The 'Phoenix Lights' March 1997

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

You have to assume that they are "flares" to call them "flares" still. All you see is one light source illuminating, then another, then another. Where is the A-10? Oops!

It's dark. You do realize it was night, right? Why would you assume they are anything other than flares on a known range where flares are used?

Quote

Someone help them! Those pilots only have air-to-ground radar, night vision, and a HUD to use to display those ground targets! Oh no! Let's show the enemy where a fighter jet is going to be lurking.

Wow. You really have zero clue what you're balbbering on about. The A-10 has no air to ground radar. Night vision still requires light to work. Explain to me how a HUD makes things visible on the ground.

Quote

I live in the southwest. Guess where! Now guess where I was when the lights showed up. Uh oh.
Maricopa county motha fucka! Holla!

Ok. So you should know where the ranges are.

Quote

In case ya didn't know, cutie pie, those flares were over a place called "South mountain." I am looking at the aviation chart for phoenix right now. Where is the military airspace at over south mountain? Where is Luke AFB? Where would those flares be shot? (In restricted areas) R-2310A,B, and C are at least 30 miles east of the South Mountain, and the Alert area over Luke AFB is at least the same distance to the north-west of South mountain.

Care you answer for that? Wanna "do more research for me?"

Military airspace covers that entire area. Ranges are on all sides. Where did you read the flares were over south mountain?

Quote

edit: Oh yea.. and we first saw them between 9 and 10 pm (dark) and saw them past midnight. Oops!

Oops, what? You saw two sets of flares over the same ranges?

The two possible explanations are:

1. The lights seen were a common flare used by jets that frequently (daily) use those areas. It was explained and reproduced by the Air Force

2. It's a giant cover up to hidden technology or a visit from space aliens.

You have done nothing to even remotely approach a convincing argument that the whole situation was not a simple (and reproducable) misunderstanding by some people with video cameras. You're refusing to accept a perfectly reasonable explanation in exchange for aliens or government cover ups.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[chasteh 0]

>Why would you assume they are anything other than flares on a known range where flares are used?

1) I was there
2) There is no military airspace overlying South mountain
3) The nearest military airspace is quite a distance from South mountain

>Wow. You really have zero clue what you're balbbering on about. The A-10 has no air to ground radar. Night vision still requires light to work. Explain to me how a HUD makes things visible on the ground

Edit: HUD's will show you targets you have selected through other imagine means. MFD's (multi-function displays) will show you radar returns and other means you can use to detect things, select, them, and intensify the reading of their returns,)

No air-to-ground radar on a modern strafing platform? Really? Do you know what a "pipper" is? (Predicted impact point, for say a missile or bomb - You can select a radar return, paint it, and then drop something on it.) You can also "paint" a target using other methods.

"A-10's use the Northrop Grumman Litening ER (Extended Range) targeting pod, which includes 640 x 512 pixel thermal imager, CCD TV, laser rangefinder, IR marker and laser designator. The pilot can wear night vision goggles and also look through the electro-optical imaging displays of the Maverick AGM-65."

Hence... they don't need to "light up an area to see it." Nightvision goggles don't need that much light to function, and clearly the pilot has many other methods to use to light a particular area. (Yet this is STILL outside the point... why would an A-10 let out flares over south-mountain?)

>Ok. So you should know where the ranges are

Not over South-Mountain, and no where near where the lights were seen. Crap.

>Military airspace covers that entire area. Ranges are on all sides. Where did you read the flares were over south mountain?

No it doesn't. Military airspace is in a select few sectors of that area. Here.. ill draw you a picture:

http://skyvector.com/
Click on the globe on the top of the page, and then click on the "Phoenix" Terminal Area Chart. Look at the southern part of the city. South mountain. Look for any type of Alert, Restricted, MOA (military operations area), MTR (military training routes), or even a nearby air force base. Look how far it is from south-mountain. (Where the lights were)

>Oops, what? You saw two sets of flares over the same ranges?

"Flares" being the symbol you use to represent the light fixture, whatever it is, over the area - wherever that was. You still haven't supported the notion of them being flares. However, I have negated that, and yet still haven't claimed what they are myself. Crap.

edit: Oh yea...
Furthermore, who is to say that those "flares" just so happened to be fired again when I went outside to look before going to sleep? Or the millions of times they were observed by other people in Phoenix, or the thousands of times they were photographed and video-taped?

