Science > Physics > Summary of pro-Relativity and anti-Relativity debate
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Tom Potter" |
| Date: |
08 Apr 2007 09:48:18 PM |
| Object: |
Summary of pro-Relativity and anti-Relativity debate |
The following is a summary of the posts made to the
"The General Relativity gang are circling the wagons." thread.
Seekers of wisdom and truth
can browse this summary in order to determine
if the pro-relativity people of the anti-relativity people
are prejudiced in their positions.
Tom Potter
=========
The problem is that General Relativity includes everything,
EXCEPT the main player, man!
Einstein basically took the maths and methods
of stress analysis, and applied them to the universe,
rather than to an uninhabited, inanimate object.
This took one, or a few easily understood
and easy to compute problems,
and lumped them into one huge,
difficult, if not impossible, to solve sausage,
in which the ingredients had to be re-sorted out,
and weighed (Measured/quantized),
and as it eliminated sentient man,
it put the world back into the old auguring mode it was in
before the Lunar Society took Newton's Equations
and used them to forge the Industrial revolution,
General Relativity is a Tower of Babel
that wastes time, money and minds on such
pursuits as time travel, worm holes, gravity waves,
rubber rulers and clocks, etc.
After Newton's model,
there were immediate and rapid advances
in mechanics, astronomy, etc.
After Maxwell's model
there were immediate and rapid advances
in chemistry, electricity, etc.
After Watson's and Crick's DNA model
there were immediate and rapid advances
in medicine, genetics, animal husbandry,
the history of the Earth and Mankind, etc.
Here we are, 100 years after General Relativity
and it continues to generate more hype and heat
than light and advances.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste."
OsherD
======
I agree with Tom Potter.
[Osher to Sam]
If you [Sam] understand General Relativity so well, why do you
keep posting full articles by other people with no or minimal
comment?
Mark L. Fergerson
===============
You're stealing material from Pentcho Valev now?
Eric Gisse
========
With 8 websites, one would think you wouldn't post so much in a
newsgroup that even you admit does not like you.
--------------
Yes Tom, we know. As a salesman, you don't like or even understand
basic science unless it generates a product. As a result, you think
all research is a waste of time. You don't have to keep reminding us
of your ignorance every fucking time you post.
-----------------
Yes--you go on and on with your boiler plate responses every time.
Why, Potter, do you give a *****? You don't understand GTR... Why do
you care? How can you condemn something you don't understand?
---------------
Every time it is more of that boilerplate response tacked on with *****
about how you don't understand relativity.
---------------
Perhaps Tom Potter would get a clue and open a textbook on relativity.
I would post links that give experimental support, but apparently you
can't be bothered to read those.
The whole reason people care about relativity is because it predicts
correctly. Sure certain approximations make the application of the
whole theory an exercise in irritation, but that is no reason to dump
GR into the sea like you seem to desire.
I really wish you would stop posting, Tom. You have no appreciation
for the sciences whatsoever. You do not enjoy science nor do you have
any respect for basic research. You see no utility in understanding
the universe for the sake of understanding - almost every
technological device you own is the product of a theory that was
"useless" at the time. The irony of this is lost on you.
--------------------
GR is the only model that predicts all aspects of gravitation
properly. That is all that is required, and GR suffices. Your
inability to understand an admittedly complicated theory is not the
fault of the theory. Theories such as quantum mechanics are no less
complicated - but you don't ***** about them, even though you have no
chance of understanding them either.
The full implementation of QM requires lots of computer and man hours
- but do you *****?
-----------------
Yea. You hate science. I get it.
Sam Wormley
===========
Hey, Potter, why do you knock General Relativity, when you don't even
understand it? What's it done to you personally to warrant your scorn?
----------------
In what way is GTR a lousy model? How is it pinching your balls?
-----------------
Yes--you go on and on with your boiler plate responses every time.
Why, Potter, do you give a *****? You don't understand GTR... Why do
you care? How can you condemn something you don't understand?
-----------------
Says, the former salesperson, Potter, who doesn't understand GTR
and can't articulate its use to predict effects on satellite
clocks.
----------------
I'm asking you a question, Potter: Why, Potter, do you give a
*****? Especially since you have no understanding of GTR! Why do
you care? How can you condemn something you don't understand?
-------------
Potter misses the critical point--"GR is the only model that
predicts
all aspects of gravitation properly. That is all that is required,
and
GR suffices".
Not surprising as Potter *fails* to understand GR.
Y.Porat
======
The notion that space is curved
is one of Einstein s biggest flops
hanson
======
GR is a religion, a belief system, that strayed away from the
empirical and
real world physics, as shown in
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/wabnigga_saga.htm
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/96c1fde68777bc9f
wherein it says
GR is even worse of a con then is SR, because it is nothing but
circular
dance and playing around with Newton's revered G. As long as Einstein
uses Newton's G in his equations he carries with him , unavoidably,
all the
baggage, the short comings and defects attributed to Newton's G that
REL is trying to get (unsuccessfully) rid of.
