Weather forecasting.

Quote from: Gulliver on July 16, 2007, 10:57:30 PM

Wow! What a great definition! Let's see Sputnik's function: to beep. My computer beeps. Hence, my computer is a pseudolite. Who knew?

Let's see the Iridium's function: to complete phone calls. My central office, a brick and mortar building weighing many tons, completes phone calls. My central office is a pseudolite. Who knew?

It's amazing what you can do when you believe in magic!

Wow!  It's amazing what crap you can spew when you have no idea what you are talking about!

Quote from: Wiki on Pseudolites

Pseudolite is a contraction of the term "pseudo-satellite," used to refer to something that is not a satellite which performs a function commonly in the domain of satellites.

Quote from: Gulliver on July 16, 2007, 11:37:12 PM

Now this would be okay, except for the secondary effects (tidal forces, variations in the force by altitude, by local formations, and by latitude) and the Cavendish experiment.

You said the 'f' word.  You fail. 

Quote from: Gulliver on July 16, 2007, 11:14:26 PM

First, I doubt even you, with the thickest tinfoil hat, would believe that even a well-funded conspiracy could produce the incredible amount of weather forecasting related data that satellites provide.

I'll paste this again:

"Components of a modern weather forecasting system include:

    * Data collection
    * Data assimilation
    * Numerical weather prediction
    * Model output post-processing
    * Forecast presentation to end-user

[edit] Data collection

Observations of atmospheric pressure, temperature, wind speed, wind direction, humidity, precipitation are made near the earth's surface by trained observers, automatic weather stations or buoys. The World Meteorological Organization acts to standardize the instrumentation, observing practices and timing of these observations worldwide. Stations either report hourly in METAR reports, or every six hours in SYNOP reports.

Measurements of temperature, humidity and wind above the surface are found by launching radiosondes (weather balloon). Data are usually obtained from near the surface to the middle of the stratosphere, about 30,000 m (100,000 ft). In recent years, data transmitted from commercial airplanes through the AMDAR system has also been incorporated into upper air observation, primarily in numerical models.

Increasingly, data from weather satellites are being used due to their (almost) global coverage. Although their visible light images are very useful for forecasters to see development of clouds, little of this information can be used by numerical weather prediction models. The infra-red (IR) data however can be used as it gives information on the temperature at the surface and cloud tops. Individual clouds can also be tracked from one time to the next to provide information on wind direction and strength at the clouds steering level. Polar orbiting satellites provide soundings of temperature and moisture throughout the depth of the atmosphere. Compared with similar data from radiosondes, the satellite data has the advantage that coverage is global, however the accuracy and resolution is not as good.

You did not address my comment. Do you find that there is sufficient evidence to believe that it's plausible that the nascent technology of pseudolites (with their limited range and use) can allow the conspiracy to mimic the vast amount of useful data supposed collected from RE's weather satellites? I also fixed the bold tags for you above.

Oh, and I see don't see your definition in Wiki's article. Perhaps you oversimplify. Perhaps you just enjoy misleading.

Pseudolite is a contraction of the term "pseudo-satellite," used to refer to something that is not a satellite which performs a function commonly in the domain of satellites.

From Wikipedia: "Gravity is the force of attraction between massive particles." Gee, TheEngineer is wrong if Wikipedia is right.

Quote from: Gulliver on July 17, 2007, 01:53:08 AM

From Wikipedia: "Gravity is the force of attraction between massive particles." Gee, TheEngineer is wrong if Wikipedia is right.

From Einstein:  "Gravity is not a force."  Gee, TomG is wrong as usual, and Einstein and TheEngineer are right.

Quote from: TheEngineer on July 17, 2007, 08:31:47 AM

Quote from: Gulliver on July 17, 2007, 01:53:08 AM

From Wikipedia: "Gravity is the force of attraction between massive particles." Gee, TheEngineer is wrong if Wikipedia is right.

From Einstein:  "Gravity is not a force."  Gee, TomG is wrong as usual, and Einstein and TheEngineer are right.

Please provide a reference to you quote of Einstein. We're all amazed by the way that you're smarter than Wikipedia.

Oh and here's another book that you're smarter than: DICTIONARY OF GEOPHYSICS, ASTROPHYSICS, and ASTRONOMY, CRC Press, 2001, p. 220.

gravity According to Newton’s law of gravity, any mass m exerts a gravitational attraction g on any other mass which is given by
g =Gmm'/r²
where r is the distance between the masses and the universal constant of gravity G is a fundamental constant in physics. The gravitational attraction of the mass of the Earth is responsible for the acceleration of gravity at its surface. In general relativity, gravity is the expression of the intrinsic curvature of the 4-dimensional spacetime.

Quote from: Gulliver on July 17, 2007, 01:53:08 AM

From Wikipedia: "Gravity is the force of attraction between massive particles." Gee, TheEngineer is wrong if Wikipedia is right.

From Einstein:  "Gravity is not a force."  Gee, TomG is wrong as usual, and Einstein and TheEngineer are right.

