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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sam Wormley
  • Start date Start date
Sam Wormley said:
You are just babbling, Potter. A $30B+ industry, applying relativity
to create a global infrastructure benefiting people all over the
world has you sputtering, Potter (Willy Lowman).
Click to expand...

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
 
Sam Wormley said:
Not because of relativity as you claim, Potter. The steering
and modeling of atomic clocks in orbit is similar to the steering
and modeling of atomic clocks on the ground. The offsets predicted
by SR/GTR were designed into the satellites before they were ever
launched.
Click to expand...

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
 
Tom said:
People who are hung up on General Relativity are
generally weak, powerless folks with inferiority complexes,
and they tend to be paranoiac and have delusions of grandeur.
Pretending to possess powerful, esoteric knowledge gives them
a feeling of security.
Click to expand...

A $30B+ industry, applying relativity to create a global
infrastructure benefiting people all over the world got
your goat, eh Potter (Willy Lowman).
 
Tom said:
Well Sam, why don't you give the readership the benefit of your
superior intelligent and knowledge by engaging in debates on issues,
rather than by making dogmatic assertions, nit picking typographical
and other trivial errors, attacking messengers, posting references
that you obviously haven't read, etc.?
Click to expand...

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
 
Bhanwara said:
What you are saying COULD be right -- but your post is a basic
repetition of published facts.

Since relativity is heavily political
Click to expand...

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.

and opposing viewpoints do not get equal press,
Click to expand...

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).

it is equally possible that there are facts that have not
been published. In fact, it is highly possible.
Click to expand...

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
 
Tom Potter said:
Considering your reactions so far,
I'll be surprised if you don't set up a web page
to get back at the folks
who expose your ignorance in the newsgroups.
Click to expand...
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
 
Phineas T Puddleduck said:
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
Click to expand...

Potter has resolutely resisted admitting to having his ignorance exposed, so
I suspect he falls firmly into the "certain kind of nerd" category...
 
Bhanwara said:
I am curious, are you (others invited to respond) familiar
with the history of physics?
Click to expand...

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

[...]
 
Tom said:
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>
Click to expand...

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".
 
Eric said:
So, does that mean you have not considered your theory is crap?
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.)
Click to expand...

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.
 
Bhanwara said:
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.)
Click to expand...

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.
 
Bhanwara said:
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".
Click to expand...

And we pegged you as incurably, irrevocably, perenially and permanently
imbecile, Mukesh Prasad.
 
Tom said:
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>
Click to expand...

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

http://www.mukesh.ws/grmisc3.html
 
Eric said:
Your theories make no quanitative predictions.
Click to expand...

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

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

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.
 
Phineas said:
But you're STILL a k00k. That must really rankle. You through out all
this BS to impress a nameless face on Usenet, but they still laugh at
you.


Kooks are never off topic in AUK, k00kyboi.
Click to expand...

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
 
Phineas said:
But you're STILL a k00k. That must really rankle. You through out all
this BS to impress a nameless face on Usenet, but they still laugh at
you.


Kooks are never off topic in AUK, k00kyboi.
Click to expand...

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
 

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 65 (members: 0, guests: 65)
Back
Top