...that the Earth is a "weak gravitational field"!!!
After intense interrogation, Cincirob, our resident Relativist and self appointed spokesperson for all Relativists, (hmmm..maybe Cinci did not read the question fully) has declared that the Earth is no longer to be considered a "weak gravitational field". I refer the reader to the following exchange which, I might add, is a multiple choice question and reads as;
Re: Cincirob, North & South at North Pole September 3 2008, 9:13 AM
Bob S: When Relativists speak of a "weak gravitational field", do they mean;
a. a base ball?
b. a bowling ball? or,
c. the Earth?
cinci: None of these things are gravitational fields....yet another bad question.
Bob S: So, I can quote you as "the Earth not being considered a weak gravitational field" Cinci.
cinci: You can say anything you wish and you can attribute it to whomever you please I suppose, but the Earth still won't be a gravitational field.
In an effort to confirm this revelation I contacted my Mole who had infiltrate the Einsteinian Cult a number of years earlier.
When asked, s/he said;
it was pandemonium at first but a meeting was called of the high council.
It took them by surprise I said...
yes...they had not expected to make that declaration for some years yet
They were waiting! Waiting for what?
you don't get it...by denying that the Earth is a weak gravitational field Newton's Laws of gravitation will no longer hold good on Earth
That should be no problem...they've perpetrated the time dilation scam for over a one hundred years.
don't you see...without Newton's law in effect anymore an apple will not fall to the ground, instead it will have to fall into the curvature of spacetime
And!!! So!
S/he replied... when Einstein wrote the Theory of General Relativity and predicted the curvature of spacetime he was not clear as to whether it curved under the South Pole or Over the North Pole
After one hundred years no one thought of that point?
they never thought anybody would ask that question...I'll tell you one thing s/he said...there are some very sore foreheads at party central
That's all well and good...but what happens when the apple still falls to the ground?
they will call it an optical illusion and blame it on the Anti-Relativists in their on-going effort to discredit Einstein
Wait a minuet, Anti-Relativist is a bit strong...don't you mean Non-Relativists?
an Anti-Relativist is a radical Non-Relativist s/he said
Explain!!! I demanded.
Anti-Relativists are the surviving family members of those whose livelihoods were destroyed when they courageously spoke out against the foolishness of Relativity...remember Dingle!
...that the Earth is a "weak gravitational field"!!!
After intense interrogation, Cincirob, our resident Relativist and self appointed spokesperson for all Relativists, (hmmm..maybe Cinci did not read the question fully) has declared that the Earth is no longer to be considered a "weak gravitational field". I refer the reader to the following exchange which, I might add, is a multiple choice question and reads as;
Re: Cincirob, North & South at North Pole September 3 2008, 9:13 AM
Bob S: When Relativists speak of a "weak gravitational field", do they mean;
a. a base ball?
b. a bowling ball? or,
c. the Earth?
cinci: None of these things are gravitational fields....yet another bad question.
Bob S: So, I can quote you as "the Earth not being considered a weak gravitational field" Cinci.
cinci: You can say anything you wish and you can attribute it to whomever you please I suppose, but the Earth still won't be a gravitational field.
In an effort to confirm this revelation I contacted my Mole who had infiltrate the Einsteinian Cult a number of years earlier.
When asked, s/he said;
it was pandemonium at first but a meeting was called of the high council.
It took them by surprise I said...
yes...they had not expected to make that declaration for some years yet
They were waiting! Waiting for what?
you don't get it...by denying that the Earth is a weak gravitational field Newton's Laws of gravitation will no longer hold good on Earth
That should be no problem...they've perpetrated the time dilation scam for over a one hundred years.
don't you see...without Newton's law in effect anymore an apple will not fall to the ground, instead it will have to fall into the curvature of spacetime
And!!! So!
S/he replied... when Einstein wrote the Theory of General Relativity and predicted the curvature of spacetime he was not clear as to whether it curved under the South Pole or Over the North Pole
After one hundred years no one thought of that point?
they never thought anybody would ask that question...I'll tell you one thing s/he said...there are some very sore foreheads at party central
That's all well and good...but what happens when the apple still falls to the ground?
they will call it an optical illusion and blame it on the Anti-Relativists in their on-going effort to discredit Einstein
Wait a minuet, Anti-Relativist is a bit strong...don't you mean Non-Relativists?
an Anti-Relativist is a radical Non-Relativist s/he said
Explain!!! I demanded.
Anti-Relativists are the surviving family members of those whose livelihoods were destroyed when they courageously spoke out against the foolishness of Relativity...remember Dingle!
Oooooo!
More updates as they become available.
cinci: What nonsense. Earth isn't a gravitational field. It has a gravitational field but it isn't a gravitational field. Wake up.
