Re: The Cost of Relativity

From: Tom Potter (tdp_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 07/29/04 

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 21:40:17 +0800

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:4106A2BF.D4234542@mchsi.com...
> Tom Potter wrote:
> >
> > "Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
> > news:slrncgaic9.2b2.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> > > Tom Potter:
> > >
> > > >I wonder of Farnsworth ever used Relativity
> > > >in his numerous tube designs?
> > >
> > > My guess is no. Had he used relativity, the quality of the picture
would
> > > have as bad as modern televisions. Haven't you noticed that technology
> > > peaked in the 1920's and 1930's and since that time televisions have
> > > gotten worse, the space program went down hill, receivers can no
longer
> > > receive satellite signals, mri scanners lie in a state of disrepair,
> > > computers have slowed down to a crawl, osciiloscopes with the
precision
> > > and utility of the tek 511 have been replaced by slipshod knockoffs
like
> > > the TDS3000B. It's just awful. Oh, what I wouldn't give for a real
> > > television set with a steel case full of vacuum tubes, mechanical
contact
> > > tuners, 20 lb high voltage transformers and a floating chassis all
sitting
> > > behind a piece of glass spanning a good chunk of the forward 2 pi
> > > solid angle.
> > >
> > > Come to think of, I'll bet your pappy never once mentioned a
satellite
> > > failure all the through the 1950's. After that, the decline in
computing
> > > power coupled with the declining qualty of electronics test equipment
> > > made every satellite a crap shoot. Yes, I can see why you pine for
> > > the good old days a revel in the past. Yes, it's remarkable just how
> > > much technology has disintegrated.
> >
> > "Bilge" what you state above looks like a bunch of bull*** to me.
> >
> > What is your position, and
> > can you provide any honest, concurrent information
> > that validates your position?
> >
> > There is no doubt that as technology improves,
> > that products also improve.
> >
> > You seem to be claiming credit for physical models,
> > that should go to the folks who made all the little
> > technological improvements all along the way.
> >
> > I was party to many of the key technological improvements
> > in oscilloscopes, electronics, solid state devices,
> > and computer fields during the 50's, 60's and 70's.
> >
> > Vas you der charley?
> > If so, provide some facts,
> > rather than bull***.
> >
> > --
>
> *plonk*

I am pleased to see that I managed to
get rid of some of the bull***.

I am confident that sci.physics
will smell a little better.

Now if we can get more of the
sci.physics Taliban to *plonk*
the folks they habitually attack,
it will reduce the noise level in sci.physics enormously. 

--
Tom Potter     http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp