|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Date: Aug 22, 2008 15:38
mimus hotmail.com> writes:>Sure. But most of us aren't launching and calibrating GPS satellites.
Perhaps not, but we use them, and our truck drivers use them, and (may the
gods have mercy) our airplanes are starting to use them.
Relativistic corrections are in every single GPS receiver. They have to
be - Newton don't cut it in this application.
>Now try a car-wreck.
What is that supposed to mean? *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: mimusmimus Date: Aug 22, 2008 17:26
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:38:11 -0500, PV wrote:
> mimus hotmail.com> writes:
>>> Sure. But most of us aren't launching and calibrating GPS satellites.
>
> Perhaps not, but we use them, and our truck drivers use them, and (may
> the gods have mercy) our airplanes are starting to use them.
>
> Relativistic corrections are in every single GPS receiver. They have to
> be - Newton don't cut it in this application.
>
>> Now try a car-wreck.
>
> What is that supposed to mean?
No need for relativistic or quantum-mechanical corrections in one-a those
analyses.
--
"The math is easy," said Chaos.
< _Thief of Time_
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Joe PfeifferJoe Pfeiffer Date: Aug 22, 2008 23:57
> mimus hotmail.com> writes:>>Sure. But most of us aren't launching and calibrating GPS satellites.
>
> Perhaps not, but we use them, and our truck drivers use them, and (may the
> gods have mercy) our airplanes are starting to use them.
>
> Relativistic corrections are in every single GPS receiver. They have to
> be - Newton don't cut it in this application.
>
>>Now try a car-wreck.
>
> What is that supposed to mean? *
Presumably, that Newtonian physics works just fine in finite element
analysis.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: mimusmimus Date: Aug 23, 2008 06:16
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:57:14 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>> mimus hotmail.com> writes:
>>>>> Sure. But most of us aren't launching and calibrating GPS satellites.
>>
>> Perhaps not, but we use them, and our truck drivers use them, and (may
>> the gods have mercy) our airplanes are starting to use them.
>>
>> Relativistic corrections are in every single GPS receiver. They have to
>> be - Newton don't cut it in this application.
>>
>>> Now try a car-wreck.
>>
>> What is that supposed to mean?
>
> Presumably, that Newtonian physics works just fine in finite element
> analysis.
|
| Show full article (0.85Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: JohnJohn Date: Aug 23, 2008 08:09
Jerry Kraus wrote:
> Let's consider Newton. Newton was summarizing mathematically
> virtually everything that was known about motion at the time. A
> great deal of his information was, I suspect, coming from the gunnery
> experts who, most certainly, must have understood gravity and motion
> very well indeed if they ever wanted to hit their targets.
Your suspicion is fantasy and is incorrect. Newton developed his own
data and appropriated data from astronomers.
> Newton's
> contribution was to apply new mathematical techniques -- in
> particular, Calculus -- to his summary of existing knowledge.
Newton _created knowledge_ of things. Big difference.
> He was simply expressing existing knowledge in a
> new and innovative way, that made it easier to work with.
Hah. There were perhaps ten people in the world who could apply his
mathematics.
> And, more particularly, his work aroused very little controversy.
|
| Show full article (1.59Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: JohnJohn Date: Aug 23, 2008 08:16
Jerry Kraus wrote:
> Not exactly. But, any chance that institutions like the the Spanish
> Inquisition might actually have had some social utility?
If you call the murder of the great human virtue of curiosity social
utility, then I am quite happy that you are mentally and socially
impotent. Would you claim mass murder to be social utility?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: William HydeWilliam Hyde Date: Aug 23, 2008 12:52
On Aug 23, 11:09 am, John wrote:
Nice take-down of the Kraus troll.
>> It was never seriously challenged by the Church,
>
> Newton was very careful to conceal let his scholarship concerning the
> myth called the bible. He wrote tomes on the impossibility of the
> trinity. When he assumed public office he flat-out lied about believing
> in the church, the trinity, all that.
As I recall it, Newton on two occasions was appointed to an office
that would
require him to assert his belief in the above, and on each occasion
somehow
was given the job without taking the oath (and without saying he
wouldn't
take it, either).
Is my recollection wrong, or were there other occasions on which he
falsely declared his belief in the 39 articles?
William Hyde
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: John SchillingJohn Schilling Date: Aug 25, 2008 19:21
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 05:26:29 +0000 (UTC), tmcd@ panix.com (Tim McDaniel)
wrote:
>In article supernews.com>,
>PV pobox.com> wrote:>>Jerry Kraus yahoo.com> writes:>>>Not exactly. But, any chance that institutions like the the Spanish
>>>Inquisition might actually have had some social utility?
>>From the one word answer dept: "No."
> Moreover most of the killing was done by secular courts. Church
> courts tried many witches but they usually imposed non-lethal
> penalties. A witch might be excommunicated, given penance, or
> imprisoned, but she was rarely killed. The Inquisition almost
> invariably pardoned any witch who confessed and repented. ...
> The vast majority of witches were condemned by secular courts.
> Ironically, the worst courts were local courts. ...
|
| Show full article (3.29Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Joe PfeifferJoe Pfeiffer Date: Aug 25, 2008 20:34
John Schilling spock.usc.edu> writes:>
> I never expected the Spanish Inquisition to actually have any social
> utility...
Nobody ever expects the Spanish Inquisition.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Date: Aug 26, 2008 11:31
>In article supernews.com>,
>PV pobox.com> wrote:>>Jerry Kraus yahoo.com> writes:>>>Not exactly. But, any chance that institutions like the the Spanish
>>>Inquisition might actually have had some social utility?
>>
>>From the one word answer dept: "No."
>
>It's well worth reading the whole article if you're interested in how
>witchcraft was treated in the Middle Ages. It explodes a lot of
>mistaken notions.
Who said anything about witchcraft? *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
