Next Intel's processor using FTL data transmission technolog

[Fred Abse]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:57:20 +0200, Mathew Orman wrote:

Coax does not propagates EM waves it propagates electrical waveforms!

So the difference in propagation delay that I observe in air spaced and
dielectric filled cables is a figment of my fevered imagination?

--
Then there's duct tape ...
(Garrison Keillor)
nofr@sbhevre.pbzchyvax.pb.hx

 

[Fred Abse]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 20:05:31 +0200, Mathew Orman wrote:

Please give me an example of physical phenomena that was modeled before it
was physically discovered!

Gravity bending light.

--
Then there's duct tape ...
(Garrison Keillor)
nofr@sbhevre.pbzchyvax.pb.hx

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Mathew Orman wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in
message news:hMukb.414$nL.93@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
Mathew Orman wrote:
"Nico Coesel" <nico@puntnl.niks> wrote in message
news:3f91cb33.53491757@news.planet.nl...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote:


Einstein postulated the physical property of space and despite his
wishful thinking
it filed to materialize it self in reality!



What are you rabbiting on about. When has GR failed?



Never!
GR has never failed!
It is like a perfect clock!
The stopped clock!

Something that never worked will never fail!

Oh, what about.

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node97.html

1 Gravitational Red shift of light
2 Gravitational Bending of light
3 Precession of the perihelion of Mercury
4 Loss of energy by double pulsars

Its plainly obvious that you *truly* are a complete and utter rank
layman at this. You have no knowledge on these matters at all, just
cursory words gained from reading Bantam paperbacks.

Here is a simplified outline of the basics, "General Relativity For
Teletubbys", http://www.anasoft.co.uk/physics/gr/index.html

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Mathew Orman]

"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:%wvkb.423$nL.361@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...

Mathew Orman wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in
message news:hMukb.414$nL.93@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
Mathew Orman wrote:
"Nico Coesel" <nico@puntnl.niks> wrote in message
news:3f91cb33.53491757@news.planet.nl...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote:


Einstein postulated the physical property of space and despite his
wishful thinking
it filed to materialize it self in reality!



What are you rabbiting on about. When has GR failed?



Never!
GR has never failed!
It is like a perfect clock!
The stopped clock!

Something that never worked will never fail!

Oh, what about.

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node97.html

1 Gravitational Red shift of light
2 Gravitational Bending of light
3 Precession of the perihelion of Mercury
4 Loss of energy by double pulsars

Its plainly obvious that you *truly* are a complete and utter rank
layman at this. You have no knowledge on these matters at all, just
cursory words gained from reading Bantam paperbacks.

Here is a simplified outline of the basics, "General Relativity For
Teletubbys", http://www.anasoft.co.uk/physics/gr/index.html

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

Poor evidence based on 2d image data.
The grossest example of theory to experimental data fitting!

Provide description of a single down to the Earth experiment
that can be performed by use of the conventional test equipment.

After all the GR theory consumes billions of dollars a year!

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com

 

[Mathew Orman]

"Fred Abse" <excretatauris@cerebrumconfus.it> wrote in message
newsan.2003.10.18.21.32.15.735898@cerebrumconfus.it...

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 20:05:31 +0200, Mathew Orman wrote:

Please give me an example of physical phenomena that was modeled before
it
was physically discovered!

Gravity bending light.

--
Then there's duct tape ...
(Garrison Keillor)
nofr@sbhevre.pbzchyvax.pb.hx

The grossest example of theory to experimental data fitting!


Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com

 

[Mathew Orman]

"Fred Abse" <excretatauris@cerebrumconfus.it> wrote in message
newsan.2003.10.18.21.30.28.34341@cerebrumconfus.it...

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:57:20 +0200, Mathew Orman wrote:

Coax does not propagates EM waves it propagates electrical waveforms!


So the difference in propagation delay that I observe in air spaced and
dielectric filled cables is a figment of my fevered imagination?

--
Then there's duct tape ...
(Garrison Keillor)
nofr@sbhevre.pbzchyvax.pb.hx

The dielectric const of the coax filler is on of the factors defining the
nominal capacitance.
The terminated impedance matched coax line segment is considered as RLC
delay line and can be constructed to
give any nominal delay.

The main property of EM waves is straight line propagation!
Coax can be twisted to any shape and that does not alter much the waveform
propagation.


Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Mathew Orman wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in



Never!
GR has never failed!
It is like a perfect clock!
The stopped clock!