>1. The lights seen were a common flare used by jets that frequently (daily) use those areas. It was explained and reproduced by the Air Force

"Those areas," which you aren't even familiar with, aren't near where the lights were, jack.


>2. It's a giant cover up to hidden technology or a visit from space aliens.

Not convinced. However, your explanation is less than probable, because you cannot provide justification for it outisde of "those were flares, dummy."

>You have done nothing to even remotely approach a convincing argument that the whole situation was not a simple (and reproducable) misunderstanding by some people with video cameras.

Yet you haven't explained how it is reproducable. You can photoshop it all you want, but you can't just do the same for 3 million people in Phoenix metro. Whether it is man-made or not, what was seen can be arguable NOT a military event. Are you even ready to listen? I can see from the tone of your posts that you consider me to be one of the conspirators, and that I think this is a demonstration of spookey cookey space aliens. I haven't said this, jack.

>You're refusing to accept a perfectly reasonable explanation in exchange for aliens or government cover ups.

Actually, i have negated it quite readily. Where, again, did I claim the government is trying to cover this up, or that someone did not fabricate it on a camera (they didn't - I was there and saw this shit myself - although what you saw could most definitely have been fabricated. That happens often with UFO stories and footage)

[billvon 2,416]

> Traveling two light years at the speed of light would take two years from
>the passengers point of view.

Actually, it would take zero time from the point of view of the passengers. (Which isn't possible since you can't reach the speed of light.)

But let's say you're at 99.9% of the speed of light. Then your time dilation factor is around 20. So if you travel for two years at 99.9% of the speed of light (to an outside observer) your subjective time is a little over a month.

[chasteh 0]

Subjective time. Interesting.

So they would see Earth's activity (should they still be able to see earth, say through a telescope) and watch one month of activity - even though two years have passed.

Just out of curiosity, what says that the person traveling hasn't experienced two years of time? When i travel "back in time" to Australia, my nose-hair still grows about 15 hour of length. I still have to take a shit twice in the airplane. What gives? (bullshit time-stopping and bending theories bend reality, thats what)

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

1) I was there
2) There is no military airspace overlying South mountain
3) The nearest military airspace is quite a distance from South mountain

Where did you read that the flares were over south mountain? There is military airspace over south mountain. Not for dropping flares, but there is military airspace.

Quote

No air-to-ground radar on a modern strafing platform? Really?

Yes. Really.

Quote

Do you know what a "pipper" is?

Yes. And it has nothing at all to do with air to ground radar.

Quote

You can also "paint" a target using other methods.

Which also has nothing to do with an air to ground radar.

Quote

"A-10's use the Northrop Grumman Litening ER (Extended Range) targeting pod, which includes 640 x 512 pixel thermal imager, CCD TV, laser rangefinder, IR marker and laser designator. The pilot can wear night vision goggles and also look through the electro-optical imaging displays of the Maverick AGM-65."

A: Not all A-10's carry a pod.
B: The pod was not integrated into the A-10 until years after the 1997 lights

Quote

Hence... they don't need to "light up an area to see it."

So you're saying that fighter do not drop flares to aid in night bombing? I just want to clarify that little gem.

Quote

(Yet this is STILL outside the point... why would an A-10 let out flares over south-mountain?)

Again, where was it shown that they were over south mountain?

Quote

>Oops, what? You saw two sets of flares over the same ranges?

"Flares" being the symbol you use to represent the light fixture, whatever it is, over the area - wherever that was. You still haven't supported the notion of them being flares. However, I have negated that, and yet still haven't claimed what they are myself. Crap.

You haven't negated anything. You haven't even challenged it with any amount of reason. It was explained. It can be explained. I can be reproduced. It was reproduced. You have provided nothing to suggest it was anything other than flares.

Quote

>1. The lights seen were a common flare used by jets that frequently (daily) use those areas. It was explained and reproduced by the Air Force

"Those areas," which you aren't even familiar with, aren't near where the lights were, jack.

Again, where did you read that they were over south mountain. South mountain is nearly 100 miles away from Phoenix. You think you could spot a plane of any size 100 miles away?

Quote

Not convinced. However, your explanation is less than probable, because you cannot provide justification for it outisde of "those were flares, dummy."

Besides the fact that jets drop flares there all the time. Besides the fact you can see the flares descending in the video. Besides the fact that you can see new flares lighting as the others burn out. Besides the fact that the AF reproduced it. Yeah, besides all that I have nothing.