BioFreak
=======
GR is only hyped by non-physicist sorry-asses who never
forgave themselves and the world that they chose a
non-physics major once they had the chance. This pit as
well as every vile spot in USA is full of them.
Physicists take one course of it (or two) and then get
busy doing physics. They only hear of GR again from the
sorry-***** "engineer" losers who thought they had the
world and were left looking at themselves as nothing
but card-carrying slaves with a smile.
"me_so_horneee" (The_Man)
========================
How would you know? Angry becuase GR has developed a better method of
cold selling?
A mind is a terrible thing to waste."
It is a shame what happened to YOURS.
Phineas T Puddleduck
==================
GR works loon. GPS, Hulse Taylor, Pound and Rebka.
Stick to frothing.
--------------------
Whay do you insist on proving your stupidity on a daily basis? Or has
being a salesman all your life rotted your little brain?
-----------------
Poor potter. Such a small little mind.
Y.Porat
======
GR has nothing to do with chemistry
you are parroting and mumbling !!
Don Stockbauer
=============
Hmmmmmmm.......Doesn't it seem like to be deserving of the name
General Relativity should include ALL relationships between all
entities in the Universe (at least out to the causal horizon)?????
--------------
So this is why second order cybernetics needs to be emphasized, where
the observer (The "I") (introspection, self-awareness) is paramount.
--------------
The neat thing about cybernetics is that it helps one combine systems
into a metasystem (although this is usually a self-organization thing,
not under our control). Even works for such systems as relativity and
quantum mechanics, combining them into a unified worldview. And other
such systems, like the nations of the Earth. But it's all too good to
be true.
---------------
It's "interesting" to read Endless Discussions (ED syndrome).
doug
====
Tom Potter wrote:
As can be seen from the following excerpt from a paper given at the
31st Annual Precise Time and Time Interval (PTTI) Meeting,
the "gravitational red shift" numbers for
"both general relativity and the quasi-Newtonian approach"
yield the same results, as far as frequency shift is concerned.
No. It says the classical shift is half the GTR shift.
This is the abstract of a 1999 meeting. The author does not seem
to believe in relativity and is proposing an experiment to
disprove it. Nothing has shown up since this abstract on the
internet by this author. There is no proof here, only speculation.
Why bother to present this when it just weakens any arguement you
might want to present?
Jeff.Relf
========
How we model time, God and aging, effects our health. Lambda-CDM
employs
G.R., telling us that the energy of the known Universe is being "
spent ".
In General Relativity it's obvious that time is truly a spatial
dimension
( static, parochial, immutable ). It's only _ Pseudo _ randomness that
makes
it seem otherwise.
Regarding Doug's comment:
"No. It says the classical shift is half the GTR shift.",
I must point out that constants involve scaling,
and when models vary by pi, this indicates that
one model was scaled with cycles and the other with radians,
and when models vary by "2", this indicates that
one model was scaled with radius and the other with diameter.
--
Tom Potter
*** Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006 ***
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
.
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: NOMINATION: VvFWS Re: Summary of pro-Relativity and anti-Relativity debate |
13 Apr 2007 06:32:05 AM |
|
|
In article <1176441177.247854.118710@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
"Tom Potter" <tdp1001@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry, I don't have any more time to play today,
as I have other fish to fry,
and PARROTS to roast.
I'll try to get back to your silly posts in a day or so.
Bye bye.
Polly want a cracker?
So you cannot understand the physics, juniour salesman potter?
--
Got mail? I did ;-) Three and counting.
Got proof? Not yet, still waiting.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: NOMINATION: VvFWS Re: Summary of pro-Relativity and anti-Relativity debate |
13 Apr 2007 11:42:02 AM |
|
|
On Apr 12, 9:12 pm, "Tom Potter" <tdp1...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 13, 7:04 am, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 12, 6:55 pm, "Tom Potter" <tdp1...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Papers on the General Relativity experiment will be forthcoming
in a few days, and maybe, just maybe,
the scientists on the taxpayer dole,
who promoted this project will make the astounding announcement
that "Yes Virginia, frame dragging MIGHT occur."
No stoopid - frame dragging _definitely_ occurs. We knew that to
within 20% or so before GP-B was launched - GP-B seeks to make sure GR
gets it _right_ because frame dragging is a nonintuitive and odd
prediction.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0264-9381/17/12/309
Take a break from your copying and pasting of nonsense, and read an
actual paper.
[snip spewing]
If you had it your way, the United States government would close all
universities and stop funding basic research. People like you are who
keep other people in the dark - willingly and happily.
Fortunately, you will never get your way because you are an
intellectually in-curious caveman. I'm willing to bet that if I said
nothing, you would not have looked at the paper I quoted you
previously. I am willing to bet, even more strongly, that were I to
quiz you on the paper's contents, you would fail.
Sorry, I don't have any more time to play today,
as I have other fish to fry,
and PARROTS to roast.
I'll try to get back to your silly posts in a day or so.
