Speed of Gravity

[oldrover]

Read about MRI(NMR) here: http://www.n-atlantis.com/mri.htm
The roots and original ideas behind all modern day technology originate pre 1930's.

P.E.T scan.

 

[kamalktk]

When the instruments started playing up, it's a fair conclusion to draw, that this was because the input from instruments was at odds with theory(gravity), hence the reboot?

If the problem was not gravity then what else could it possibly be?
The "FIX" is not explained.

Then Apollo 12 lands with ten times the accuracy. I'm saying that the gravity calculations were removed from the computer and all was well.

Allow me to repeat, you already said they ignored the instruments.

As can be seen, they were navigating by landmarks with constant alarms from the computer and incorrect data from all the other instruments.

Self contradictory statement that you have not explained, I've already quoted it, and you quoted me quoting it, so you are certainly aware of it, without providing an explanation. Since it's self contradictory, there can of course not be one.

Then Apollo 12 lands with ten times the accuracy. I'm saying that the gravity calculations were removed from the computer and all was well.

You're welcome to read about the fix for Apollo 12 here, on page 17. http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/oral_histories/SchiesserER/SchiesserER_12-7-06.pdf
The fix was improving the gravity calculations. Doing gravity calculations was William Wollenhaupt and Emil Schiesser's job, in fact.

I'm afraid that we are back to square one with the only possible assumption, that they jettisoned all gravity measurements and relied on radar Doppler and optical instruments for altitude and position.

It seems as if there was another possible assumption.

I expect you will continue, though you have done quite enough already to allow the members of a forum interested in the Fortean to draw their own conclusions regarding the strength of your arguments. And, it seems, the conclusions have been drawn.

 

[Monstrosa]

Just because you don't want to use QKD, that doesn't mean it is not useful to some. It is commercially available and used. Don't try to move the goalposts now.

 

[Ghostisfort]

Read about MRI(NMR) here: http://www.n-atlantis.com/mri.htm
The roots and original ideas behind all modern day technology originate pre 1930's.

P.E.T scan.

Technology is assumed to be a spin-off from physics and is often called application of physics. My argument is that most of today's technology is derived from ideas that originated before the 1930's.

Since the 1930's there has been a marked drop in the number of new ideas that lead to new technologies, culminating in an all-time low evidenced today.
There is a definite pattern to this, as it coincides with the level of importance given to Einstein's theories by physics.

What I'm asking for is new concepts derived from modern physics in the past 30 years and PET, 50 years old, does not fit into that category.

The concept of emission and transmission tomography was introduced by David E. Kuhl, Luke Chapman and Roy Edwards in the late 1950s. Their work later led to the design and construction of several tomographic instruments at the University of Pennsylvania. Tomographic imaging techniques were further developed by Michel Ter-Pogossian, Michael E. Phelps and others at the Washington University School of Medicine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_e ... hy#History

I will look into this subject and include it in the MRI web page. These things more often than not, tend to be the ideas by unheard of or unsung heroes from much earlier dates.

 

[Ghostisfort]

Allow me to repeat, you already said they ignored the instruments.
Ghostisfort wrote:

As can be seen, they were navigating by landmarks with constant alarms from the computer and incorrect data from all the other instruments.

Self contradictory statement that you have not explained, I've already quoted it, and you quoted me quoting it, so you are certainly aware of it, without providing an explanation. Since it's self contradictory, there can of course not be one.

I'm quoting from the transcript as you know, and they 'were' navigating by landmarks. I don't see a problem with this apart from the omission of quote marks. This is exactly what they were doing according to the transcript and I simply paraphrased.

It's interesting that you agree with my logical progression to a gravity problem and you say: "The fix was improving the gravity calculations." What does "improving" mean, exactly?

It's also interesting that you bring-up the subject of Fortean members. I was only thinking last night how there aren't any. The last two I encountered wrote and said goodbye before leaving vowing never to return.
It's pretty obvious that they have been bullied out of existence by sceptical pseudoscientific debunkers like yourself and that you and the pack of predators are alone and free to turn this forum into an analogue of a science news forum.
The only obstacle, it seems is me.

Are there any Forteans out there? Write and prove me wrong.
By Fortean, I mean someone who knows and appreciates the fact that the greater part of Fort's books are devoted to scientific anomalies and ridiculing astronomers and science in general.

 

[Ghostisfort]

Just because you don't want to use QKD, that doesn't mean it is not useful to some. It is commercially available and used. Don't try to move the goalposts now.

Who uses it?

 

[rynner2]

Being Fortean doesn't just mean being a follower of Fort.