Quote

Yet you haven't explained how it is reproducable. You can photoshop it all you want, but you can't just do the same for 3 million people in Phoenix metro. Whether it is man-made or not, what was seen can be arguable NOT a military event. Are you even ready to listen? I can see from the tone of your posts that you consider me to be one of the conspirators, and that I think this is a demonstration of spookey cookey space aliens. I haven't said this, jack.

You haven't said anything. I'm ready to listen. Write a reasonable (or even an unreasonable) explanation and I'll read it.

Quote

Actually, i have negated it quite readily.

How? By saying 'oops.'

Quote

Where, again, did I claim the government is trying to cover this up, or that someone did not fabricate it on a camera (they didn't - I was there and saw this shit myself

I'm not saying you didn't see it. I'm saying you refuse to believe the logical explanation for what you saw.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[rivetgeek 0]

Quote

>One would think a skydiver would know a bit about the difficulty of spotting an aircraft at a great distance

And given that difficulty is is that much more absurd to say that you can know that A-10's dropped the flares, that they were flares, and that even a man-made military vehicle dropped them off.

But wait... there were people underneath the lights as well... where is that footage of the a-10 flying overhead?

Yah "aliens did it" is a much more logical answer....

~Bones Knit, blood clots, glory is forever, and chicks dig scars.~

[billvon 2,416]

>what says that the person traveling hasn't experienced two years of time?

?? Everything. Clocks would agree with his perception of just over a month of travel time.

>When i travel "back in time" to Australia . . .

Unless your plane can reach speeds of around 670 million miles per hour, you're not "going back in time." You're just seeing the sun in a different place in the sky.

[rivetgeek 0]

Quote

Subjective time. Interesting.

So they would see Earth's activity (should they still be able to see earth, say through a telescope) and watch one month of activity - even though two years have passed.

Just out of curiosity, what says that the person traveling hasn't experienced two years of time? When i travel "back in time" to Australia, my nose-hair still grows about 15 hour of length. I still have to take a shit twice in the airplane. What gives? (bullshit time-stopping and bending theories bend reality, thats what)

...ok.... you believe that traveling to Australia is actually "losing time" ? I may not as hip on relativistic physics as quade and billvon but even I know that's fucking retarded.

~Bones Knit, blood clots, glory is forever, and chicks dig scars.~

[chasteh 0]

>Where did you read that the flares were over south mountain? There is military airspace over south mountain. Not for dropping flares, but there is military airspace

You are assuming I simply read that they were over south mountain. Are you listening?

What type of military airspace is it?

There are civil airspace forms over south mountain:
Class E, Class B Shelf, Class B Mode C area, Class E over the shelves, and Class A beginning at FL180. Where is the military airspace, jack?

>Yes. And it has nothing at all to do with air to ground radar.

It doesn't need to. It has everything to do with one of the methods fighter pilots or bomber crews can use to select, paint, and attack targets on the ground - without seeing anything with unaided eyes - and several of those methods have been illustrated for you.

>You haven't negated anything. You haven't even challenged it with any amount of reason. It was explained. It can be explained. I can be reproduced. It was reproduced. You have provided nothing to suggest it was anything other than flares

No, for a dogmatist, it sure hasn't.

Yet you STILL haven't explained the presence of the lights for longer than ANY flares man or the military have, and that there was ANY form of military aircraft in that area to release them repeatedly. Don't you think after Air traffic control and the rest of the public reported the lights, that the military would have ordered them to stop? Yes! Clearly - it did not happen.

>So you're saying that fighter do not drop flares to aid in night bombing? I just want to clarify that little gem

Nope. I am questioning why the military would need to, since they clearly don't, and why they would repeatedly do it with such an amount of precision so as to make it look the same every time. Cute lil' gem you got there, jack.

>You haven't even challenged it with any amount of reason.

"Boo hoo! You're wrong, im right!" Oh yea. And explain the flare problem - you know... the one about their position, how long they burned for, and why the military didn't stop doing it for several hours over the same spot. Reasoned invididuals who make claims about how the military is responsible can usually defend that a little better than you have. Crap!

>Again, where did you read that they were over south mountain. South mountain is nearly 100 miles away from Phoenix. You think you could spot a plane of any size 100 miles away?


What? South mountain is West of Ahwatukee and Chandler, which are just south of Phoenix and within the Class B service area. Are you high?

>You think you could spot a plane of any size 100 miles away?