No, you won't.
The only thing you will be back to doing in a day or so is copying and
pasting boilerplate responses since you have once again shown you
cannot understand the math.
Bye bye.
Polly want a cracker?
--
Tom Potter
*** Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006 ***http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/homehttp://no-turtles.comhttp://www.frappr.com/tompotterhttp://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: NOMINATION: VvFWS Re: Summary of pro-Relativity and anti-Relativity debate |
13 Apr 2007 01:12:57 PM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176482522.290255.317280@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 12, 9:12 pm, "Tom Potter" <tdp1...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 13, 7:04 am, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 12, 6:55 pm, "Tom Potter" <tdp1...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Papers on the General Relativity experiment will be forthcoming
in a few days, and maybe, just maybe,
the scientists on the taxpayer dole,
who promoted this project will make the astounding announcement
that "Yes Virginia, frame dragging MIGHT occur."
No stoopid - frame dragging _definitely_ occurs. We knew that to
within 20% or so before GP-B was launched - GP-B seeks to make sure GR
gets it _right_ because frame dragging is a nonintuitive and odd
prediction.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0264-9381/17/12/309
Take a break from your copying and pasting of nonsense, and read an
actual paper.
[snip spewing]
If you had it your way, the United States government would close all
universities and stop funding basic research. People like you are who
keep other people in the dark - willingly and happily.
Fortunately, you will never get your way because you are an
intellectually in-curious caveman. I'm willing to bet that if I said
nothing, you would not have looked at the paper I quoted you
previously. I am willing to bet, even more strongly, that were I to
quiz you on the paper's contents, you would fail.
Sorry, I don't have any more time to play today,
as I have other fish to fry,
and PARROTS to roast.
I'll try to get back to your silly posts in a day or so.
No, you won't.
The only thing you will be back to doing in a day or so is copying and
pasting boilerplate responses since you have once again shown you
cannot understand the math.
In true k0ok fashion, potter is just giving himself some breathing space so
he can ignore the difficult questions and return with his standard posts.
Sadly predictable. I hope it doesn't affect the votes...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: NOMINATION: VvFWS Re: Summary of pro-Relativity and anti-Relativitydebate |
13 Apr 2007 12:15:18 AM |
|
|
Tom Potter wrote:
On Apr 13, 7:04 am, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 12, 6:55 pm, "Tom Potter" <tdp1...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Papers on the General Relativity experiment will be forthcoming
in a few days, and maybe, just maybe,
the scientists on the taxpayer dole,
who promoted this project will make the astounding announcement
that "Yes Virginia, frame dragging MIGHT occur."
No stoopid - frame dragging _definitely_ occurs. We knew that to
within 20% or so before GP-B was launched - GP-B seeks to make sure GR
gets it _right_ because frame dragging is a nonintuitive and odd
prediction.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0264-9381/17/12/309
Take a break from your copying and pasting of nonsense, and read an
actual paper.
[snip spewing]
If you had it your way, the United States government would close all
universities and stop funding basic research. People like you are who
keep other people in the dark - willingly and happily.
Fortunately, you will never get your way because you are an
intellectually in-curious caveman. I'm willing to bet that if I said
nothing, you would not have looked at the paper I quoted you
previously. I am willing to bet, even more strongly, that were I to
quiz you on the paper's contents, you would fail.
Sorry, I don't have any more time to play today,
as I have other fish to fry,
and PARROTS to roast.
I'll try to get back to your silly posts in a day or so.
Bye bye.
Forget to come back Potter!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Summary of pro-Relativity and anti-Relativity debate |
11 Apr 2007 10:18:30 PM |
|
|
Tom Potter wrote:
The frequency offset to the GPS system
is not even essential, and in fact,
could be, and was, computed
using the model discovered by Galileo
over 300 years ago.
You are full of *****, Potter--GPS didn't and doesn't work without
corrections for the relativistic effects.
Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: Summary of pro-Relativity and anti-Relativity debate |
12 Apr 2007 12:03:11 AM |
|
|
On Apr 12, 6:18 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Tom Potterwrote:
The frequency offset to the GPS system
is not even essential, and in fact,
could be, and was, computed
using the model discovered by Galileo
over 300 years ago.
You are full of *****, Potter--GPS didn't and doesn't work without
corrections for the relativistic effects.
Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5....
It is interesting to see that Sam used his third favorite reference
in his defense of General Relativity.
As regular readers know,
Sam's number one mentor
is a high school graduate from Nome, Alaska,
who took some physics classes,
his number two mentor
is an unemployed computer programmer
who took some data processing classes,
and his number three mentor
is a so-called scientist on the taxpayer dole,
who makes a living hyping General Relativity
as the greatest thing since the pet rock and the hula hoop.
Hopefully Sam's number three mentor
will save the taxpayers a lot of money,
and join Sam's other mentors
at the unemployment office.
That is, if he can't make millions of dollars
in the free market, using his powerful, esoteric knowledge,
about rubber clocks and rulers, worm holes, gravitons,
time travel, space warps, and other "fruitful" things.
