Re: Tom Van Flandern and Newtonian Gravity

From: Bilge (dubious_at_radioactivex.lebesque-al.net)
Date: 09/07/04 

Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 08:11:45 -0000

 Tom Van Flandern:
>and "Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> writes:
>
>> [Bilge]: That is your kooky take on relativity, not relativity. . I
>> don't think you have a clue, tom. . I have a problem with you trying
>> to pass of your own bizarre ideas about relativity and then creating
>> arguments against yourself as if anyone else believed any of it. . If
>> you weren't completely incompetent . I can only conclude you can't or
>> won't read.
>
> Do you have some objection to adult conversation?
 
  Not when I'm talking with an adult. When in rome, I do as the
romans do.

>If not, why use insults, the hallmark of teenagers?

  Because you haven't responded to anything else. If you're going to
be dishonest and play your little game of evasion, I'm going to
discuss that and thereby stay on topic until you decide to stop
playing games.

>Insults have always been, and continue to be, a way to change the
>subject, a device employed by those who feel they are losing on
>the merits.

  I haven't changed the subject. I'm responding appropriately and
on topic for what you've posted. Stop treating my like I'm too
stupid to realize what you are doing and you won't receive responses
that address that misconception.

>Do you really have nothing more worth saying on the subject of
>relativity itself, or on my article about the physical meaning
>of metrics?
 
  A typical of what I'm talking about. You're just like the juvinile
delinquints I've worked with, except that they were smart enough to
realize when their bull*** wasn't working.

>>> [tvf]: The GPS is even an example of cross-usage, wherein lengths are
>>> measured by clocks. But that is only practical where the speed of
>>> light is an invariant.
>
>> [Bilge]: If that were true, it would always be practical.
>
> You imply that the speed of light is always invariant. While
>many would-be relativists can be found to hold that opinion, I wish to
>cite an obscure patent office clerk who had a different opinion:
>
> ". according to the general theory of relativity, the law of
>the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one
>of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity .
>cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can
>only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with
>position. . We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity
>cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so
>long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields
>on the phenomena (e.g. of light)." -- From Relativity, A. Einstein
>(1917); translation: Prometheus Books (1995); p. 76.
 
  How many measurements do you make that aren't local, tom? The metric
is always locally flat.

> I found no other content in your reply that addressed the
>issue on the table, which is my article about "spacetime curvature" not
>involving any space curvature. If you wish to discuss the issue and not
>merely posture and denigrate, do try again.
 
  I don't really care, tom. When you stop evading questions and
stop telling me that I haven't provided you with the misconceptions
which I've provided, then you can discuss whatever you want. So
long as you keep trying to evade the issues with your little
semantics games and dishonesty, I'm going to respond to that topic
instead.