It also applies to those who share the Fortean Times' interest in "The World of Strange Phenomena".

(Such as Strange Folk - and we get a few of them here too... )

 

[kamalktk]

Allow me to repeat, you already said they ignored the instruments.
Ghostisfort wrote:

As can be seen, they were navigating by landmarks with constant alarms from the computer and incorrect data from all the other instruments.

Self contradictory statement that you have not explained, I've already quoted it, and you quoted me quoting it, so you are certainly aware of it, without providing an explanation. Since it's self contradictory, there can of course not be one.

I'm quoting from the transcript as you know, and they 'were' navigating by landmarks. I don't see a problem with this apart from the omission of quote marks. This is exactly what they were doing according to the transcript and I simply paraphrased.

It's interesting that you agree with my logical progression to a gravity problem and you say: "The fix was improving the gravity calculations." What does "improving" mean, exactly?

You did not quote the transcript. You edited the transcript to fit your viewpoint by leaving out multiple paragraphs included in the original transmissions and leaving out explanatory paragraphs. I have already shown that.

You still have not provided an explanation for your self contradiction, despite multiple requests.

You intend to move the goalposts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts) yet again, first it was that there was no explanation of the fix, now to asking what "improving" means. What exactly the improving was has already been explained multiple times in this thread, accounting for mascons, which were not understood when Apollo 11 landed, having only been discovered in June of the previous year.

As one can plainly see, you've gone around in circle. All your "new points" have already been asked and answered in this very thread. I even explained publicly that you would go around the circle in exactly this fashion before you did so. There's no further discussion needed.

 

[kamalktk]

For those interested, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer gives plenty of interesting information about the Apollo guidance computer, including the exact cause for the computer's error on Apollo 11. The Apollo Guidance Computer returned errors because it was overloaded. The rendezvous radar was requesting AGC computer time when it shouldn't, and the AGC was already operating at near maximum capacity during the descent, causing the AGC to not have enough computing power to do it's job.

I'm afraid that one has to look else ware for an INPUT to the computer that would cause failure. The obvious culprit is the gravity formulas. As an engineer and not being a scientist, I would look at such things and not consider them as being sacred.

Which is too bad, since the AGC crashed due to engineering error in the rendezvous radar, causing the radar to request extra AGC computing power which it did not have available, as explained in the article on the AGC. In fact, the "obvious culprit" was a known and documented hardware design error that had happened only a single time during testing, once again as explained in the article on the AGC.

This is all fully sourced, and the specific sources are identified in the article.

 

[rynner2]

This is all fully sourced, and the specific sources are identified in the article.

Don't confuse him with the facts, he's already made up his mind!

 

[wembley9]

, you would have noticed that we did GPS, and no it isn't.

Isn't what -- a physics-based product from the last thirty years?
Your link seemed to be irrelevant on this.

Of course all science is based on previous science, but you were asking for useful things provided by physics in the last thirty years, and GPS is one of many examples.

Blu-ray?

 

[wembley9]

What I'm asking for is new concepts derived from modern physics in the past 30 years

There are no new concepts, everything is based on earlier concepts. When was this not true? Steam power was discovered centuries before it was put to practical use, electricity ditto, nuclear took many decades to go from theory to practice, ditto space rockets etc etc.


But there are increasing numbers of mature applications based on better understanding of physics, which is why we have this unprecedented wealth of new technology arriving at an ever-increasing rate.

 

[Ghostisfort]

Scientists have long known that the moon's gravity field is strangely uneven and tugs on satellites in complex ways. Without course corrections, orbiters end their missions nose down in the moondust! In fact, all five of NASA's Lunar Orbiters (1966-1972), four Soviet Luna probes (1959-1965), two Apollo sub-satellites (1970-1971) and Japan's Hiten spacecraft (1993) suffered this fate... To minimize the effects of mascons, satellite orbits have to be carefully chosen. GRAIL's gravity maps will help mission planners make those critical decisions. Moreover, the maps GRAIL scientists will construct are essential to NASA's intended human landing on the moon in the next decade. The gravity of the moon's far side and polar regions, where future landings are targeted, is least understood.
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/scitech/dis ... ST_ID=2265

This is becoming ridiculous.
First your argument was that it was not gravity that caused the landing positional error and then you admit that the Fix, to fix the error, was a gravity issue involving mascons. Now you are saying that:

The Apollo Guidance Computer returned errors because it was overloaded. The rendezvous radar was requesting AGC computer time when it shouldn't, and the AGC was already operating at near maximum capacity during the descent, causing the AGC to not have enough computing power to do it's job.