--
Tom Potter
*** Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006 ***
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Summary of pro-Relativity and anti-Relativity debate |
12 Apr 2007 02:41:53 PM |
|
|
Tom Potter wrote:
On Apr 12, 6:18 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
You are full of *****, Potter--GPS didn't and doesn't work without
corrections for the relativistic effects.
Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5....
It is interesting to see that Sam used his third favorite reference
in his defense of General Relativity.
You miss the point Potter--GPS didn't and doesn't work without corrections
for the relativistic effects.
Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5....
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Summary of pro-Relativity and anti-Relativity debate |
11 Apr 2007 11:21:49 AM |
|
|
Tom Potter wrote:
It can be easily demonstrated (As I have done in several posts.)
that General Relativity is not essential to the GPS system,
nor is it a FRUITFUL model to use to compute the affect that acceleration
and velocity have on oscillators and received signals.
No theory *makes* the universe behave the way she does, but GTR
is the only theory that accurately predicts the correct values
for phenomena such as
o precession of orbits
o the relativistic effects on satellite clocks
o gravitational lensing
o frame dragging--where a rotating massive object "drags" space-time along with its rotation
o etc.
Contrary to Potter's spew, general relativity remains a very fruitful
theory of physics and provides GPS engineers and scientists with the
correct corrections for satellite clocks.
Poor pathetic Potter--he'll probably die sputtering and choking on GTR.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Wabnigger's Saga as a Summary of pro-Relativity and anti-Relativity |
11 Apr 2007 09:43:54 AM |
|
|
ahahahaha... aaaand here, from the fields of Wabnig comes
"H. Wabnig" <.... .-- .- -... -. .. --. @ .- --- -. DOT .- -> who is back
with his wabniggering... wabniggering ferociously and big time
because he still can't see it... since he wabbniggers too much in
news:r21p13purivrnicqt4sndubc6063pfgc9h@4ax.com...
and says
"Tom Potter" <tdp1001@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176179515.222720.295980@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
"The General Relativity gang are circling the wagons." thread.
I was surprised to see that Uncle Al, like many people,
[**** INCLUDING the sport who wabniggers *****]
have been brainwashed... , [but] GR is NOT essential to GPS.
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:20:14 GMT, "Androcles"
<Engineer@hogwarts.physics.co.uk> wrote:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
1) Grass is green.
2) Uncle Stooopid is a moron.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Morons/UncleStooopid.htm
[Enter Helmut, wabniggering in despair]
furthermore, in spite of you and hanson....
Read what hanson's governement says.
Read what hanson's governement says:
hanson and Androcles are full time idiots and notorious liars.
Androcles and hanson, where have your parents been around
9 months before your birth?
w.
[hanson]
..... ahahaha... Helmut, Helmut, Helmut. You have been drinking
too much Einstein Dingleberry juice again that you are so numb,
bent, vulgar & uncouth to invoke my government & my parents
in your sorry condition. --- Now, how many times do I have to tell
you to argue with =1= to =8= , including Einstein himself, instead
of with Andro and me. --- Look, Wabbie, here it is again for your
benefit; here where your wabniggering has been immortalized:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/wabnigga_saga.htm
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/96c1fde68777bc9f
Take to heart what your idol Einsetin said in =3=, in the above links.
Be an admirer of Einstein's insight in =3= instead you moving ever
closer to your master's sphincter... or as you say "Arschloch".
But if you can't help yourself, Wabbie, then enjoy the warmth in there,
Wabbie, and its darkness.. or even better, crawl deep into it and
find the light for you in there: the Einsteinian bio-luminescence.
Here is Uncle Al showing you how to do it:
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
Thanks for the laughs, Wabbie, and don't post when you drink.
ahahaha... ahahahanson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Summary of pro-Relativity and anti-Relativity debate |
09 Apr 2007 11:46:02 PM |
|
|
On Apr 9, 8:31 pm, "Tom Potter" <tdp1...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip spew]
Nobody cares what a retired salesman thinks about physics. Especially
when the retired salesman has to resort to blatantly false rhetoric.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Summary of pro-Relativity and anti-Relativity debate |
09 Apr 2007 11:51:48 PM |
|
|
Tom Potter wrote:
[snip spew]
Nobody gives a ***** what a retired salesman thinks about physics. Especially
when the retired salesman consistently gets the physics wrong!
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Summary of pro-Relativity and anti-Relativity debate |
10 Apr 2007 05:06:02 PM |
|
|
On Apr 9, 9:51 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Tom Potter wrote:
[snip spew]
Nobody gives a ***** what a retired salesman thinks about physics. Especially
when the retired salesman consistently gets the physics wrong!
I think Eric Gisse already said something like this... about five
minutes before you wrote it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Summary of pro-Relativity and anti-Relativity debate |
10 Apr 2007 05:20:01 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Apr 9, 9:51 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Tom Potter wrote:
[snip spew]
Nobody gives a ***** what a retired salesman thinks about physics. Especially
when the retired salesman consistently gets the physics wrong!