There's the problem.  Hell you even quoted late that gravity is the EXPRESSION of the intrinsic curvature of the 4-dimensional spacetime.  That, right there, says it doesn't exist as a force, but is instead an idea.  Thanks for proving the point with some of that TomG/B copy and paste magic.

Wow! Even when confronted by unconvertible evidence, you refuse to accept that treating gravity as a force is a tried and true part of modern physics.

Quote from: CommonCents on July 17, 2007, 09:48:52 AM

There's the problem.  Hell you even quoted late that gravity is the EXPRESSION of the intrinsic curvature of the 4-dimensional spacetime.  That, right there, says it doesn't exist as a force, but is instead an idea.  Thanks for proving the point with some of that TomG/B copy and paste magic.

Wow! Even when confronted by unconvertible evidence, you refuse to accept that treating gravity as a force is a tried and true part of modern physics. That's expected I guess. I'd written you off as a mere nuisance quite a while ago. Good luck on finding that quote from Einstein, by the way. I imagine you'll be looking forever.

In general relativity, gravity is the expression of the intrinsic curvature of the 4-dimensional spacetime.

Quote from: Gulliver on July 17, 2007, 12:56:04 PM

Quote from: CommonCents on July 17, 2007, 09:48:52 AM

There's the problem.  Hell you even quoted late that gravity is the EXPRESSION of the intrinsic curvature of the 4-dimensional spacetime.  That, right there, says it doesn't exist as a force, but is instead an idea.  Thanks for proving the point with some of that TomG/B copy and paste magic.

Wow! Even when confronted by unconvertible evidence, you refuse to accept that treating gravity as a force is a tried and true part of modern physics. That's expected I guess. I'd written you off as a mere nuisance quite a while ago. Good luck on finding that quote from Einstein, by the way. I imagine you'll be looking forever.

What quote from Einstein am I looking for?  In what you posted you supported TheEngineer's argument that gravity does not exist as a force.  I'll paste what you put right down here:

Quote

In general relativity, gravity is the expression of the intrinsic curvature of the 4-dimensional spacetime.

So, is Einstein wrong about spacetime bending?  Is there, in fact, a messenger particle that can communicate at faster than light speeds?  TomG vs Einstein, I'll stick with Einstein.  ^_^

If FE can't tolerate GR, then you should never expect to use GR to argue that FE is sound in some manner.

You and TheEngineer continue to abuse Einstein claiming that he said exactly: "Force as a force does not exist.".

Quote from: Gulliver on July 17, 2007, 01:28:00 PM

If FE can't tolerate GR, then you should never expect to use GR to argue that FE is sound in some manner.

I'm sorry, TomG, but when was this discussion about the FE?

Quote from: Gulliver on July 17, 2007, 01:28:00 PM

You and TheEngineer continue to abuse Einstein claiming that he said exactly: "Force as a force does not exist.".

I'm pretty sure we were not arguing that.

In general relativity, gravity is the expression of the intrinsic curvature of the 4-dimensional spacetime.

So it's a play on words... Way to waste time, TheEngineer.

I love it when TomG realizes his mistakes and 'forgets' to respond to posts directed at him.

I love it when TomG realizes his mistakes and 'forgets' to respond to posts directed at him.

So it's a play on words... Way to waste time, TheEngineer.

I love it when TomG realizes his mistakes and 'forgets' to respond to posts directed at him.

I don't recall TheEngineer saying "Force as a force does not exist."

I recall TheEngineer saying "Gravity as a force does not exist."

I recall your post referring to gravity to support this in saying:

Quote

In general relativity, gravity is the expression of the intrinsic curvature of the 4-dimensional spacetime.

I don't see 'force' in there.

Quote from: rentakow on July 17, 2007, 02:35:29 PM

So it's a play on words... Way to waste time, TheEngineer.

No, it's not. GR states that gravity is a fictitious force. It's been pretty simply laid out before.

As useful as the equivalence between gravitational and inertial effect might be, it does not constitute a complete theory of gravity. Notably, it cannot answer the following simple question: what keeps the people on the other side of the world from falling off? We might be able to explain gravity near our location on the Earth's surface as a fictitious force – as due to the fact that we have chosen a reference frame that is not in free fall. But a freely falling reference frame on our side of the Earth cannot explain why the people on the opposite side of the Earth experience a gravitational pull in the opposite direction.

A more subtle manifestation of the same effect involves two bodies that are falling side by side towards the Earth. In a reference frame that is in free fall alongside these bodies, they appear to hover weightlessly – but not completely so: after all, if you look more closely, these bodies are not falling in the same direction, but towards the same point in space: the Earth's center of gravity. Because of this, there is a minute component of motion bringing the two bodies ever closer to each other (see the image at right).

Whenever bodies fall in different directions or at different rates due to differences in the strength and direction of gravitational forces, we are dealing with what are called tidal effects (since such differences in force are also responsible for the tides in the Earth's oceans). The equivalence between inertia and gravity cannot explain these tidal effects – it cannot explain the variation of the gravitational field from location to location

Yes, gravity can be consider a fictitious force in certain FoRs, ignoring secondary effect, but this tenet of GR does not and indeed has, to my knowledge, never been held to conclude Einstein's "gravity as a force does not exist".