Something that never worked will never fail!

Oh, what about.

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node97.html

1 Gravitational Red shift of light
2 Gravitational Bending of light
3 Precession of the perihelion of Mercury
4 Loss of energy by double pulsars

Its plainly obvious that you *truly* are a complete and utter rank
layman at this. You have no knowledge on these matters at all, just
cursory words gained from reading Bantam paperbacks.

Here is a simplified outline of the basics, "General Relativity For
Teletubbys", http://www.anasoft.co.uk/physics/gr/index.html


Poor evidence based on 2d image data.
The grossest example of theory to experimental data fitting!

Yeah, all of physics is wrong yet again. Simply pathetic.

Provide description of a single down to the Earth experiment
that can be performed by use of the conventional test equipment.

Idiot. General Relativity is about gravity. You know, things about how
planets and stars move. These don't exist on the earth, you fool.

Just an offhand web scan.
Some examples of *accurate* rader ranging:

http://helio.estec.esa.nl/intermarsnet/redreport/node37.html
"Most of the experimental underpinning for theoretical gravitation has
come from Solar System dynamics. Ranging to the Viking Landers, radar
ranging to Mercury, and laser ranging to the moon have produced the most
precise dynamical tests of the theory as it applies to the motions of
bodies in the Solar System. As a result of these tests, it is known that
Newtonian gravity is not correct and that Einstein's General Theory of
Relativity still appears to be consistent with all observations."

or http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0264-9381/19/16/306, relative accuracy
of 0.1% to 1%.

You still having got a f'ing clue. You are way out of your depth, and
digging yourself in deeper into the shit.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Chuck Harris]

Mathew Orman wrote:

The dielectric const of the coax filler is on of the factors defining the
nominal capacitance.
The terminated impedance matched coax line segment is considered as RLC
delay line and can be constructed to
give any nominal delay.

The main property of EM waves is straight line propagation!

Hmmm? I must of missed that in my electromagnetics class at the
university.

Like everything else, an EM wave will propagate in a straight line
unless something perturbs it.... Some metal, for instance, or some
dielectric with a different characteristic than a vacuum. Or the
intense gravity of a star.

Tell me Orman, how do you explain the transmission of light (an EM wave)
through a glass fiber? Or, how about a microwave EM wave through a
piece of rectangular waveguide? You know, that metal tube thingy
without a center conductor.

-Chuck, WA3UQV

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com

 

[Rene Tschaggelar]

Mathew Orman wrote:

"Fred Abse" <excretatauris@cerebrumconfus.it> wrote in message
newsan.2003.10.18.21.30.28.34341@cerebrumconfus.it...

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:57:20 +0200, Mathew Orman wrote:


Coax does not propagates EM waves it propagates electrical waveforms!


So the difference in propagation delay that I observe in air spaced and
dielectric filled cables is a figment of my fevered imagination?

--
Then there's duct tape ...
(Garrison Keillor)
nofr@sbhevre.pbzchyvax.pb.hx


The dielectric const of the coax filler is on of the factors defining the
nominal capacitance.
The terminated impedance matched coax line segment is considered as RLC
delay line and can be constructed to
give any nominal delay.

The main property of EM waves is straight line propagation!
Coax can be twisted to any shape and that does not alter much the waveform
propagation.

Not really.
The coax has a TEM wave, meaning the E field is perpendicular to the
propagation direction and the H field is also perpendicular to the
the propagation. Waveguides without center conductor cannot have
both fields perpendicular, therefore they either are TE or TM.

Rene
--
Ing.Buero R.Tschaggelar - http://www.ibrtses.com
& commercial newsgroups - http://www.talkto.net

 

[Fred Abse]

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 15:05:13 +0200, Mathew Orman wrote:

The main property of EM waves is straight line propagation!

So you're now saying bent waveguide won't work?

--
Then there's duct tape ...
(Garrison Keillor)
nofr@sbhevre.pbzchyvax.pb.hx

 

[Fred Abse]

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 14:54:01 +0200, Mathew Orman wrote:

"Fred Abse" <excretatauris@cerebrumconfus.it> wrote in message
newsan.2003.10.18.21.32.15.735898@cerebrumconfus.it...
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 20:05:31 +0200, Mathew Orman wrote:

Please give me an example of physical phenomena that was modeled
before
it
was physically discovered!

Gravity bending light.

