Re: Circular motion in SR

On Mar 27, 12:34 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 27, 6:40 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Mar 26, 10:09 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 26, 5:34 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 25, 11:37 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 25, 6:23 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 25, 7:23 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 25, 4:57 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 25, 6:38 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 24, 11:53�am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

If you're talking about the Mars probe that was
lost, this is known because we have the e-mail
record going back and forth between NASA and
the contractor.

You're saying that NASA admitting they lost a
multi-million dollar probe because of not checking
units is something they would make up to get more
funding? How, in your mind, would that work?

� � � � � � - Randy

We were so close, and human error caused the crash.  Next time we will
use a computer.

Robert B. Winn

We -did- use a computer. The software was programmed incorrectly.

Well, there you have it.  You do not even have to blame human error.
Everyone knows that computers have glitches.
Robert B. Winn

Due to the error of the human that programmed it, yes.

Or do you think that computers are just plain erratic?

Oh that's right. You know nothing about computers.

My computer is erratic.

Because of the hardware, or because of the human-written software on
it? Do you have any idea which?

 I don't know about yours.  All  I can tell
you is that when all of these Mars probes crashed, I wrote to NASA
telling them that I thought they were crashing probes because the
distance contraction did not exist.  I could not give them good
equations because I did not figure them out until about a year ago..
Daniel Goldin, the head of NASA, wrote me a lengthy letter about why a
distance contraction did exist.  That is one reason why I do not
believe the story about the sub-contractor and the meters instead of
feet.  I doubt there was a sub-contractor.  Why would NASA sub-
contract the landing of a spacecraft?

Oh, geez. Suspect all you want. You've descended in the gray zone of
looniness now.

Well, as I said before, your faith in information put out by the
government is highly unusual.

Really? Do you think it is the public norm to be deeply suspicious of
people in government, more so than deeply suspicious of, say, welder's
unions or cab drivers or hospitals? I think you're a little on the
conspiracy wacko side myself. Of course, conspiracy wackos always
think they're the norm and that people who aren't conspiracy wackos
are highly unusual.

  If it is proven that the government
was telling the truth in these specific things, then your faith in
NASA and the IRS and other people I do not believe will certainly be
vindicated.  When President Clinton said that it dependend on what the
meaning of is is, did you believe him?

What Clinton said didn't seem to be related at all to the exchange of
emails between NASA and its contractor. Does the fact that there were
coverups about bad welds on the containment vessels at the last three
nuclear power plants constructed reflect on the trustworthiness of
anything you say?

Well, that would seem to go up beyond the welders involved.  Maybe the
welders were just incompetent.  All welds in a nuclear facility have
to be x-rayed.  A cover up like that would seem to reflect more on
scientists than on welders.

X-ray technicians are not scientists. They're industrial X-ray
technicians.




Robert B. Winn

.

Quantcast