6
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 254:
Line 254: + +
Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity (view source)
Revision as of 02:49, November 9, 2010
, 02:49, November 9, 2010→lack of a single useful device
::::::::Yes, I would like more support for your claim. Relativity is not even part of most engineering curricula.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:17, 11 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::::Yes, I would like more support for your claim. Relativity is not even part of most engineering curricula.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:17, 11 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::I disagree. It was evidently part of Daniele's curriculum, Adam's professor's curriculum, and mine (which is admittedly a mathematics curriculum, not an engineering currculum). So far, I don't think anyone in this thread has tried to explain that relativity doesn't work on synchrotrons. Should I take it that it does work? (At least in this specific case.) Disregarding for a moment the applications of particle accelerators, do they show that relativity works or that it doesn't?[[User:Toph|Toph]] 21:48, 8 November 2010 (EST)
Are not the atomic bomb and nuclear power examples of inventions based on the equivalence of matter and energy? MLS 9 Aug 10
Are not the atomic bomb and nuclear power examples of inventions based on the equivalence of matter and energy? MLS 9 Aug 10