Re: The Cost of Relativity
From: Tom Potter (tdp_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 07/27/04
- Next message: Tom Potter: "Re: Bush goes Nuclear!"
- Previous message: greedyshark: "Re: Eyepieces with the "most" about them"
- Next in thread: Erik Horstkotte: "Re: The Cost of Relativity"
- Reply: Erik Horstkotte: "Re: The Cost of Relativity"
- Reply: jimp_at_specsol-spam-sux.com: "Re: The Cost of Relativity"
- Reply: Sam Wormley: "Re: The Cost of Relativity"
- Reply: AstronomyWanaB: "Re: The Cost of Relativity"
- Reply: mitch perkins: "Re: The Cost of Relativity"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 23:17:05 +0800
"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 and utility of the tek 511 have been replaced by slipshod knockoffs like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***.
-- Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
- Next message: Tom Potter: "Re: Bush goes Nuclear!"
- Previous message: greedyshark: "Re: Eyepieces with the "most" about them"
- Next in thread: Erik Horstkotte: "Re: The Cost of Relativity"
- Reply: Erik Horstkotte: "Re: The Cost of Relativity"
- Reply: jimp_at_specsol-spam-sux.com: "Re: The Cost of Relativity"
- Reply: Sam Wormley: "Re: The Cost of Relativity"
- Reply: AstronomyWanaB: "Re: The Cost of Relativity"
- Reply: mitch perkins: "Re: The Cost of Relativity"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]