Let's bear all of this in mind and consider Apollo 12, that landed with a ten times improved accuracy?
How did it manage to do this if the cause was mascons?
They were not mapped at that time.
How did Apollo 12 manage to avoid mascons?

And now we are back to computer error which is where we started.
It was overloaded because of dodgy gravity calculations not agreeing with instrument inputs. The rendezvous radar was requesting AGC computer time because the computer was giving readings that did not agree with actual real time Doppler measurements.
I read the link that you supplied and for what it was worth and it does say that there was a gravity program installed in the onboard computer.
I can only assume that the FIX was to remove it and fly by instrument readings only.

 

[Timble2]

It occurs to me that teleportation has been achieved (and old Charles Hoy invented the word, but not the technique). It's going to a long time (if ever) before we build Star Trek type transporters, but the technique does have potential for use in quantum computers, which are in development.

 

[Ghostisfort]

What I'm asking for is new concepts derived from modern physics in the past 30 years

There are no new concepts, everything is based on earlier concepts. When was this not true? Steam power was discovered centuries before it was put to practical use, electricity ditto, nuclear took many decades to go from theory to practice, ditto space rockets etc etc.


But there are increasing numbers of mature applications based on better understanding of physics, which is why we have this unprecedented wealth of new technology arriving at an ever-increasing rate.

There was a golden age of discovery from the beginning of the 19th century to the first decades of the 20th. Such things as AC power and distribution, radio, television, aviation, semiconductors and transistors, radio astronomy and even such exotics as Terahertz waves, all had their debut in this period that ended in the 1930's.

Almost none are thanks to physics or physicists in the academic sense that we know today. The theories arriving after the technology was up and running.

 

[Spookdaddy]

It occurs to me that teleportation has been achieved...

Well, it's certainly been achieved here. Unless I'm suffering from terminal déjà vu - or I've managed to transcend time and space by mistake while thinking about what to have for tea tonight - seems to me that another thread may be about to mysteriously reappear on this one.

 

[wembley9]

The roots and original ideas behind all modern day technology originate pre 1930's.

Sure, just as the roots for all technology have always gone go waaay back. But the applied physics to turn it into reality is more recent.

Look at the great inventions of the 30's: jet engines, helicopters, synthetic rubber, radar -- all based on ideas and principles more than 30 years old at the time.

So I don't think you can blame Einstein.

 

[rynner2]

There was a golden age of discovery from the beginning of the 19th century to the first decades of the 20th. Such things as AC power and distribution, radio, television, aviation, semiconductors and transistors, radio astronomy and even such exotics as Terahertz waves, all had their debut in this period that ended in the 1930's.

You're determined to shoehorn everything into your 'golden age'. But the transistor as we know it today was not developed and demonstrated until the 1940s (and it earned its developers a Nobel prize in 1956).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor

 

[kamalktk]

First your argument was that it was not gravity that caused the landing positional error

I didn't say that. The link you provided said that there was a 3 mile error that had nothing to do with gravity, http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11.landing.html I've already pointed that out, also how you edited that out when you quoted from it.
102:36:21 Duke: Roger. Copy. (Heavy Static)

[In a post-mission analysis, Apollo Descent and Ascent Trajectories, Floyd Bennett notes that, at PDI, Eagle was about 3 miles farther downrange than planned, due to "small delta-V inputs to the spacecraft state in coasting flight. These inputs were from uncoupled RCS attitude maneuvers and cooling system venting not accounted for by the propagation of the predicted navigates state at PDI."]

Naturally, for Apollo 12 they tried fixing everything they had problems with on Apollo 11. As already posted in this thread, the mascon error was around at most around 1/3 the amount of the other error. "experiencing errors in predicted position of ten times the mission specification (2 kilometers instead of 200 meters)." In other words, there were multiple errors with multiple fixes. The fix you focus on by saying

I'm afraid that we are back to square one with the only possible assumption, that they jettisoned all gravity measurements and relied on radar Doppler and optical instruments for altitude and position.

is a claim by you that is 100% incorrect, once again as previously posted in this thread, this fix was improving the gravity calculations to account for mascons. You simply ignore the engineering fixes for the three miles.

How did it manage to do this if the cause was mascons?
They were not mapped at that time.
How did Apollo 12 manage to avoid mascons?

You don't need an exact map to improve the calculations, you merely need a better map. Since mascons had already been discovered (once again as already posted), Apollo 12 had more mascon data to go from, since it was able to use the data from Apollo 11. Better map.

And now we are back to computer error which is where we started.
It was overloaded because of dodgy gravity calculations not agreeing with instrument inputs. The rendezvous radar was requesting AGC computer time because the computer was giving readings that did not agree with actual real time Doppler measurements.

No, the rendezvous radar was in standby, it's data was not being used. Once again, this has already been posted in this thread. Your statement says that the rendezvous radar had control over the computer to request data from it, that the radar would then compare to it's reading. So you are saying the radar is the true computer? That's not how instruments work, they feed data to the computer. The problem, once again as already posted in this thread, is that the rendezvous radar was asking for time when it should not have been, it was not operating as it should have been in standby mode.

I read the link that you supplied and for what it was worth and it does say that there was a gravity program installed in the onboard computer.
I can only assume that the FIX was to remove it and fly by instrument readings only.

No. This has been covered already in this thread, and indeed already in this post. It was also covered in the link, that you said you read, on the page I already posted.

You keep repeating things in the face of hard evidence that they are wrong. When pressed, you try to change the subject (UFO's, 1930's science etc). I'm putting you on ignore. Ignore, it seems fitting .

 

[Monstrosa]

Banks and other financial services use QKD.

 

[Ghostisfort]

.

I'm putting you on ignore. Ignore, it seems fitting .

For those still interested
This is from just below the extract that you(kamalktk gone) have posted above:

[And, finally, Hamish LIndsay, author of Tracking Apollo to the Moon notes that imperfect knowledge of the effects of mascons (mass concentrations) may have also contributed. In 2006, Hamish consulted with Jerry Bostick, who served as Flight Dynamics Officer on Gene Kranz's White Team. Bostick tells us, "It's one of those things that is hard to definitely prove one way or the other, but my opinion is that it was a combination of the tunnel pressure and us not completely understanding - being able to accurately model - the mass concentrations."]

[Armstrong - "We ended up three miles long."]

[Aldrin - "I think it's pretty remarkable that, this early in the burn, we could estimate that. Good guess."]

[Armstrong - "We picked a number of landmarks (to look at) while we were still in the face-down mode."]
http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11.landing.html

There is no firm conclusion given in the transcript as to what caused the problem , hence my phrase "for what it's worth". But above it's clearly stated that gravity (mascons) played a large part and it's admitted that there was scant knowledge. Aldrin seems surprised that they did so well at only three miles.
"...us not completely understanding - being able to accurately model - the mass concentrations." There was no model at all.

All of this fully supports my original idea that gravity was the cause of not only this near disaster, but of all of the previous and some later probe crashes and misses both on the Moon and Mars.

 

[Ghostisfort]

Banks and other financial services use QKD.

How many?
I would guess that someone writing in a popular science mag' has said that it MAY be useful to banks and other financial services IN THE FUTURE. This is what passes for fact on this forum.

 

[Ghostisfort]

You're determined to shoehorn everything into your 'golden age'. But the transistor as we know it today was not developed and demonstrated until the 1940s (and it earned its developers a Nobel prize in 1956).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor

"The first patent for the field-effect transistor principle was filed in Canada by Austrian-Hungarian physicist Julius Edgar Lilienfeld on October 22, 1925, (basically the same as William Shockley's "invention") but Lilienfeld published no research articles about his devices, and they were ignored by industry.
When Brattain, Bardeen, and Robert Gibney tried to get patents on their earliest devices, most of their claims were rejected due to the Lilienfeld patents."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Edgar_Lilienfeld

In 1934 German physicist Dr. Oskar Heil patented another field-effect transistor. There is no direct evidence that these devices were built, but later work in the 1990s show that one of Lilienfeld's designs worked as described and gave substantial gain. Legal papers from the Bell Labs patent show that William Shockley and a co-worker at Bell Labs, Gerald Pearson, had built operational versions from Lilienfeld's patents, yet they never referenced this work in any of their later research papers or historical articles." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_transistor
Oskar Heil, FET
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_Heil ... transistor

Everyone was attempting to make a transistor in the thirties and forties and even earlier and I have records of several more successes. The large electronic companies were searching for technology, as they do today, to make a buck.
This is not the only example of someone getting a Nobel for someone else's work.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Theory to practice and only forty odd years later, they were not only making transistors, but they were making them into integrated circuits sophisticated enough to build computers that could get men in rockets a quarter of a million miles to the moon and back, without them ending up as a smear on the landscape.

Pretty impressive and all done without the use of Tesla's theory of aether, or of gravity.

 

[rynner2]

Gif's claim for Lilienfield as the inventor of the transistor is a distortion of the facts.

However, Lilienfeld did not publish any research articles about his devices nor did his patents cite any specific examples of a working prototype. Since the production of high-quality semiconductor materials was still decades away, Lilienfeld's solid-state amplifier ideas would not have found practical use in the 1920s and 1930s, even if such a device were built.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor

Having an idea, and getting that idea to work, are two very different things.

Shockley's team discovered the effect independently, and only learned of Lilienfield's patents ("that went into obscurity years earlier") when they came to patent their own device. But they did the work, and they got the Nobel Prize for it.

Gif's claim that "Everyone was attempting to make a transistor in the thirties and forties and even earlier" is clearly an exagerration, in view of the aforementioned lack of high-quality semiconductor materials.

"Solid State Physics Group leader William Shockley saw the potential in [Bardeen and Brattain's early prototype], and over the next few months worked to greatly expand the knowledge of semiconductors." They did the work, they got the Nobel...

 

[Monstrosa]

Banks and other financial services use QKD.

How many?
I would guess that someone writing in a popular science mag' has said that it MAY be useful to banks and other financial services IN THE FUTURE. This is what passes for fact on this forum.

The same number as angels can dance on the head of a pin.

The point is, it is commmercially available and it is useful.

Products for left-handed people are of no use to me, but that does not stop them from being useful to my partner nor does it stop them being available for him to buy.

 

[Ghostisfort]

Theory to practice and only forty odd years later, they were not only making transistors, but they were making them into integrated circuits sophisticated enough to build computers that could get men in rockets a quarter of a million miles to the moon and back, without them ending up as a smear on the landscape.

Pretty impressive and all done without the use of Tesla's theory of aether, or of gravity.

All done without a theory:
There was no theory that preceded the transistor, it was patched-on later.

"The old quantum theory was a collection of results from the years 1900-1925 which predate modern quantum mechanics." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_quantum_theory

What this means is that when the first transistors arrived, quantum physics did not exist in any form recognisable today. It also coincided with the "Golden Age"(for rynner).
It's somewhat paradoxical when we consider that there was more by way of inventiveness during this period than there is today. Even more so if we ponder the fact that we have more scientists now than ever before in history.

 

[Ghostisfort]

Gif's claim for Lilienfield as the inventor of the transistor is a distortion of the facts.
"Solid State Physics Group leader William Shockley saw the potential in [Bardeen and Brattain's early prototype], and over the next few months worked to greatly expand the knowledge of semiconductors." They did the work, they got the Nobel...

Legal papers from the Bell Labs patent show that William Shockley and a co-worker at Bell Labs, Gerald Pearson, had built operational versions from Lilienfeld's patents, yet they never referenced this work in any of their later research papers or historical articles." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_transistor

In the early 1920s Russia, devastated by civil war, Oleg Losev was experimenting with applying voltage biases to various kinds of crystals, with purpose to refine the reception. The result was astonishing – with a zincyte (zinc oxide) crystal he gained amplification. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_Losev

And here is what you have been waiting for...your famous LED.

In course of his work as a radio technician, he noticed that crystal diodes used in radio receivers emitted light when current was passed through them. In 1927, Losev published details in a Russian journal of the first-ever light-emitting diode...
His observations of LEDs languished for half a century before being recognized in the late 20th and early 21st century. In 1907, H. J. Round made a very brief report (only 2 paragraphs) in Electrical World regarding light coming from SiC by electrical excitation.[3] Losev's papers provided much more detailed information than Round.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_Losev

Another transistor:

Robert George Adams, founder of the New Zealand Section of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) claimed to have produced a transistor around 1933.
http://electronic-geek.com/the-lost-transistor/

The revisionists and presentists would have us believe that Shockley et al invented the transistor, but cock deaf ear and a blind eye toward the true history. The motive is to create the illusion that modern scientists are actually doing something and to elevate their paper heroes to the sainthood of science... To create a scientific, textbook, mythology that beatifies their own for sham academic agrandisement.

 

[wembley9]

Everyone was attempting to make a transistor in the thirties

And 'everyone' failed.
This shows once more that even in your golden age the development process took decades at least.

So what's new?

 

[Ghostisfort]

Everyone was attempting to make a transistor in the thirties

And 'everyone' failed.
This shows once more that even in your golden age the development process took decades at least.

So what's new?

The Bell Telephone Laboratories copied Lilienfeld's patents and developed them in a very short time.
They were lying around waiting for someone to throw money at them.
My point is that they date back to pre 1930's, like so much else in our modern technology.