--

Sig chopped (since poster's news client didn't do it)

The grossest example of theory to experimental data fitting!

An example of a hypothesis being borne out by subsequent experimental
observation.


--
Then there's duct tape ...
(Garrison Keillor)
nofr@sbhevre.pbzchyvax.pb.hx

 

[Mathew Orman]

"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:N3xkb.426$nL.66@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...

Mathew Orman wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in



Never!
GR has never failed!
It is like a perfect clock!
The stopped clock!

Something that never worked will never fail!

Oh, what about.

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node97.html

1 Gravitational Red shift of light
2 Gravitational Bending of light
3 Precession of the perihelion of Mercury
4 Loss of energy by double pulsars

Its plainly obvious that you *truly* are a complete and utter rank
layman at this. You have no knowledge on these matters at all, just
cursory words gained from reading Bantam paperbacks.

Here is a simplified outline of the basics, "General Relativity For
Teletubbys", http://www.anasoft.co.uk/physics/gr/index.html


Poor evidence based on 2d image data.
The grossest example of theory to experimental data fitting!


Yeah, all of physics is wrong yet again. Simply pathetic.

Provide description of a single down to the Earth experiment
that can be performed by use of the conventional test equipment.

Idiot. General Relativity is about gravity. You know, things about how
planets and stars move. These don't exist on the earth, you fool.

Just an offhand web scan.
Some examples of *accurate* rader ranging:

http://helio.estec.esa.nl/intermarsnet/redreport/node37.html
"Most of the experimental underpinning for theoretical gravitation has
come from Solar System dynamics. Ranging to the Viking Landers, radar
ranging to Mercury, and laser ranging to the moon have produced the most
precise dynamical tests of the theory as it applies to the motions of
bodies in the Solar System. As a result of these tests, it is known that
Newtonian gravity is not correct and that Einstein's General Theory of
Relativity still appears to be consistent with all observations."

or http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0264-9381/19/16/306, relative accuracy
of 0.1% to 1%.

You still having got a f'ing clue. You are way out of your depth, and
digging yourself in deeper into the shit.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

I need a link to the description of a single physical experiment and not to
a vending machine!

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Mathew Orman wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in
message news:N3xkb.426$nL.66@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
Mathew Orman wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in



Never!
GR has never failed!
It is like a perfect clock!
The stopped clock!

Something that never worked will never fail!

Oh, what about.

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node97.html

1 Gravitational Red shift of light
2 Gravitational Bending of light
3 Precession of the perihelion of Mercury
4 Loss of energy by double pulsars

Its plainly obvious that you *truly* are a complete and utter rank
layman at this. You have no knowledge on these matters at all, just
cursory words gained from reading Bantam paperbacks.

Here is a simplified outline of the basics, "General Relativity For
Teletubbys", http://www.anasoft.co.uk/physics/gr/index.html


Poor evidence based on 2d image data.
The grossest example of theory to experimental data fitting!


Yeah, all of physics is wrong yet again. Simply pathetic.

Provide description of a single down to the Earth experiment
that can be performed by use of the conventional test equipment.

Idiot. General Relativity is about gravity. You know, things about
how planets and stars move. These don't exist on the earth, you fool.

Just an offhand web scan.
Some examples of *accurate* rader ranging:

http://helio.estec.esa.nl/intermarsnet/redreport/node37.html
"Most of the experimental underpinning for theoretical gravitation
has come from Solar System dynamics. Ranging to the Viking Landers,
radar ranging to Mercury, and laser ranging to the moon have
produced the most precise dynamical tests of the theory as it
applies to the motions of bodies in the Solar System. As a result of
these tests, it is known that Newtonian gravity is not correct and
that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity still appears to be
consistent with all observations."

or http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0264-9381/19/16/306, relative
accuracy of 0.1% to 1%.

You still having got a f'ing clue. You are way out of your depth, and
digging yourself in deeper into the shit.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.



I need a link to the description of a single physical experiment and
not to a vending machine!

Go and take a bloody first coarse in Relativity, before making daft
claims that it is a pile of shit. Your arguing from complete ignorance.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Richard Henry]

"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bmtmpl$hb0$1@news.onet.pl...

Einstein postulated the physical property of space and despite his wishful
thinking
it filed to materialize it self in reality!

What alternative universe are you posting from?

 

[Mathew Orman]

"Chuck Harris" <cfharris@erols.com> wrote in message
news:bmu577$ej0$1@bob.news.rcn.net...