***************************
Cincirob:Nah, there would be an east and a west even if the earth didn't rotate. Wake up you're having a bad dream. None of this gets you out of the hole you dug by saying south faces along the axis from the north pole. Why, for once, don't you just say "AAF screwed up." and stop making an ass of yourself.
AAF: Is that your way of saying 'please don't make an ass of me in public'? You bet it is! Would be 'east & west' without rotation? It could be done by general agreement; but in that case it would be a mere empty convention with no physical basis whatsoever. Is it correct? What do you think, Cincirob?
Cincirob:It's already by general agreement. And if the Earth didn't rotate at all, the sun would still moves slowly across that sky as the Earth orbited it so there would still be natural physical basis for direction. Care to try again?
AAF: But it's general agreement based on physical facts. Furthermore, the condition of non-rotation must include non-orbital rotation as well, otherwise the earth would continue to rotate with respect to the Star Polaris as it does now, except in that case, it would make only one rotation instead of the current 365 rotations per year.
Bob S:Those calculations are only about Newton in part Cinci. You were demonstrating that Tsolkas was in error, Tsolkas was giving calculations to demonstrate Einstein’s equivalence was in error, Einstein’s equivalence principal is inherit to GR, therefor you were doing GR maths. I can connect the dots even if you can’t. You should have been more clear and said, “I don’t do GR maths anymore”, you demand clarity but give ambiguity; as a friend once told me “ambiguity is often a cover for a lie”, in your case I would say (always a cover).
Cincirob:Trust me Bob, I have never done a single GR calculation much as I would like to be able to. I can't even write down the basic tensor equation without looking it up. The point of that particular analysis was to this: Tsolkas was saying that GR was different because Einstein didn't work it out in terms of forces as Newton did but in terms of accelerations. My analysis just shows that Newton could have done it in terms of accelerations and it wouldn't have changed his theory at all. But keep guessing, even a blind pig finds an acorn every now and then.
AAF: I trust you! Beside the calculations of the bending of starlight and the anomalous advance of Mercury, there is little else to calculate on the basis of Einstein's General Relativity alone. Since all other calculations that have been supposed to be done on the basis of it are in reality just Newtonian approximations and empty games of parameter fitting and ad hoc guessing and nothing more. However, you must know and master all the rules of tensor algebra very well, before you can gain the trust and the love you deserve from the Relativity Community worldwide; am I right?
cinci: What nonsense. Earth isn't a gravitational field. It has a gravitational field but it isn't a gravitational field. Wake up.
Yeah, I see the distinction, not “is” rather “has”, thanks Cinci. But what about Newton’s gravitation; should not the apple still propagate toward Einstein’s curvature and not the Earth as Newton predicts? I’ll drop the part about over or under, it was only an attempt at humor, admittedly poor attempt.
Cincirob: Nah, there would be an east and a west even if the earth didn't rotate. Wake up you're having a bad dream. None of this gets you out of the hole you dug by saying south faces along the axis from the north pole. Why, for once, don't you just say "AAF screwed up." and stop making an ass of yourself.
AAF: Is that your way of saying 'please don't make an ass of me in public'? You bet it is! Would be 'east & west' without rotation? It could be done by general agreement; but in that case it would be a mere empty convention with no physical basis whatsoever. Is it correct? What do you think, Cincirob?
Cincirob: It's already by general agreement. And if the Earth didn't rotate at all, the sun would still moves slowly across that sky as the Earth orbited it so there would still be natural physical basis for direction. Care to try again?
AAF: But it's general agreement based on physical facts. Furthermore, the condition of non-rotation must include non-orbital rotation as well, otherwise the earth would continue to rotate with respect to the Star Polaris as it does now, except in that case, it would make only one rotation instead of the current 365 rotations per year.
cinci: The approximate 24 hour rotation if the earth IS non-orbital. You're just babbling now.
**************************
Bob S: Those calculations are only about Newton in part Cinci. You were demonstrating that Tsolkas was in error, Tsolkas was giving calculations to demonstrate Einstein’s equivalence was in error, Einstein’s equivalence principal is inherit to GR, therefor you were doing GR maths. I can connect the dots even if you can’t. You should have been more clear and said, “I don’t do GR maths anymore”, you demand clarity but give ambiguity; as a friend once told me “ambiguity is often a cover for a lie”, in your case I would say (always a cover).
Cincirob: Trust me Bob, I have never done a single GR calculation much as I would like to be able to. I can't even write down the basic tensor equation without looking it up. The point of that particular analysis was to this: Tsolkas was saying that GR was different because Einstein didn't work it out in terms of forces as Newton did but in terms of accelerations. My analysis just shows that Newton could have done it in terms of accelerations and it wouldn't have changed his theory at all. But keep guessing, even a blind pig finds an acorn every now and then.
