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

Polly want a cracker?

--
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

 

Polly want a cracker?

--
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

 

Polly want a cracker?

--
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

 

Polly want a cracker?

--
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

 

A $30B+ industry, applying relativity to create a global
infrastructure benefiting people all over the world got
your goat, eh Potter (Willy Lowman).

 

Potter, yours are not "trivial errors". This is just one more
example of you not having a clue about the basic operation of
the Global Positioning System.

The C/A code
has a *chip* rate of 1.023 Mbps and a *bit* rate of 50 bps

The P(Y) code
has a *chip* rate of 10.23 Mbps and a *bit* rate of 50 bps

 

Nonsense. Relativity is a scientific theory, and in the _scientific_
community there is no significant debate on its merits within its domain
of applicability. The _scientific_ community, of course, recognizes that
that domain is not universal.

Do not confuse this newsgroup, and the many idiots who post here, with
any scientific community.

A count of papers discussing extensions or alternatives to relativity
within the peer-reviewed physics journals in the past decade or so would
far exceed the number of papers on relativity (most of which are
improved experimental tests).

Rather than making bald speculations and half-assed insinuations, why
don't you have any _facts_?

For instance, it is quite clear to me that you personally could probably
never get an article published in a mainstream physics journal, because
you clearly do not understand the basics. The whole point of peer review
is to weed out incompetent and ill-thought papers; the readers of those
journals do not want to waste their time on obvious nonsense. <shrug>


Tom Roberts

 

1) You're not worth it
2) I can't be arsed
3) Doing so would merely continue to feed your paranoid delusions
4) I can't be arsed

 

Potter has resolutely resisted admitting to having his ignorance exposed, so
I suspect he falls firmly into the "certain kind of nerd" category...

 

So, does that mean you have not considered your theory is crap?

[...]

 

Based upon our previous conversations, you should not have said
anything like the above. But I expected that, that's why I had
you pegged as "intellectually dishonest".

 

Sure, could be. I am open minded. Can you point out why
you think so? (Personal attacks prove nothing to me beyond
the fact that you are not capable of pointing out anything else,
and therefore must resort to personal attacks instead.)

 

Bhanwara

By postulating alternatives to what you call "currently" defined
physics, you have to take into account the repercussions to physical
laws that your alternatives represent.

Have you tested your own theories to try and find singularities, for
example. Can you make your theories break down? Often it is not enough
to say "this theory explains <X> differently and simpler" - you need to
consider whether your theory predicts non-physical behaviour. Say,
giving an imaginary speed for a particle or predicting certain
quantities to be infinity.

The good theory's shine through because they don't.

 

Your theories make no quanitative predictions.

You talk about the equations of general relativity being
approximations, while never actually having studied general relativity.

You talk about general relativity not reducing to special relativity
locally, which makes it obvious you have not studied general relativity.

 

And we pegged you as incurably, irrevocably, perenially and permanently
imbecile, Mukesh Prasad.

 

Here is some interactions we had about the "basics".

http://www.mukesh.ws/grmisc3.html

 

I am not sure what you mean by that. Is this quantitaive?

If a light segment is traversing inside an em field, and the
em field is moving at a velocity of 345.67 KM/sec wrt A, then
the 345.67 KM/sec will be added to that light segment's
velocity wrt A.

[Perhaps the language could be improved, but I am sure
the intent is not hard to grasp.]

I am sure other predictions could be similarly turned quantitative
without too much trouble.

I didn't say I never actually studied general relativity.

My claim that they are approximations, is based upon the "deviation"
added by GR to the spacetime manifold, and a physical interpretation of
that "deviation" and what it means and _why_ it works, therefore
details
of the equations are not relevant.

I am not sure what you are talking about. Was it this:

http://www.mukesh.ws/grmisc3.html

Or was it this statement: "From the discussions of SR above, we see
that
spacetime is not, in fact, locally Minskowskian"? In that case, this
statement
did not follow from GR but from the earlier discussions on SR -- but
since GR
says spacetime is locally Minskowskian, we have a contradiction between
my work and GR, therefore there was a need for further discussions of
GR.

I hope that clarifies things a bit.

The important thought-line is historical, however.

If you are able to see what happens if the zero-medium-transmission
theory could be plugged into the physics culture of late 1800's, and
if you are able to see what would then have happened to MMX, SR
and GR, you would realize why GR itself is only of very marginal
relevance in this context. Its only relevance is that it provides
obfuscated support to the underlying philosophical framework that
resulted from not being able to understand zero-medium-transmission.

 

Which proves his point - you do not understand the basics.

Open a textbook and learn something rather than pontificate endlessly
about what you don't understand.

 

As can be seen "Phineas T Puddleduck"
does not have the intelligence,
and knowledge of calculus and physics
to describe how one can design an energy "transducer",

so, as immature, dishonest, ignorant people frequently do,
he attacks the messenger,
and tries to redirect responses to a newsgroup
of his peers. (Immature boys with inferiority complexes.)

Again, I challenge "Phineas T Puddleduck"
to demonstrate his claimed competence in calculus and physics
to describe how one could design an energy "transducer".

If I am right about "Phineas T Puddleduck",
he will avoid the issue,
attack the messenger,
and try to redirect responses to his post.

Keep tuned and see "Phineas T Puddleduck" define himself.

--
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

 

As can be seen "Phineas T Puddleduck"
does not have the intelligence,
and knowledge of calculus and physics
to describe how one can design an energy "transducer",

so, as immature, dishonest, ignorant people frequently do,
he attacks the messenger,
and tries to redirect responses to a newsgroup
of his peers. (Immature boys with inferiority complexes.)

Again, I challenge "Phineas T Puddleduck"
to demonstrate his claimed competence in calculus and physics
to describe how one could design an energy "transducer".

If I am right about "Phineas T Puddleduck",
he will avoid the issue,
attack the messenger,
and try to redirect responses to his post.

Keep tuned and see "Phineas T Puddleduck" define himself.

--
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