the necessity. It was certainly included. The question of necessity, however, is another matter. Once again, I must repeat that there are components of relativistic theory that are nearly indistinguishable from classical at such low proportions of C. For instance, the entire relativistic doppler effect is often cited as a relatvistic effect. However, the portion of that whole large effect that is purely and uniquely relativity is miniscule because the difference between classical and relativistic are negligible at such low speeds (Super-sonic jets are dead snails covered in cold molasses compared to C) Bear in mind that all the hyper-precise navigation we do within our solar system, from landing on mars to landing on a comet is PURELY NEWTONIAN. (You should gasp with surprise here... I know I did when I learned that)

burkaman 11y ago
I get that humans have never done anything that approaches even a hundredth of a percent of the speed of light. And I can believe that general relativity never causes strong enough effects to care, except obviously for probes specifically intended to study relativity. But when it comes to GPS, I guess I just have a hard time taking your word for it. If there were no info either way on the internet, I would probably believe you, but why is there no source that can back you up? It's "tens of thousands of regurgitations" vs one guy saying "trust me, I've talked to some engineers". I have to believe the regurgitations, especially when their explanations and math makes sense. >It was certainly included. The question of necessity, however, is another matter. So you're saying GPS satellites do take relativity into account, but the engineers you've talked to said "I guess we could take it out and it would still probably work"? That sounds a little tenuous.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- Shiva2012 11y ago
  Yeah I understand the problem with any rare truth, there's so many people who know the wrong thing that anyone who has found rare truth just looks wrong. (how do you separate crackpots from explorers?) The only way you can resolve that issue is to study the docs yourself. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to believe me unless you can see how all the different mechanisms I've explained fit together well and even then you've really got a responsibility to learn for yourself if the consensus is just folk-knowledge or the truth. The specifications are available online but they are tedious. As for them saying "We don't need it" Actually it's so complex that they've never said something so broad and sweeping. It's almost like asking a molecular biologist to comment on the collective function we call the "mind". Sometimes it's easier to comment on trees than the whole forest. I am however, looking to in to asking someone in particular to make those generalizations because I think he can, I just haven't been able to reach him directly yet. The author of this paper: https://www.ion.org/publications/abstract.cfm?articleID=1604 https://www.ion.org/publications/abstract.cfm?articleID=1604 The use of ECI vs ECEF puts things in a different light that would take a while to explain. This whole question has so many moving parts that you really need an expert authority to generalize. (I'm trying to get that) It relates to questions of theory that have only been resolved in the past ten years as well. For instance, it was widely held, until the past decade, that the Sagnac effect could only be described in terms of general relativity because of the way it seems to controvert Special relativity. After the experiments of Ruyong Wang, however, the consensus explanation has been to simply explain its workings in a very classical fashion without any regard to the seeming violation of light speed constancy that it was designed to show. It doesn't help that all weapons guidance systems rely upon these principles so research brings you into DoD territory and information on working principles for RLGs iFOGs etc (which prove the workings of the sagnac effect), becomes slim or inaccessible... I got someone at Honeywell in pretty big trouble once just for asking the wrong questions and him giving me too much information. Really all you can do personally is try to understand the workings of all these system, but sometimes you just have to accept believing in folk-knowledge because consensus is just more reliable if you can't personally do the footwork. You can find the specs here: http://www.gps.gov/ http://www.gps.gov/ Best of luck! PS: Let me reiterate that I'm not saying the time rate difference created by clocks orbital motion and placement in a gravitational field are insignificant. I'm saying that the difference between newtonian expectation and relativistic is insignificant. (newtonian effect for gravity is half, and for motion effects is arguably gamma^2)

burkaman 11y ago

I get that humans have never done anything that approaches even a hundredth of a percent of the speed of light. And I can believe that general relativity never causes strong enough effects to care, except obviously for probes specifically intended to study relativity. But when it comes to GPS, I guess I just have a hard time taking your word for it. If there were no info either way on the internet, I would probably believe you, but why is there no source that can back you up? It's "tens of thousands of regurgitations" vs one guy saying "trust me, I've talked to some engineers". I have to believe the regurgitations, especially when their explanations and math makes sense. >It was certainly included. The question of necessity, however, is another matter. So you're saying GPS satellites do take relativity into account, but the engineers you've talked to said "I guess we could take it out and it would still probably work"? That sounds a little tenuous.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Shiva2012 11y ago
Yeah I understand the problem with any rare truth, there's so many people who know the wrong thing that anyone who has found rare truth just looks wrong. (how do you separate crackpots from explorers?) The only way you can resolve that issue is to study the docs yourself. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to believe me unless you can see how all the different mechanisms I've explained fit together well and even then you've really got a responsibility to learn for yourself if the consensus is just folk-knowledge or the truth. The specifications are available online but they are tedious. As for them saying "We don't need it" Actually it's so complex that they've never said something so broad and sweeping. It's almost like asking a molecular biologist to comment on the collective function we call the "mind". Sometimes it's easier to comment on trees than the whole forest. I am however, looking to in to asking someone in particular to make those generalizations because I think he can, I just haven't been able to reach him directly yet. The author of this paper: https://www.ion.org/publications/abstract.cfm?articleID=1604 https://www.ion.org/publications/abstract.cfm?articleID=1604 The use of ECI vs ECEF puts things in a different light that would take a while to explain. This whole question has so many moving parts that you really need an expert authority to generalize. (I'm trying to get that) It relates to questions of theory that have only been resolved in the past ten years as well. For instance, it was widely held, until the past decade, that the Sagnac effect could only be described in terms of general relativity because of the way it seems to controvert Special relativity. After the experiments of Ruyong Wang, however, the consensus explanation has been to simply explain its workings in a very classical fashion without any regard to the seeming violation of light speed constancy that it was designed to show. It doesn't help that all weapons guidance systems rely upon these principles so research brings you into DoD territory and information on working principles for RLGs iFOGs etc (which prove the workings of the sagnac effect), becomes slim or inaccessible... I got someone at Honeywell in pretty big trouble once just for asking the wrong questions and him giving me too much information. Really all you can do personally is try to understand the workings of all these system, but sometimes you just have to accept believing in folk-knowledge because consensus is just more reliable if you can't personally do the footwork. You can find the specs here: http://www.gps.gov/ http://www.gps.gov/ Best of luck! PS: Let me reiterate that I'm not saying the time rate difference created by clocks orbital motion and placement in a gravitational field are insignificant. I'm saying that the difference between newtonian expectation and relativistic is insignificant. (newtonian effect for gravity is half, and for motion effects is arguably gamma^2)