Non-Inertial Navigation Technology

Relativity says that if you're inside a box, you can't measure your velocity. But you can measure acceleration. Any position calculation based on acceleration will pile up errors fast.

I wonder if the 5G cell network will replace the need for GPS in phones. Seems like you could locate pretty well from microcells.

There's Hippolyte Fizeau's experiment*.

Which is about Frensel drag. It's a pretty small effect.

George H.

*I never knew his first name.

Smart the way he setup his LLC. Made his wife the CEO and principal owner. That way it can get classified as women owned disadvantaged business. That opened some doors for "NSF-National Science Foundation awards the grant to Non-Inertial Navigation Technology, LLC for support of the Navigation Independent Relative Positioning System (NIRPS) SBIR Phase I Project."

( from the web site)

[snip]

--
Chisolm 
Texas-American

Not very useful in uninhabited parts of the planet. GPS has planet wide coverage. the cell network does not.

You can't measure velocity inside a black box - that was established by Galileo long ago, and has been confirmed by all sorts of experiments since. If you try to measure the time dilation effects due to your velocity, you'll get zero - because your clock is affected in exactly the same way.

You could, theoretically, compare the time on your local clock to that of an external reference, and use the difference to calculate your velocity without using inertial effects. You'd have a very hard time trying to do so with an accuracy that was remotely useful. And you'd need access to a high quality external time reference wherever you are - something like the time signal you get from GPS. In which case, you already have the GPS signal and can use that for your position and speed calculations.

Well, we might only provide location information in places that are inhabited.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

Science teaches us to doubt. 

  Claude Bernard

So no good for ship or air navigation then?

Galileo? How would he be able to prove any such thing?

Do you mean Lorentz?

.

Well, ROMOS did not mention any need for accurate absolute timekeeping, but cesium beam clocks are awfully good - no GPS needed.

Joe Gwinn

Hmm. I do recall that effect. Don't think that the ROMOS folk are thinking that way, or that Frensel drag would work as an absolute velocity sensor. If it were, somebody would have used it to refute Relativity.

Joe Gwinn

I was thinking about urban use, finding the nearest bar or something, or navigating roads. 5G should eventually have microcells everywhere.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

Science teaches us to doubt. 

  Claude Bernard

GPS does not cover the interiors of buildings.

Best regards, Piotr

Location information is boring, the beauty of the GPS is its extremely accurate time information available for free.

Best regards, Piotr

You have never been off the main highways in North Dakota, Wyoming, Montana... The coverage maps are the fantasies of drugged up marketing droids.

Good point. Tunneling underground is also problematic using 5G or GPS.

He didn't do anything about the speed of light and relativity (that stuff was figured out by folks like Lorentz and Maxwell, then put together and popularised by Einstein). But he was the one that realised the laws of motion are unaffected by the speed of your current frame. That is why you can play tennis on the deck of a moving ship or juggle on a train. It is also why you can't determine the speed of your box purely from inside the box.

Caesium clocks are good, yes - but if they are inside the box, they are affected exactly the same way as everything else inside the box and can't be used to detect any motion of the box. You need a caesium clock inside the box, and another outside so that you can measure a difference. You need an external reference.

Ahh. Galileo was making an observation - this effect would have been common knowledge in his day, and he saw its implications in physics.

Right. But at this point, one might as well do two-way Doppler, and skip the Cesium.

Parker's patent US 9,753,049 is pretty clearly written, and their best design is depicted in Figure 5, but I cannot see how this can work, as both arms would have their length reduced by exactly the same amount, whatever the velocity, and so the difference in propagation time would be the same.

This patent cites another patent, US 8,212,023 granted on 3 July 2012, but the title is "METHODS AND INTERMEDIATES FOR THE SYNTHESIS OF PORPHYRINS", and the relevance is quite unclear.

Joe Gwinn

Galileo made a lot of observations (in the sense of doing experiments and looking at the results) combined with a lot of theoretical ideas - basically, he did a lot of science. Many of the things he figured out were /not/ common knowledge in his day, including this one. (It wasn't even common knowledge amongst scientists long /after/ his day - when trains began to get serious, there were many prominent scientists who worried that travelling at such speeds would damage people's brains.)

The common understanding (amongst scientists) at the time was that physics was affected by the speed of an object - after all, you could easily tell you were going at speed based when you went on a boat, a carriage, or whatever.

That makes no sense.

It wouldn't work. It's bollocks.

You don't have to have anything remotely sane or plausible to get a patent. Look up all IBM's patents on faster than light travel for examples.

You don't have to have an idea that is physically possible in order to make money out of it. You come up with something that sounds complicated, pseudoscientific and has potential money-making applications with huge pay-offs. Then you get a patent to make it look real. Then you sell the idea to an investment company. Perhaps you believe in the idea yourself (there are lots of smart people who believe complete nonsense), perhaps you are knowingly scamming the investors. Perhaps the investors also know its a scam, but reckon they can sell the

d

al

n.

r l

er is

e d a

nd

d r g

by

t

e -

eed

Hmm Well I'm going out on a (Michelson) limb and say it's using the Fizeau effect. I've only seen this in counter propagating water streams... (something like this.)

2.2223112.full?SSO=1

But I don't see how that changes if my whole interferometer is moving. Maybe some hint if you look at Fresnel drag? Maybe it's bogus?

George H.

Fizeau drag is with stationary equipment and moving physical media. A direct velocity sensor is moving equipment and no physical media, only vacuum. The media within the instrument is stationary wrt the equipment, or absent (if the enclosure is pumped down).

I'm pretty sure it's bogus, even if it is not a hoax. Although that thought did cross my mind. It would be easy to hide a MEMS accelerometer and integrator within the apparatus. But there are black-box tests that one can use to tell. For instance, an object in free fall has zero acceleration but increasing velocity in earth's gravitational field. Or put the instrument on an arm that is rotating steadily around a vertical axle shaft. The acceleration is only radial, and the tangental velocity is constant.

Joe Gwinn