[Rushtalk] Laughable............

Stephen Frye stephen.frye at outlook.com
Tue Jul 25 08:19:31 MDT 2017


Yes.  Like we all say - a man with a watch knows what time it is.  A man with two - never does.

-----Original Message-----
From: rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com [mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com] On Behalf Of Tom Matiska
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 6:39 PM
To: Rushtalk Discussion List <rushtalk at csdco.com>
Subject: Re: [Rushtalk] Laughable............

I see your point now.   The clock in orbit are 7 micro seconds slower because of their faster speed, but 45 faster because of less gravity in orbit..... interesting....   Tom
T-Mobile. America's First Nationwide 4G Network

Stephen Frye <stephen.frye at outlook.com> wrote:

>Further, the satellites are in orbits high above the Earth, where the curvature of spacetime due to the Earth's mass is less than it is at the Earth's surface. A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away (see the Black Holes lecture). As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites appear to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground. A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day. 
>The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! This sounds small, but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond accuracy, and 38 microseconds is 38,000 nanoseconds. If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! The whole system would be utterly worthless for navigation in a very short time.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com [mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com] On Behalf Of Tom Matiska
>Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 4:00 PM
>To: Rushtalk Discussion List <rushtalk at csdco.com>
>Subject: Re: [Rushtalk] Laughable............
>
>Time dilation wiki page says slower clock on surface ticks faster while faster clock in orbit ticks slower.     Tom
>T-Mobile. America's First Nationwide 4G Network
>
>Stephen Frye <stephen.frye at outlook.com> wrote:
>
>>I just checked.  The ground (gravity) wins.  Clocks move slower on the earth surface.
>>
>>From: rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com [mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com] On Behalf Of Tom Matiska
>>Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 8:37 AM
>>To: Rushtalk Discussion List <rushtalk at csdco.com>
>>Subject: Re: [Rushtalk] Laughable............
>>
>>At orbital velocities, Einstein's relativity increases the mass of the space station by about three billionths.  It also slows down your clock..... atomic, Mickey Mouse, or otherwise.   Every 99 years or so you would need a leap second.    Tom
>>
>>Time dilation<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation>
>>
>>
>>[cid:image001.jpg at 01D3048D.5A2A5560]
>>
>>[Text Box:]
>>
>>
>>
>>Time dilation
>>A clock at rest with respect to one observer may be measured to tick at a different rate when compared to a seco...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Monday, July 24, 2017 10:29 AM, Stephen Frye <stephen.frye at outlook.com<mailto:stephen.frye at outlook.com>> wrote:
>>
>>Excellent.
>>
>>Also remember that “m” changes with velocity, but only relevant at extremely high velocities – nothing we will see here on earth.
>>
>>E = mc2 is, at relativistic velocities – E = mc2 / (1-v2/c2)1/2
>>
>>Thus we can see that as velocity approaches the speed of light, so does mass, and so does the energy required to keep accelerating it.  Hence, only massless particles (photons etc.) can move at that speed.
>>
>>Of course, I think my wife comes close to that when I screw up.  But I have always been fascinated with relativistic effects and get read and study enough about them.  Getting into this area, and then Quantum mechanics, requires that our brain leave the realm of what we normally understand.  My brain is always in a different realm, just not the right one.  Again – check with my wife and kids.  Well, and anyone here!
>>
>>
>>From: rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com<mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com> [mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com] On Behalf Of Dennis Putnam
>>Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 3:42 AM
>>To: rushtalk at csdco.com<mailto:rushtalk at csdco.com>
>>Subject: Re: [Rushtalk] Laughable............
>>
>>Yep. Kinematics
>>
>>v = dx/dt
>>a = dv/dt
>>
>>thus Newton's law.
>>
>>Fnet = d(mv)/dt
>>
>>What you took, John, may have been the equivalent of high school physics rather than engineering physics.
>>
>>v = d / t
>>a = v / t
>>Fnet = m ∙ a
>>
>>On 7/23/2017 9:38 PM, Stephen Frye wrote:
>>Hard to imagine.  For intro to physics of motion we needed differential calculus, and integral calculus for magnetism and electricity.  Then on to differential equations and multi variable.  Good for you!
>>
>>I guess, though, that you could do some motion work with just basic trig.
>>
>>From: rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com<mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com> [mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com] On Behalf Of John Quayle
>>Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2017 6:05 PM
>>To: rushtalk at csdco.com<mailto:rushtalk at csdco.com>
>>Subject: Re: [Rushtalk] Laughable............
>>
>>                    I took physics as an undergrad and never used calc.......
>>
>>On 7/22/2017 11:40 PM, Stephen Frye wrote:
>>For Calculus I believe that.  I have found no practical use other than moving through physics.  I am sure it is useful in Chemistry, also.  But when I needed help, it was the physicists who could do it.
>>
>>From: rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com<mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com> [mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com] On Behalf Of John Quayle
>>Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2017 8:32 AM
>>To: rushtalk at csdco.com<mailto:rushtalk at csdco.com>
>>Subject: Re: [Rushtalk] Laughable............
>>
>>                    Actually, Stephen, I went to engineers when I worked for GE and had calculus. Not a single one of them could explain it to me. Most didn't even try. The company comptroller said to me, "we don't use that crap anymore for forecasting."
>>
>>On 7/22/2017 8:48 AM, Stephen Frye wrote:
>>Interesting, John.  When I mentioned that so many parents couldn’t do simple algebra, your answer was that you checked with your engineers and they said why should they, we have calculators?
>>
>>Personally, I think that Algebra I, Geometry I, and Trigonometry I or Trig/pre-calc should be mandatory for graduation from high school.  (Personally, I would like to substitute Algebra II in place of Geometry, but that’s just me.)  But in order to be successful in those classes, students need the foundations from Primary and Middle schools.  But none of this is simple.  We don’t want the Federal Government involved, we want it at state level.  The problem with state level is that we quickly reach the point where a high school diploma from one state isn’t comparable to one from another.  I am not sure that is good either.  I particularly like the Abitur path in Western Europe.  But there the students and parents are interested in education.  In the U.S., education is the number one commodity for which people strive to get the least for their money.  Before anything will work, we need to fix that.  And I don’t know how to change attitudes.  Our kids simply don’t give a shit.
>>
>>From: rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com<mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com> [mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com] On Behalf Of John Quayle
>>Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 10:37 PM
>>To: Rushtalk Discussion List <rushtalk at csdco.com><mailto:rushtalk at csdco.com>
>>Subject: [Rushtalk] Laughable............
>>
>>No, Algebra Isn't a 'Civil Rights Issue,' and Kids Aren't That Stupid<http://em.mrc.org/v0850LUb0KYSRinfB00L000>
>>[https://cdn.mrctv.org/files/styles/medium/s3fs/2017-07/Algebra.jpg?itok=nQjc1b5q]<http://em.mrc.org/v0850LUb0KYSRinfB00L000>
>>In the latest move to dumb down society to the point where our brains no longer function at all, one community college chancellor is now suggesting high schools and colleges nix algebra classes because they’re too hard.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>Rushtalk mailing list
>>
>>Rushtalk at csdco.com<mailto:Rushtalk at csdco.com>
>>
>>http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>Rushtalk mailing list
>>
>>Rushtalk at csdco.com<mailto:Rushtalk at csdco.com>
>>
>>http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>Rushtalk mailing list
>>
>>Rushtalk at csdco.com<mailto:Rushtalk at csdco.com>
>>
>>http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Rushtalk mailing list
>>Rushtalk at csdco.com<mailto:Rushtalk at csdco.com>
>>http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Rushtalk mailing list
>>Rushtalk at csdco.com
>>http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk
>_______________________________________________
>Rushtalk mailing list
>Rushtalk at csdco.com
>http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk
>_______________________________________________
>Rushtalk mailing list
>Rushtalk at csdco.com
>http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk
_______________________________________________
Rushtalk mailing list
Rushtalk at csdco.com
http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list