Mathew Orman wrote:


The dielectric const of the coax filler is on of the factors defining
the
nominal capacitance.
The terminated impedance matched coax line segment is considered as RLC
delay line and can be constructed to
give any nominal delay.

The main property of EM waves is straight line propagation!

Hmmm? I must of missed that in my electromagnetics class at the
university.

Like everything else, an EM wave will propagate in a straight line
unless something perturbs it.... Some metal, for instance, or some
dielectric with a different characteristic than a vacuum. Or the
intense gravity of a star.

Tell me Orman, how do you explain the transmission of light (an EM wave)
through a glass fiber? Or, how about a microwave EM wave through a
piece of rectangular waveguide? You know, that metal tube thingy
without a center conductor.

-Chuck, WA3UQV
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com

Fiber structure and light wavelength determine the mode of propagation.
In multimode light propagates trough reflections.
Microwaves scatter trough reflections inside the waveguide.

All that is irrelevant to electrical waveform propagating through coax that
is considered as electrically short.

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com

 

[Mathew Orman]

"Rene Tschaggelar" <none@none.none> wrote in message
news:356f2ce824e5c8f954114da34a54dfa5@news.teranews.com...

Mathew Orman wrote:
"Fred Abse" <excretatauris@cerebrumconfus.it> wrote in message
newsan.2003.10.18.21.30.28.34341@cerebrumconfus.it...

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:57:20 +0200, Mathew Orman wrote:


Coax does not propagates EM waves it propagates electrical waveforms!


So the difference in propagation delay that I observe in air spaced and
dielectric filled cables is a figment of my fevered imagination?

--
Then there's duct tape ...
(Garrison Keillor)
nofr@sbhevre.pbzchyvax.pb.hx


The dielectric const of the coax filler is on of the factors defining
the
nominal capacitance.
The terminated impedance matched coax line segment is considered as RLC
delay line and can be constructed to
give any nominal delay.

The main property of EM waves is straight line propagation!
Coax can be twisted to any shape and that does not alter much the
waveform
propagation.

Not really.
The coax has a TEM wave, meaning the E field is perpendicular to the
propagation direction and the H field is also perpendicular to the
the propagation. Waveguides without center conductor cannot have
both fields perpendicular, therefore they either are TE or TM.

Rene
--
Ing.Buero R.Tschaggelar - http://www.ibrtses.com
& commercial newsgroups - http://www.talkto.net

Electrically short open-ended coax line segments do not propagate EM waves.
Or else they no longer considered as short!

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com

 

[Mathew Orman]

"Fred Abse" <excretatauris@cerebrumconfus.it> wrote in message
newsan.2003.10.19.14.30.20.16886@cerebrumconfus.it...

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 15:05:13 +0200, Mathew Orman wrote:

The main property of EM waves is straight line propagation!

So you're now saying bent waveguide won't work?

--
Then there's duct tape ...
(Garrison Keillor)
nofr@sbhevre.pbzchyvax.pb.hx

No!
You are saying bent waveguide.
I typed bent coax!

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com

 

[Mathew Orman]

"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Jsykb.440$nL.231@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...

Mathew Orman wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in
message news:N3xkb.426$nL.66@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
Mathew Orman wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in



Never!
GR has never failed!
It is like a perfect clock!
The stopped clock!

Something that never worked will never fail!

Oh, what about.

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node97.html

1 Gravitational Red shift of light
2 Gravitational Bending of light
3 Precession of the perihelion of Mercury
4 Loss of energy by double pulsars

Its plainly obvious that you *truly* are a complete and utter rank
layman at this. You have no knowledge on these matters at all, just
cursory words gained from reading Bantam paperbacks.

Here is a simplified outline of the basics, "General Relativity For
Teletubbys", http://www.anasoft.co.uk/physics/gr/index.html


Poor evidence based on 2d image data.
The grossest example of theory to experimental data fitting!


Yeah, all of physics is wrong yet again. Simply pathetic.

Provide description of a single down to the Earth experiment
that can be performed by use of the conventional test equipment.

Idiot. General Relativity is about gravity. You know, things about
how planets and stars move. These don't exist on the earth, you fool.