I think Eric Gisse already said something like this... about five
minutes before you wrote it.
I'm not surprised--Eric is younger, quicker and sharper than I am!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: Summary of pro-Relativity and anti-Relativity debate |
11 Apr 2007 09:14:31 AM |
|
|
On Apr 11, 1:20 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
StarbladeEn...@Excite.com wrote:
On Apr 9, 9:51 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Tom Potter wrote:
[snip spew]
Nobody gives a ***** what a retired salesman thinks about physics. Especially
when the retired salesman consistently gets the physics wrong!
I think Eric Gisse already said something like this... about five
minutes before you wrote it.
I'm not surprised--Eric is younger, quicker and sharper than I am!
Sam's previous physics mentor was an unemployed computer programmer
who took some data processing classes at a third rate California
college,
and now his physics mentor is a 19 year old boy,
who graduated from high school in Nome, Alaska.
It is refreshing to know that Sam's new mentor
graduated high school and took a few physics classes.
--
Tom Potter
*** Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006 ***
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Summary of pro-Relativity and anti-Relativity debate |
11 Apr 2007 09:08:22 PM |
|
|
On Apr 11, 6:14 am, "Tom Potter" <tdp1...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 11, 1:20 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
StarbladeEn...@Excite.com wrote:
On Apr 9, 9:51 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Tom Potter wrote:
[snip spew]
Nobody gives a ***** what a retired salesman thinks about physics. Especially
when the retired salesman consistently gets the physics wrong!
I think EricGissealready said something like this... about five
minutes before you wrote it.
I'm not surprised--Eric is younger, quicker and sharper than I am!
Sam's previous physics mentor was an unemployed computer programmer
who took some data processing classes at a third rate California
college,
and now his physics mentor is a 19 year old boy,
who graduated from high school in Nome, Alaska.
Off by 4 years and 2000 miles. One would think you would be reasonably
close in at least one of the four dimensions.
It is refreshing to know that Sam's new mentor
graduated high school and took a few physics classes.
Gosh golly, Tom. You do seem confused. Which isn't much of a deviation
from the norm, actually.
Right now I'm technically a junior - 5 credits shy of being a senior.
At the conclusion of this semester, I will have another 15 credits
towards the goal of 130 credits.. Since you have difficulty with
abstract concepts, I'll break it down for you.
At the end of May after finals, I will have completed the vast
majority of my physics degree program. My remaining physics courses
are two advanced laboratory [written + oral] as well as optics. I will
graduate in spring of 2008 - took a little longer than I would have
liked, but hey. The rest is allocated into idiotic humanities and the
few interesting graduate courses I see [classical mechanics looks fun
- do all of Goldstein in a semester].
What that _means_ is that I have more of an education in physics than
a large portion of the people in here - including you. I might not
have spent my entire life trying to sell ***** to people, but I have
spent a large portion of it trying to understand how the universe
works. Try to keep that in mind.
--
Tom Potter
*** Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006 ***http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/homehttp://no-turtles.comhttp://www.frappr.com/tompotterhttp://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: Summary of pro-Relativity and anti-Relativity debate |
12 Apr 2007 12:24:59 AM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message news:
1176343702.943450.235100@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 11, 6:14 am, "Tom Potter" <tdp1...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 11, 1:20 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
StarbladeEn...@Excite.com wrote:
On Apr 9, 9:51 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Tom Potter wrote:
[snip spew]
Nobody gives a ***** what a retired salesman thinks about physics. Especially
when the retired salesman consistently gets the physics wrong!
I think EricGissealready said something like this... about five
minutes before you wrote it.
I'm not surprised--Eric is younger, quicker and sharper than I am!
Sam's previous physics mentor was an unemployed computer programmer
who took some data processing classes at a third rate California
college,
and now his physics mentor is a 19 year old boy,
who graduated from high school in Nome, Alaska.
Off by 4 years and 2000 miles. One would think you would be reasonably
close in at least one of the four dimensions.
Pardon my typos.
Giss is 15 years old,
and graduated from high school in Skagway, Alaska.
--
Tom Potter
*** Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006 ***
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Summary of pro-Relativity and anti-Relativity debate |
12 Apr 2007 04:35:30 PM |
|
|
"Tom Potter" <tdp1001@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176355499.763252.301670@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message news:
1176343702.943450.235100@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 11, 6:14 am, "Tom Potter" <tdp1...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 11, 1:20 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
StarbladeEn...@Excite.com wrote:
On Apr 9, 9:51 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Tom Potter wrote:
[snip spew]
Nobody gives a ***** what a retired salesman thinks about physics.
Especially
when the retired salesman consistently gets the physics wrong!
I think EricGissealready said something like this... about five
minutes before you wrote it.
I'm not surprised--Eric is younger, quicker and sharper than I am!
