<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I agreee that there are NO logical errors in
Relativity. There ARE many "speculations" and "assumptions" which humans
try to apply.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Do you accept that Lorentz got his stuff
right? And that the Equivalency Principle is correct? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>You could calculate both time-rate effects of SR
and GR for a person standing at the Equator, if you accept those
equations. One is LESS than one, (Time Dilation) while the other is MORE
than one, so an opposite time-rate effect.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I point out that both numbers are SO close to one,
that even in an entire year, the only measurable experimental time-rate
difference is only around a millionth of a second per year. Tough to
experimentally detect, and nearly entirely, these are mathematical
effects.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>For the record: The TRAVELER NEVER detects
any curved space. Only an OBSERVER, such as my volunteer standing at the
North Pole, would see any "curved space" but even that effect is really
tiny. We don't have any equipment capable of detecting a curvature of one
atomic wavelength at the Equator as seen from the North Pole, in a day.
Otherwise, again, this is purely mathematical.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Your points are well taken that much of modern
"science" is speculations by metaphysicists. Tesla and you are mostly
right but a strict distinction must always be made between an Observer (of
ANYTHING) and the Object, or Traveler (being observed. Yes, a cautiousness
regarding metaphysics is critical. Most people mix together the Observed
and the Observers.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I love Tesla, but mostly from early in his
life. In his 80s, he occasionally made a few errors.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>For the record: I do NOT consider space to be
curved. I DO strongly feel that OBSERVERS SEE IT AS CURVED, but that all
"Travelers" see perfectly straight lines of propagation.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>As a Theoretical Physicist, I interact with
hundreds of other Physicists. Most of them have personal fascinations with
either Hyperbolic Space or Elliptic Space, but I have found that virtually NONE
of them could do the non-Euclidean math to show such things. They seem to
mostly "accept the majority opinion" without actually being able to confirm what
they came to believe.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>"Too lazy to search"???</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Even to calculate the Equivalency
Principle???</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>But without wishing to put any effort, you claim to
be an expert???</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Wow. You consider Wikipedia to be of adequate
quality??? I find that really sad.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>IF you should ever decide to fightt your laziness
and actually calculate the Equivalency Principle (which I have actually done for
you in <A
href="http://mb-soft.com/public4/dilation.html">http://mb-soft.com/public4/dilation.html</A>
) The value is GREATER THAN ONE, meaning it is an OPPOSITE effect from the
(less than one Time Dilation effect of SR)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Wow. You think that GR has ANYTHING to do
with gravity??? What University educated you? How could you believe
that?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>"Acceleration can be handled with SR too, no necessity for GR". You
believe that???</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Do you just make upp your own rules? Lorentz
and Fitzgerald made clear that the time effect of SR is EXCLUSIVELY due to
LINEAR VELOVITY. Where do YOU see anything else?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Your hero is obviously Ron Hatch.
Interestingly, around <FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman">1980, "I" was
considered one of the dozen "world experts" regarding developing GPS. The
many atmospheric variables which affected propagation time caused many "experts"
to rely on me quite a lot back then. I am sure that modern GPS has
advanced a lot sinnce then, but every GPS device included a ROM data sequence of
about 200,000 bytes. Every GPS sattellite sent the same EXACT
sequence. The GPS device then used a "comparator circuit". For most
of the time of receiving a signal from a satellite, the summation was not
impressive, but at one specific nanosecond, the sum became an EPIC where it
suddenly became 200,000, and the receiver then KNEW that the signal TIME was
exact. (I was one of the people who had helped develop that precision
method of identifying the instant of time reception. I am not sure that
GPS people even know what an "EPIC" is any more.)</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Do any of you guys know whatt an EPIC is (or
was?)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Carl Johnson</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT><FONT size=2
face=Arial></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>