Just an offhand web scan.
Some examples of *accurate* rader ranging:

http://helio.estec.esa.nl/intermarsnet/redreport/node37.html
"Most of the experimental underpinning for theoretical gravitation
has come from Solar System dynamics. Ranging to the Viking Landers,
radar ranging to Mercury, and laser ranging to the moon have
produced the most precise dynamical tests of the theory as it
applies to the motions of bodies in the Solar System. As a result of
these tests, it is known that Newtonian gravity is not correct and
that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity still appears to be
consistent with all observations."

or http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0264-9381/19/16/306, relative
accuracy of 0.1% to 1%.

You still having got a f'ing clue. You are way out of your depth, and
digging yourself in deeper into the shit.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.



I need a link to the description of a single physical experiment and
not to a vending machine!


Go and take a bloody first coarse in Relativity, before making daft
claims that it is a pile of shit. Your arguing from complete ignorance.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

Single experiment!
And no excuses!

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com

 

[Mike]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:57:20 +0200, Mathew Orman wrote:

Maxwell had no idea of coax transmission lines
they had not been invented yet!

Like hell they hadn't.

Kelvin analyzed transmission lines in 1854, as lossy coaxial cable, in
response to a question posed by Stokes about cable delay. When he first
published his results, he referenced an earlier paper he had written on
heat flow, "On the Uniform Motion of Heat in Homogeneous Solid Bodies, and
its Connexion with the Mathematical Theory of Electricity" from 1842. At
that point, Kelvin had established (a) the mathematical similarity between
heat flow and electric current, and (b) the theory of current flow in a
lossy coaxial transmission line.

Maxwell graduated from college in 1854, the year of Kelvin's publication on
transmission lines, and didn't begin working on electromagnetism until
1864. The transatlantic cable designed by Kelvin was laid in 1866;
Maxwell's treatise wasn't published until 1879.

Honestly, Mathew. Kelvin studied signal delay in coaxial transmission
lines, for God's sake. One would think that you'd be intimately familiar
with his work. Not invented yet? Not only were they invented, they were
well described theoretically, and if you look in _any_ reasonably advanced
text on transmission line theory today, you'll discover the same equations
that Kelvin used in 1854 are still used today to describe signal
propagation in lossy transmission lines. Try, for example, "Transformation
Calculus and Electrical Transients," Stanford Goldman, Prentice-Hall, 1949.

-- Mike --

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Mathew Orman wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in
message news:Jsykb.440$nL.231@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
Mathew Orman wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in
message news:N3xkb.426$nL.66@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
Mathew Orman wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in



Never!
GR has never failed!
It is like a perfect clock!
The stopped clock!

Something that never worked will never fail!

Oh, what about.

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node97.html

1 Gravitational Red shift of light
2 Gravitational Bending of light
3 Precession of the perihelion of Mercury
4 Loss of energy by double pulsars

Its plainly obvious that you *truly* are a complete and utter
rank layman at this. You have no knowledge on these matters at
all, just cursory words gained from reading Bantam paperbacks.

Here is a simplified outline of the basics, "General Relativity
For Teletubbys", http://www.anasoft.co.uk/physics/gr/index.html


Poor evidence based on 2d image data.
The grossest example of theory to experimental data fitting!


Yeah, all of physics is wrong yet again. Simply pathetic.

Provide description of a single down to the Earth experiment
that can be performed by use of the conventional test equipment.

Idiot. General Relativity is about gravity. You know, things about
how planets and stars move. These don't exist on the earth, you
fool.

Just an offhand web scan.
Some examples of *accurate* rader ranging:

http://helio.estec.esa.nl/intermarsnet/redreport/node37.html
"Most of the experimental underpinning for theoretical gravitation
has come from Solar System dynamics. Ranging to the Viking Landers,
radar ranging to Mercury, and laser ranging to the moon have
produced the most precise dynamical tests of the theory as it
applies to the motions of bodies in the Solar System. As a result
of these tests, it is known that Newtonian gravity is not correct
and that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity still appears to
be consistent with all observations."

or http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0264-9381/19/16/306, relative
accuracy of 0.1% to 1%.

You still having got a f'ing clue. You are way out of your depth,
and digging yourself in deeper into the shit.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.



I need a link to the description of a single physical experiment and
not to a vending machine!


Go and take a bloody first coarse in Relativity, before making daft
claims that it is a pile of shit. Your arguing from complete
ignorance.



Single experiment!
And no excuses!

google "Tests of Special Relativity" 340 hits.

http://www.aei.mpg.de/~mpoessel/Physik/RT/srtest.html contains
referances to 14.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.