On Oct 1, 4:48 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 1, 1:29 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Oct 1, 1:10 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Oct 1, 8:37 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Oct 1, 9:16 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>> Sorry, the Nobel is awarded for more significant contributions.
> 
>>>> I know. That's why the field of relativity has had no Nobels.
> 
>>>> Ouch.
> 
>>> But while we're on this topic, suggest you look at the Nobels in these
>>> years:
>>> 2006 (cosmic microwave background from Big Bang, a prediction of
>>> relativity)
>>> 2004 (strong interaction physics, a relativistic quantum field theory)
>>> 1999 (weak interaction physics, a relativistic quantum field theory)
>>> 1993 (gravitational radiation, a prediction of relativity)
>>> 1983 (stellar evolution, including collapse into black holes, a
>>> prediction of relativity)
>>> 1979 (electroweak theory, a relativistic quantum field theory)
>>> 1978 (cosmic microwave background from Big Bang, a prediction of
>>> relativity)
>>> 1965 (quantum electrodynamics, a relativistic quantum field theory)
>>> 1933 (first relativistic quantum field theory)
> 
>>> Oh, but you were thinking Einstein, right?
>>> Yes, the Nobel Committee did not award Einstein a prize for
>>> relativity. How dare they.
> 
>>> PD
> 
>> You should get a Nobel Comic prize.
> 
>> Notice how that scrawny 'relativistic' little brother tries to hang on
>> the pants of big brother 'quantum'.
> 
>> Seriously, lest anyone take the PD lie seriously,
> 
>> The cosmic microwave background radiation is a phenomenon independent
>> of GR. It is used to support the big bang model, a model that ran
>> against Einstein's static universe, a view he later modified, when it
>> was found inconsistent with his own equations (another example of
>> Einstein unable to solve his equations). Currently, the CMBR is used
>> as evidence for Big Bang, though CMBR can be explained by other
>> phenomenon.
> 
>> The 1993 prize was not for gravitation, but for discovery of a pulsar.
> 
> Uh, no. Nice job mangling facts, though. Did you do that with your own
> teeth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> All the other 'relativistic' hype simply refers to processes at sub-
>> luminal speeds, and has nothing to do with the basic principles of SR
>> and GR.

Be specific.  (Impossible task for relativity trolls.)