Well usually when you make a claim about it being a military aircraft emitting flares you usually have more evidence than that. Sort of like how there is limited evidence explaining the lights to be emitted from Alien spacecraft.

HHHHHHhhhhhhhh. Exhausting. Ok, lets go through your "facts" here:

>Besides the fact that jets drop flares there all the time.

No, they don't. Look at the chart.

>Besides the fact you can see the flares descending in the video.

Or several other types of explanations. Isn't it so convenient for you that the flares are made of magnesium and most of them burn up before hitting the surface? Where are the flares and the footage or even the Radar return from the fighters? Phoenix Approach never saw a military aircraft over where the lights where. And guess what, inside the Mode C service area they have to have transponders - you know... those thingies that tell ATC everything about your flight position and altitude.

>Besides the fact that you can see new flares lighting as the others burn out.

You are STILL assuming that they are flares. Please demonstrate how they are flares. Wait... are they flares or photographic reproductions? Which is it, again? Your not even being consistent, jack.

>Besides the fact that the AF reproduced it. Yeah, besides all that I have nothing.

Were you going to show this, or just keep stating it?

Your argument is "Rock" solid, jack.

>You haven't said anything. I'm ready to listen. Write a reasonable (or even an unreasonable) explanation and I'll read it

That isn't my goal here. I am evaluating your crazy responses, not claiming what the lights were. I am comparing your explanations with reality. And your explanations don't even match up.

>> I have negated it readily
>How? By saying 'oops

No, by showing that you don't have evidence for:
1) How the flares maintainted their repeated positions, were they flares descending under parachute
2) How you cannot explain how there is no evidence of something such as an A-10 emitting them
3) How the "flares" can burn for so long
4) Why the military didn't stop launching them
5) Why ATC never saw them
6) And so on...

Man. Your argument is crap.

edit: Oops!
LoL!

>I'm not saying you didn't see it. I'm saying you refuse to believe the logical explanation for what you saw.

Actually, my logical explanation goes like this:

I saw "lights" for several hours over South mountain.

Your attempt at labeling them as military flares isn't very consistent with any of this. Next.

[chasteh 0]

>They would see two years of activity compressed into a month, like a VCR on fast-forward. It would, of course, be drastically redshifted or blueshifted

That is what they would see around them and their craft. Why would what they saw inside be different from the physiological experiences they would have at rest relative to earth?

>Unless your plane can reach speeds of around 670 million miles per hour, you're not "going back in time." You're just seeing the sun in a different place in the sky.

My theory is that when an object travels 670 million miles per hour, it travels 670 million miles per hour. It is simply a measurement of its velocity. There is nothing restricting it from having the physical capacity to travel faster, although there isn't anything to propel it (an energy source, energy being limited by light speed) that fast. My guess is that nothing happens to you at that speed.

(Although everyone around you wishes to comfort their dear little hearts and explain what you are experiencing)

edit: Here is a FUN thought:

Make object A travel 3/4 the speed of light in vector A

Make object B travel 3/4 the speed of light in the reciprocation of vector A (The other direction)

When object A and B pass each other... a physical speed is reached relative to the other object. (Sort of like how we measure velocity on Earth)

The end.

[FallingOsh 0]

Ok. You obviously have no desire to talk about this logically. You have no citations or suggestions of your own. The addition of "Jack" and "oops" and "crap" just show you've been backed into a corner without anything productive to share.

You're right. It wasn't the military. It was something else entirely. What, you have no idea. How, you have no idea. Whom, you have no idea. But it definitely wasn't the military.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[chasteh 0]

Sure I have a desire to talk about this logically. I have included statements that are 1) provable and 2) are inconsistent with what you say happened.

Logic dictates that.

I may have added some emotional (and rather funny) tidbits here and there. You did too. Boo fuckin hoo.

>You're right. It wasn't the military. It was something else entirely.

Well if it was the military it wasn't something we know about, because none of the flares we have information about can last for so long over a given area.

>What, you have no idea. How, you have no idea. Whom, you have no idea.

I don't need to to evaluate your argument.

>But it definitely wasn't the military.

That much I haven't proven, I don't think.

However, your justification for the claim "It was the military isn't complete and is self-contradictory.

[billvon 2,416]

>My theory is that when an object travels 670 million miles per hour, it travels
>670 million miles per hour. It is simply a measurement of its velocity.

Agreed - to an outside observer. However, since velocity is distance/time, and time dilation occurs onboard craft that are moving close to the speed of light, the speed the people on the craft measure will be different than the speed that an outside observer measures.

