Einstein's Relativity and Everyday Life -- Clifford M. Will

No doubt jon will see my reply to his post.

Thanks for the invite,
but you'll have to wait in line as many
folks want me to visit them,
and my relatives and old friends are
at the top of the list.

Why not have some "good physics discussions"
in the newsgroups>

--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com

 

I am pleased to see that Sam is interested in
"good physics discussions".

--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com

 

"Phineas T Puddleduck" makes a good point:
when he points out that I am unwilling to waste
any more of my time on simple mathematical concepts
regarding astrology, feng shui, General Relativity,
and other things that waste time, money and minds,
and generate more heat than light.

Regarding dating the Galileo equation,
as can be seen from the works of Galileo
and Newton they didn't use the same mathematical
notation in those days, but translated to modern notation,
the equation I list is what Galileo discovered,
and what Newton used to compute many things about the Earth.

As "Phineas T Puddleduck" made a psychological analysis of me,
I'll return the favor. A description of his mental condition can be found
at:

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~asp­erger

As I have pointed out before,
you get better information from the horse's mouth
than you do from a horse's ass.

If anyone thinks that I am the issue,
they can visit my web sites, and see all kinds
of pictures on me in my normal habitat.

I will be looking forward to seeing "Phineas T Puddleduck"
post his real name, as I do, and real data on himself, as I do,
so that the folks can decide who has more credibility.

--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com

 

Are we going to have to rename SAA to "Einstein's Relativity and
Everyday Life -- Clifford M. Will" forum?

This thread is getting tedious. Filter time, I guess.

Phil

 

SAA?

 

Well, maybe there is "empty space", maybe there isn't.
(I suppose you could get very close to zero for
the most part.)

But I was more focused on the historical development.

The physics development of late 1800's is dependent
upon the "medium question", i.e. "if light is a wave,
how could it possibly get to us through empty space
without a medium?"

A failure to have an explanation like mine, resulted
in the rise of serious mysticism in physics: photons,
duality, relativity & co. Otherwise physics would
have been 100 years ahead in these directions.

 

You do realise such extraordinary claims fire up peoples k00k detectors
don't you? Trying to claim that YOU ALONE have the fast track to truth
is pretty staggering.

 

Ooops ... sci.geo.satellite-nav

 

Bhanwara aka Imbecile Mukesh Prasadwrote:

Not only cretin but an arrogant cretin, Mukesh Prasad.

 

I see. I doubt hydrogen atoms were much scarcer
back in the 1800s than today but as far as I know,
no one has been keeping count of them. Today
they are estimated no fewer than one per cubic centimeter.
So there shouldn't be too many nooks and crannys where
light can get stuck with no way to get somewhere. ;-)

Sue...

 

That you are a crank? Yea.

You have no proof of your inane ramblings, nor will you ever because
you are WRONG.

 

There is nothing you can say that can turn something that is patently
wrong into something that is not wrong.

Why? You are an idiot.

If you are making such idiotic assertions, there is nothing I can say
that can change the fact you are an idiot.

You have no education in mathematics, or physics. Stop pretending you
do. But sure, go ahead and say I'm wrong. I don't care - you are an
idiot.

 

Why whould I say you are wrong? I am not debating my education
or my IQ. You are trying to debate my education and my IQ. I
am simply trying to debate the science and the facts.

 

I make no such claim. The claims I put forth are entirely factual,
such as "here is how light can travel without a medium",
or "GR is based upon SR, here is how."

My facts get the goat of egotistical and superstitious people,
because they thought what they knew was the only truth,
and that gets challenged.

E.g. if an Eric Gisse or a Tom Roberts had been trained to believe in
a flat earth, and then they had been given factual information that
said the earth is not flat, they would not have been
able to refute the factual information. But nor would they
have the intellectual honesty or courage to admit that
the earth might not be flat.

So what choice would they have, except hide in intellectual
dishonesty, sputter, or perhaps abuse the messenger?

 

Not only cretin but an arrogant cretin, Mukesh Prasad.

 

The FACT is that GR is not based on SR. The FACT is that SR is a
limiting case of GR in the local limit or when the stress-energy tensor
is zero. The FACT is you are incapable of explaining how GR is based
upon SR without commiting atrocities against both theories.

I always enjoy asking cranks about their educational background.
Watching them squirm is fascinating. So I ask, what is your background
in mathematics and physics which makes you think you know more than a
century of physicists?

 

Bhanwara the perseverent cretin Mukesh Prasad wrote:
I am not debating my education

Both are beyound debate because they are both absolute. That is,
absolute zero.

 

So feel free to teach me the facts instead of debating irrelevant
issues or getting rude:

Does GR have a premise that the spacetime manifold is
locally Minkowskian?

Or does it not have such a premise?

 

They are NOT facts though. They are your conclusions. And yes, you are
getting some pretty rumbunctious rebuttals. Extraordinary claims and
all that...

Now you're dangerously close to getting killfiled here. People who
claim that only they have the road to knowledge are deluded.

But its not a flat earth. Its the body of work of physics you are
decrying when you yourself admitted you have not studied GR.

But yet you retaliate by trying to claim the solitary road to
knowledge, and persist in the claim your work is being surpressed -
which is the prime defense of, and I beg your pardon to be so blunt, a
kook.