>> In article
> .com> Jerry Kraus
yahoo.com> writes:>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> e:
>>>> In article <01935683-b3a7-46f8-b3cd-14137abcc...@2g2000hsn.googlegrou=
> ps.c=3D
>>>> Jerry Kraus
yahoo.com> writes:>>
>>>>> On Jun 27, 6:50=3D3DA0am, "Tim"
q.con> wrote:>>>>>> "Jerry Kraus"
yahoo.com> wrote in message>>
>>>>>> Do some research into how a GPS works. You'll find that the algor=
> ithm=3D
>>> s us=3D3D
>>>>> ed
>>>>>> to calculate position take Relativity into account. If they did n=
> ot t=3D
>>> he
>>>>>> readings would be inaccurate enough to render the system useless
>>
>>>>> Relativity provides a hint that there will be problems. =3DA0The ex=
> act
>>>>> values used are determined empirically. =3DA0The predictive value o=
> f
>>>>> relativity has always been grossly exaggerated for political/
>>>>> propaganda purposes.
>>
>>>> Evidence for the "determined empirically" assertion,
>>>> if you will:
>>
>>>> -- cary
>>
>>
>>> This is in particle accelerators:
>>
>>> "Graham will talk on the role of approximations and empiricism in
>>> predicting parameters of radiological importance at accelerator
>>> facilities...
>>
>>> In many situations, predictions of sufficient accuracy can be obtained
>>> by using simple approximations or empirical formulae to describe the
>>> real physical situation. .."
>>
>>
>>
>> This is talking about predicting the radiation that emerges,
>> and what safety measures may therefore be required.
>>
>> It has exactly NOTHING to do with the role of relativity
>> in designing particle accelerators -- relativistic calculations
>> are necessary to calculate the changes in timing of the
>> magnetic pulses as the particles gain mass as they
>> approach the speed of light. =A0
>>
>> This article has no more to do with that than it
>> has to do with fudge sundaes.
>>
>> -- cary
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> In GPS applications the discrepancies are empirically observed. =A0If
>>> not, no compensations would be made, relativity or no relativity.- Hide=
> quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> You're confusing kinetic energy increases with relativity. Of course,
> more energy is needed to control more rapidly moving particles. This
> is Newtonian mechanics, not relativity.
Incorrect. I said nothing about the amount of energy supplied
by the magnets. I'm talking about timing the pulses.
In Newtonian physics, acceleration will be constant
if a constant force is applied. This would not change the timing.
In relativistic mechanics, the mass increases with velocity,
and therefore a constant force does not result in a constant
acceleration. Thus the timing of the pulses must
be adjusted, or the thing will fall out of phase.
If these corrections are not applied, the accelerator
will not function correctly.
-- cary
