I'll let the GPS guys they can stop with the relativistic corrects, yeah?
The gravitational effect on GPS systems (from the ground being deeper in the gravity well than the satellite is about 7x greater than the effect from the satellite's speed. And the impact is on the order of a clock losing 45 microseconds per day. The issue is not that the effect is large, but that in order to operate a GPS, the level of precision is high.
So, yes, it gives us GPS systems. Hooray. Last time I checked, the fact that Google Maps works on my phone did not make everything else I knew wrong, which is what I was reacting to. The statement was simply hyperbole. This would go easier if you just accepted that and moved on.
Then there's refraction across different media, theory directly derived from relativity concepts. Or that transistor width is constrained by quantim tunneling effects, which are also based in relativity and not Newtonian physics.
Nether refraction across different media nor quantum tunneling effects have anything with to do with relativity. Sorry. You're just factually inaccurate there.
Now, quantum mechanics was originally informed by the Photoelectric Effect, given mathematical description by Einstein in 1905, for which he got the Nobel Prize. But, that paper contains no discussion of relativity at all.
This is a subtle misrepresentation. Firstly, I'm discussing theory and models, not observations.
You do realize the entire point is to find models and theories that accurately describe reality, right?
Theory and models that do not match observations are discarded. This is the *CENTRAL POINT* of the scientific method - you come up with a hypothesis, and you observe reality to see if it matches the hypothesis. If your hypothesis survives enough encounters with reality, we start calling it a theory. If your model doesn't match reality, we toss it out as a bad idea, and try something else.
Secondly, you slyly elide the fact that observations are by no means comprehensive.
There is nothing "sly" about it, nor is it eliding. I have mentioned it several times now, and quite openly and directly. If you are trying to make it sound like there's something underhanded or indirect in my writing, well, sorry. You're just wrong.
Just like Newton observed falling apples (apocryphally) but could not detect relativistic effects on falling apples doesn't mean that this missed bit didn't lead to nuclear bombs.
Um... that's a bit ahistorical.
Marie and Pierre Curie observed radiation in 1898. Frederick Soddy and Ernest Rutherford first observed nuclear transformation in 1901 - years before Einstein's first paper on relativity. It is this observation, and not E=mc^2, that was the basis for the concept of nuclear weapons.
The characteristic of believing you're at the end of history, scientific or otherwise, is evergreen. Ironically.
You know, I am rather tired of this.
I ALREADY SAID that the possibility of FTL was not eliminated. Pages ago. In my very first discussion of it, I believe, I allowed that we cannot rule out the possibility, and a few times since.
Yet you keep speaking as if I have said otherwise.
Strawman. I am done with it. Don't continue holding it up.