Sam's previous physics mentor was an unemployed computer programmer
who took some data processing classes at a third rate California
college,
and now his physics mentor is a 19 year old boy,
who graduated from high school in Nome, Alaska.
Off by 4 years and 2000 miles. One would think you would be reasonably
close in at least one of the four dimensions.
Pardon my typos.
Giss is 15 years old,
and graduated from high school in Skagway, Alaska.
Wow. It is just like a joke, but without the funny bit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Summary of pro-Relativity and anti-Relativity debate |
12 Apr 2007 04:48:56 PM |
|
|
In article <VOidnScaENy_O4PbnZ2dnUVZ8vidnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
Pardon my typos.
Giss is 15 years old,
and graduated from high school in Skagway, Alaska.
Wow. It is just like a joke, but without the funny bit.
Potter seems to just get from bad to worse don't he. Apparently Galileo
wrote his equation 3000 years ago!!
--
Got mail? I did ;-) Three and counting.
Got proof? Not yet, still waiting.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Summary of pro-Relativity and anti-Relativity debate |
12 Apr 2007 05:00:40 PM |
|
|
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:phineaspuddleduck-B1925F.22485612042007@news.octanews.com...
In article <VOidnScaENy_O4PbnZ2dnUVZ8vidnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
Pardon my typos.
Giss is 15 years old,
and graduated from high school in Skagway, Alaska.
Wow. It is just like a joke, but without the funny bit.
Potter seems to just get from bad to worse don't he. Apparently Galileo
wrote his equation 3000 years ago!!
When you are insane, I am sure the years mean different things...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Summary of pro-Relativity and anti-Relativity debate |
10 Apr 2007 08:56:14 AM |
|
|
Tom Potter wrote:
The following is a summary of the posts made to the
"The General Relativity gang are circling the wagons." thread.
Potter *fails* to understand there is no pro-Relativity and
anti-Relativity debate. There is a very successful and fruitful
model of gravitation--general relativity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: Summary of pro-Relativity and anti-Relativity debate |
10 Apr 2007 10:54:31 AM |
|
|
On Apr 10, 4:56 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Tom Potterwrote:
The following is a summary of the posts made to the
"The General Relativity gang are circling the wagons." thread.
Potter *fails* to understand there is no pro-Relativity and
anti-Relativity debate. There is a very successful and fruitful
model of gravitation--general relativity.
Sam Wormley got it right when he said:
there is no pro-General Relativity debate.
As can be seen,
as the General Relativity Welfare Gang
and the General Relativity cult members,
are unable to demonstrate that General Relativity
is a viable, useful, cost-effective model of reality,
instead of "debating",
they just attack the folks that point out
that General Relativity wastes time, money and minds
on such pursuits as time travel, worm holes, gravitons,
black holes, rubber clocks and rulers, etc.
A mind is a terrble thing to waste.
--
Tom Potter
*** Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006 ***
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Summary of pro-Relativity and anti-Relativity debate |
10 Apr 2007 11:09:48 AM |
|
|
Tom Potter wrote:
On Apr 10, 4:56 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Potter *fails* to understand there is no pro-Relativity and
anti-Relativity debate. There is a very successful and fruitful
model of gravitation--general relativity.
Sam Wormley got it right when he said:
there is no pro-General Relativity debate.
There is a very successful and fruitful model of gravitation--
general relativity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: Summary of pro-Relativity and anti-Relativity debate |
11 Apr 2007 09:06:13 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:gFOSh.
45431$oV.13923@attbi_s21...
Tom Potter wrote:
On Apr 10, 4:56 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Potter *fails* to understand there is no pro-Relativity and
anti-Relativity debate. There is a very successful and fruitful
model of gravitation--general relativity.
Sam Wormley got it right when he said:
there is no pro-General Relativity debate.
There is a very successful and fruitful model of gravitation--
general relativity.
FRUITFUL:
1. productive or conducive to producing in abundance; "be fruitful and
multiply"
2. productive of profit; "a profitable enterprise"; "a fruitful
meeting"
Sam raises a good point about " fruitful models",
as it is sometimes helpful to remind folks
about what is,
and what isn't "fruitful".
After Newton's model,
there were immediate and rapid advances
in mechanics, astronomy, etc.
After Maxwell's model
there were immediate and rapid advances
in chemistry, electricity, etc.
After Watson's and Crick's DNA model
there were immediate and rapid advances
in medicine, genetics, animal husbandry,
the history of the Earth and Mankind, etc.
I noticed in the news in the last few days,
that the DNA model was recently used to develop
a new form of rice that will prevent 500,000 children
from going blind EVERY YEAR,
and that was used to convert blood types,
and that people with rare blood types will have a safe
supply of blood in the future.
As can be seen Newton's, Maxwell's and the DNA model
are being used daily **in the free market** in "fruitful" ways,
where as, as can be seen by the recent news,
over one billion of the tax payers dollars have been spent
on just one of the many projects to rationalize General Relativity
( Gravity Probe-B ).
Papers on the General Relativity experiment will be forthcoming
in a few days, and maybe, just maybe,
the scientists on the taxpayer dole,
who promoted this project will make the astounding announcement
that "Yes Virginia, frame dragging MIGHT occur."
Here we are, 100 years after General Relativity
and it continues to generate more hype and tax spending
than light and "fruit".
Can you imagine the benefits to mankind
if some of that one billion dollars was used
in "fruitful" ways on DNA projects?
Fruit is a terrible thing to waste.
--
Tom Potter
*** Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006 ***
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Summary of pro-Relativity and anti-Relativity debate |
11 Apr 2007 11:38:15 AM |
|
|
Tom Potter wrote:
Sam raises a good point about " fruitful models",
as it is sometimes helpful to remind folks
about what is,
and what isn't "fruitful".
Speaking of fruitful, GTR is the only theory that accurately predicts
the correct values for phenomena such as
o precession of orbits
o the relativistic effects on satellite clocks
o gravitational lensing
o frame dragging--where a rotating massive object "drags" space-time along with its rotation
o etc.
Speaking of fruitful, general relativity remains a very fruitful theory
of physics and provides GPS engineers and scientists with the correct
corrections for satellite clocks. Perhaps Potter will also appreciate
that GTR is a very fruitful theory!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: Summary of pro-Relativity and anti-Relativity debate |
11 Apr 2007 09:50:11 PM |
|
|
On Apr 11, 7:38 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Tom Potterwrote:
Sam raises a good point about " fruitful models",
as it is sometimes helpful to remind folks
about what is,
and what isn't "fruitful".
Speaking of fruitful, GTR is the only theory that accurately predicts
the correct values for phenomena such as
o precession of orbits
o the relativistic effects on satellite clocks
o gravitational lensing
o frame dragging--where a rotating massive object "drags" space-time along with its rotation
o etc.
Speaking of fruitful, general relativity remains a very fruitful theory
of physics and provides GPS engineers and scientists with the correct
corrections for satellite clocks. Perhaps Potter will also appreciate
that GTR is a very fruitful theory!
FRUITFUL:
1. productive or conducive to producing in abundance;
"be fruitful and multiply"
2. productive of profit;
"a profitable enterprise"; "a fruitful meeting"
It is sometimes helpful to remind folks
about what is,
and what isn't "fruitful".
After Newton's model,
there were immediate and rapid advances
in mechanics, astronomy, etc.
After Maxwell's model
there were immediate and rapid advances
in chemistry, electricity, etc.
After Watson's and Crick's DNA model
there were immediate and rapid advances
in medicine, genetics, animal husbandry,
the history of the Earth and Mankind, etc.
I noticed in the news in the last few days,
that the DNA model was recently used to develop
a new form of rice that will prevent 500,000 children
from going blind EVERY YEAR,
and that was used to convert blood types,
and that people with rare blood types will have a safe
supply of blood in the future.
As can be seen Newton's, Maxwell's and the DNA model
are being used daily **in the free market** in "fruitful" ways,
where as, as can be seen by the recent news,
over one billion of the tax payers dollars have been spent
on just one of the many projects to rationalize General Relativity
( Gravity Probe-B ).
Papers on the General Relativity experiment will be forthcoming
in a few days, and maybe, just maybe,
the scientists on the taxpayer dole,
who promoted this project will make the astounding announcement
that "Yes Virginia, frame dragging MIGHT occur."
As can be seen, Sam pointed out a few of
the "fruitful" applications of General Relativity:
"o precession of orbits
o the relativistic effects on satellite clocks
o gravitational lensing
o frame dragging--where a rotating massive object "drags" space-time
along with its rotation
o etc."
No doubt Sam's "etc." includes rubber clocks and rulers,
gravitons, time travel, worm holes, gravity waves,
warping through space, and other such "fruitful" applications.
Here we are, 100 years after General Relativity
and it continues to generate more hype and tax spending
than light and "fruit".
Can you imagine the benefits to mankind
if some of that one billion dollars was used
in "fruitful" ways on DNA projects?
Fruit is a terrible thing to waste.
--
Tom Potter
*** Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006 ***
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Summary of pro-Relativity and anti-Relativity debate |
11 Apr 2007 10:28:48 PM |
|
|
Tom Potter wrote:
On Apr 11, 7:38 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Tom Potterwrote:
Sam raises a good point about " fruitful models",
as it is sometimes helpful to remind folks
about what is,
and what isn't "fruitful".
Speaking of fruitful, GTR is the only theory that accurately predicts
the correct values for phenomena such as
o precession of orbits
o the relativistic effects on satellite clocks
o gravitational lensing
o frame dragging--where a rotating massive object "drags" space-time along with its rotation
o etc.
Speaking of fruitful, general relativity remains a very fruitful theory
of physics and provides GPS engineers and scientists with the correct
corrections for satellite clocks. Perhaps Potter will also appreciate
that GTR is a very fruitful theory!