>There is nothing restricting it from having the physical capacity to travel faster . .

From the perspective of the people in the craft - agreed. They continue to accelerate.

From the perspective of an outside observer - the craft accelerates more and more slowly, and never quite reaches the speed of light.

>My guess is that nothing happens to you at that speed.

Nothing bad happens, no. You just experience time differently.

>Make object A travel 3/4 the speed of light in vector A
>Make object B travel 3/4 the speed of light in the reciprocation of vector A (The
>other direction)
>When object A and B pass each other... a physical speed is reached relative to
>the other object. (Sort of like how we measure velocity on Earth)

When they pass each other, an observer at rest would see each at .75C. The observers on board the craft would perceive the other craft as traveling close to the speed of light, but not exceeding it.

[rivetgeek 0]

Quote

>They would see two years of activity compressed into a month, like a VCR on fast-forward. It would, of course, be drastically redshifted or blueshifted

That is what they would see around them and their craft. Why would what they saw inside be different from the physiological experiences they would have at rest relative to earth?

>Unless your plane can reach speeds of around 670 million miles per hour, you're not "going back in time." You're just seeing the sun in a different place in the sky.

My theory is that when an object travels 670 million miles per hour, it travels 670 million miles per hour. It is simply a measurement of its velocity. There is nothing restricting it from having the physical capacity to travel faster, although there isn't anything to propel it (an energy source, energy being limited by light speed) that fast. My guess is that nothing happens to you at that speed.

(Although everyone around you wishes to comfort their dear little hearts and explain what you are experiencing)

edit: Here is a FUN thought:

Make object A travel 3/4 the speed of light in vector A

Make object B travel 3/4 the speed of light in the reciprocation of vector A (The other direction)

When object A and B pass each other... a physical speed is reached relative to the other object. (Sort of like how we measure velocity on Earth)

The end.

Your rant is pretty close to unreadable but I take it you don't believe that time moves slower the faster you are traveling?

If that is the case, you are flat out WRONG.

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

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

~Bones Knit, blood clots, glory is forever, and chicks dig scars.~

[chasteh 0]

>Your rant is pretty close to unreadable

What? You are high. I have typed my "rant" in English. Learn to read English.

>but I take it you don't believe that time moves slower the faster you are traveling?

I think the perception of it is totally different, but I think everyone/thing still ticks on by as if motionless. Monozygotic twins will have similar lifetimes, even if they are separated. Pre-synchchronized clocks will still read the same time when compared side-by-side.

>http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/...st162/Unit5/gps.html

Awe shux. Didn't anyone tell you that aviators all reference their clocks with Zulu time? (You know... Zulu time. That time referenced with GMT, or Greenwich Mean Time, that place that determines where the International date line is on the other side of the planet?)

Having said that, the GPS system compensates for the distances that they are from their receivers on the ground, what direction and velocity both they and their receivers are moving, and how long it takes those messages to be transfered to the GPS receivers. That doesn't prove that time is warped by their positions! It proves that they need to compensate for the several factors that change their computations and accuracy.

>Each satellite in the GPS constellation carries one or more atomic clocks in order for a GPS receiver to compare the signals from different satellites and triangulate its position

Precisely! The gps units have to compensate for the distances they have traveled from their origins, where they continue to travel, the time that the messages take to travel, and the times associated with those position measurements. None of them prove that space/time is warped by their position - only that their perch needs to be accounted for.

[dks13827 3]

1. My parents saw the flares SW of Sun City, AZ. ( general vicinity of Luke AFB) 2. Flares were photographed over South Mountain 3. I saw an unknown aircraft ( a V of lights ) fly right over me, about 6 miles south of Deer Valley airport, northbound, speed approx 100 knots. a TOTALLY SILENT aircraft, one that obviously I had never seen before.

[billvon 2,416]

>but I think everyone/thing still ticks on by as if motionless.

No, it doesn't.

If you don't believe Einstein, how about believing what actually happens? GPS satellites move faster than we do, and they are at a different gravity potential. Theory predicts that therefore their clocks will run slightly faster compared to ours. And lo and behold, they do. The difference is slight (38 microseconds a day) but easily measured due to the incredibly accurate timebases that GPS satellites use.

So if you "believe" in GPS, you also believe in time dilation by extension.

>That doesn't prove that time is warped by their positions!

GPS differs by 38 microseconds per day, every day. Their clocks are warped by both their speed (-7 microseconds per day) and their gravitational potential (+45 microseconds per day.) If they didn't constantly correct for this their clocks would get further and further off relative to ours, making them useless.

> Monozygotic twins will have similar lifetimes, even if they are separated.

They will perceive that their lifespans are similar. But if one leaves on a relativistic trip and returns to earth, the twin on the trip will be many years younger than her sibling when she returns.

[rivetgeek 0]

Dude...you're just fucking wrong. This isn't theory or something debatable. it is well documented FACT. I sent you TWO links that explain the concept fully and completely. Perhaps you might be the one that needs to learn the English language.

Einstein's theory of general relativity predicted exactly how much difference there should be and reality matched the prediction exactly. Just because you are not able to comprehend that time is relative, doesn't make it not so.

~Bones Knit, blood clots, glory is forever, and chicks dig scars.~

[rickjump1 0]

Quade, admit it. You were once human, but you were kidnapped, and your brain was taken out. You are one of them sent back to dispel all UFO sightings.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[FallingOsh 0]

You guys are wasting your time trying to use proof and logic. He believes what he believes and nothing else.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[dks13827 3]

First, a little background. The lights were spotted between 7:30 and 10:30 in the evening over a 300-mile corridor from the Nevada line through Prescott Valley and Phoenix to the northern edge of Tucson. Some reports indicate that a single "V" formation traveled across the state, while others suggest multiple UFO events. The lights were seen by hundreds of people.

Here are four: Dr. Bradley Evans, 47, is a clinical psychiatrist from Tucson. He and his wife, Kris, were driving north on Interstate 10 to a swimming meet in Tempe. They watched the lights for 20 minutes or so move slowly south in a diamond formation and pass over them at an estimated 1,500 feet. Even then, with the car's moon roof open, they heard not a sound from the sky. He was "awed" by the experience and has no idea what he saw. Kris said she couldn't explain it either and guesses it was "something military."

Trig Johnston, 50, is a retired commercial airline pilot who lives in north Scottsdale. His 22-year-old son was looking for Comet Hale-Bopp that night when he noticed the lights and told his dad.

"I looked up and remember saying out loud, "I'm going to chalk this up to an illusion.' It was the size of 25 airliners, moving at about 100 knots at maybe 5,000 feet, and it didn't make a sound.

I've flown 747s across oceans and not seen anything like I saw that night," Johnston said.

"I don't expect anybody to take my word for it," he added. "This was something you had to see for yourself to believe."

Max Saracen, 34, is a real estate consultant who lives in north Phoenix. He and his wife, Shahla, were driving west on Deer Valley Road when they saw a huge triangular craft. They pulled off the road, got out and watched it pass overhead. "It was very spooky -- this gigantic ship blocking out the stars and silently creeping across the sky. I don't know of any aircraft with silent engines."

[shropshire 0]

Quote

Having said that, the GPS system compensates for the distances that they are from their receivers on the ground, what direction and velocity both they and their receivers are moving, and how long it takes those messages to be transfered to the GPS receivers.

Don't be silly .. a GPS tranmitter does NOT know the distance to [every] receiver and so couldn't compensate for every receiver. The slant distance will be different for narly all GPS receivers... You're comment is appears to make no sense.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[rhaig 0]

ok... when I was in college we had lots of near-speed-of-light discussions evenings over beer. Here's the example we always used for newcomers to our discussions.

let's say you're in a spacecraft travelling 1m/s less than the speed of light. Suppose you have an object in your hand (we always used a beer as the example since we had a cooler full). So you're travelling near speed of light in this craft with a beer in your hand. Your speed relative to the rest of the craft is zero. I am on the other side of the compartment (forward relative to the direction of motion). What happens when you toss me the beer? (assume relative speed greater than 1m/s)

The answer is pretty simple actually. It becomes light beer!!!

(ok yeah... we were drunk when we came up with that one... I don't have any excuse now. I'm flat sober)

--
Rob

[base283 0]

Quote

I know someone who lived up in Scotland and saw the same shooting star for almost two weeks in a row, at exactly the same time each night.]

Those dang geosynchronous satellites, They'll get ya every time!
Take care,
space

[chasteh 0]

The receiver has to compensate for it, otherwise it would not get the signal it needs to accurately depict where, say, an airplane traveling 500 knots over the ground is within x number of feet.

That isn't silly, it is necessary.