FRUITFUL:
1. productive or conducive to producing in abundance;
"be fruitful and multiply"
2. productive of profit;
"a profitable enterprise"; "a fruitful meeting"
And Einstein's relativity has been fruitful indeed--leading to
a better understanding of the universe and contributing to a
$30 billion global timing and positioning infrastructure!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: Summary of pro-Relativity and anti-Relativity debate |
11 Apr 2007 11:53:53 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:
461DA770.8060804@mchsi.com...
Tom Potter wrote:
On Apr 11, 7:38 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Tom Potterwrote:
Sam raises a good point about " fruitful models",
as it is sometimes helpful to remind folks
about what is,
and what isn't "fruitful".
Speaking of fruitful, GTR is the only theory that accurately predicts
the correct values for phenomena such as
o precession of orbits
o the relativistic effects on satellite clocks
o gravitational lensing
o frame dragging--where a rotating massive object "drags" space-time along with its rotation
o etc.
Speaking of fruitful, general relativity remains a very fruitful theory
of physics and provides GPS engineers and scientists with the correct
corrections for satellite clocks. Perhaps Potter will also appreciate
that GTR is a very fruitful theory!
FRUITFUL:
1. productive or conducive to producing in abundance;
"be fruitful and multiply"
2. productive of profit;
"a profitable enterprise"; "a fruitful meeting"
And Einstein's relativity has been fruitful indeed--leading to
a better understanding of the universe and contributing to a
$30 billion global timing and positioning infrastructure!
Sam rasies a good point when he questions what
General Relativity contributed to the GPS system.
The following outlines my estimates of the contributions
of various technologies to the GPS system.
Hopefully Sam and others will post their estimates
of how much their favorite technologies contributed to the system,
and comment on why the contribution was important.
Semiconductor technology - 30%
(Fast correlators, small, light weight, low power
comsumption devices are essential to the GPS system.)
Rocket technology - 30%
(You need a way to get the oscillators into orbit)
Communications technology - 15%
(Efficient transmitters and antennas,
and broadband transmitters and receivers are essential.)
Software technology 11%
(Fast, accurate algorithms are needed to perform
the correlations, and compute the co-ordinates of
the receivers from data received.)
Information theory - 9%
(Information theory, compression methods,
pseudo random codes, etc. play a critical role
in the GPS system.
The Doppler effect - 2%
(The Doppler Effect, discovered by Christian Doppler
over 100 years ago, is essential to understanding the
compensation needed in the local oscillator to track
the incoming signal, and it is also used to compute
the velocity of the receiver. The people who hype
General Relativity try to claim credit for the Doppler Effect,
just as they try to claim credit for the Galileo Effect.
Antenna technology - 1%
(Small, light, efficient antennas are essential to the GPS system.)
The Galileo effect - 1%
(Although the people who hype General Relativity claim
that it was necessary to compute the frequency offset in the
GPS oscillators, the effect of acceleration on the period of
oscillators,
discovered over 300 years ago, can be (And was) used to compute
the affect of altitude on the GPS oscillators.)
General Relativity - 0%
(It may be that the "contribution" of General Relativity
was a negative, as the GTR Gurus used 13 complicated, time-consuming,
hacks of GTR to account for the desired frequency offset in the
orbiting
oscillators, when it could be done with one, simple equation
determined by Galileo over 3000 years ago. )
--
Tom Potter
*** Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006 ***
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Summary of pro-Relativity and anti-Relativity debate |
12 Apr 2007 08:38:18 AM |
|
|
In article <1176353633.181940.23440@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
"Tom Potter" <tdp1001@gmail.com> wrote:
The Galileo effect - 1%
(Although the people who hype General Relativity claim
that it was necessary to compute the frequency offset in the
GPS oscillators, the effect of acceleration on the period of
oscillators,
discovered over 300 years ago, can be (And was) used to compute
the affect of altitude on the GPS oscillators.)
General Relativity - 0%
(It may be that the "contribution" of General Relativity
was a negative, as the GTR Gurus used 13 complicated, time-consuming,
hacks of GTR to account for the desired frequency offset in the
orbiting
oscillators, when it could be done with one, simple equation
determined by Galileo over 3000 years ago. )
Post the equation - now 3 thousand years OLD!
--
Got mail? I did ;-) Three and counting.
Got proof? Not yet, still waiting.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John \C" |
|
| Title: Re: Summary of pro-Relativity and anti-Relativity debate |
12 Apr 2007 09:03:28 AM |
|
|
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck@gmail.com> wrote in message
Post the equation - now 3 thousand years OLD!
Same number of years your bloodline has been separated from apes.
HJ
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Summary of pro-Relativity and anti-Relativity debate |
12 Apr 2007 03:47:14 PM |
|
|
On Apr 11, 8:53 pm, "Tom Potter" <tdp1...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
oscillators, when it could be done with one, simple equation
determined by Galileo over 3000 years ago. )
Either he really thinks Galileo lived 3000 years ago, or he made a
typo many months ago and hasn't noticed despite copying and pasting
the same idiocy for months on end.
[...]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