AAF: I trust you! Beside the calculations of the bending of starlight and the anomalous advance of Mercury, there is little else to calculate on the basis of Einstein's General Relativity alone.
cinci: That is, if you don't include the GPS calculations. At least try to remember what the discussion is about.
**********************************
AAF: Since all other calculations that have been supposed to be done on the basis of it are in reality just Newtonian approximations and empty games of parameter fitting and ad hoc guessing and nothing more. However, you must know and master all the rules of tensor algebra very well, before you can gain the trust and the love you deserve from the Relativity Community worldwide; am I right?
cinci: I'm not trying to gain "the trust and love from the Relativity Community worldwide." I'm just trying to get you to stop saying dumb things. So far, no luck.
And we know there isn't any "Relativity Community worldwide" because you and Pentcho can't tell me how to get a check from them...it's just another of your fantasies.
*******************************
cinci: What nonsense. Earth isn't a gravitational field. It has a gravitational field but it isn't a gravitational field. Wake up.
Bob S: Yeah, I see the distinction, not “is” rather “has”, thanks Cinci. But what about Newton’s gravitation; should not the apple still propagate toward Einstein’s curvature and not the Earth as Newton predicts? I’ll drop the part about over or under, it was only an attempt at humor, admittedly poor attempt.
cinci: Are you assuming that anything you, Newton, or I have to say about gravity makes any difference to gravity? Newton didn't invent or create gravity he just tried to describe it.
Bob S:Cinci, are you trying to imply that Tom Van Flandern is a “kook” he authored the first article I gave you, http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp his was the article you kept trying to rub my nose in and now you tell me “I” should find another expert, You used him as “your” expert when he suited your purpose. Here is his bio tell me if YOUR bio Can match it. Don't imply something Cinci, make a statement as if you have the courage of your conviction.
Cincirob:Actually I used him as your expert when you ignored him. Just because he's a "kook" doesn't mean everything he says is wrong. The part I agree with is backed up by a lot of other authors. And yes, I'll put my bio up against his. I'm just short of a PhD and about half the jet airplanes in the air today, military and commercial, are using technologies I developed and designs I pioneered and they made my company a lot of money. In engineering it isn't what you think that counts or what theory you can reinterpret, it's what you put in the machine and test to see if it works. Anybody can make up a theory that doesn't get tested. Besides, why don't you put his bio up against Einstein's or Bohr's or Heisenberg's. They all pioneered physics ideas that have been thoroughly tested and found to work.
AAF: So, that is your resume or at least the best part of it? Well, you really shouldn't exaggerate that much. Since those inventions of yours, if any, must have gone obsolete by now, and no company can afford or dare to install any of them in its airplanes. It is just too dangerous to use those old artifacts made by Cincirob & Company more than a half a century ago! Also, I doubt very much that you made a lot of money by selling them; otherwise you wouldn't have been here begging me and Pentcho to show you how to get in contact with the zombie cult and to make money by selling Relativity; am I right, Cinici?
Cincirob:Nah, there would be an east and a west even if the earth didn't rotate. Wake up you're having a bad dream. None of this gets you out of the hole you dug by saying south faces along the axis from the north pole. Why, for once, don't you just say "AAF screwed up." and stop making an ass of yourself.
AAF: Is that your way of saying 'please don't make an ass of me in public'? Would be 'east & west' without rotation? It could be done by general agreement; but in that case it would be a mere empty convention with no physical basis whatsoever. Is it correct? What do you think, Cincirob?
Cincirob:It's already by general agreement. And if the Earth didn't rotate at all, the sun would still moves slowly across that sky as the Earth orbited it so there would still be natural physical basis for direction. Care to try again? The approximate 24 hour rotation if the earth IS non-orbital. You're just babbling now.
AAF: But it's general agreement based on physical facts. Also, your condition of non-rotation must include non-orbital rotation as well, otherwise the earth would continue to rotate with respect to the Star Polaris as it does now, except in that case, it would make only one rotation instead of the current 365 rotations per year.
Bob S:Those calculations are only about Newton in part Cinci. You were demonstrating that Tsolkas was in error, Tsolkas was giving calculations to demonstrate Einstein’s equivalence was in error, Einstein’s equivalence principal is inherit to GR, therefor you were doing GR maths. I can connect the dots even if you can’t. You should have been more clear and said, “I don’t do GR maths anymore”, you demand clarity but give ambiguity; as a friend once told me “ambiguity is often a cover for a lie”, in your case I would say (always a cover).
Cincirob:Trust me Bob, I have never done a single GR calculation much as I would like to be able to. I can't even write down the basic tensor equation without looking it up. The point of that particular analysis was to this: Tsolkas was saying that GR was different because Einstein didn't work it out in terms of forces as Newton did but in terms of accelerations. My analysis just shows that Newton could have done it in terms of accelerations and it wouldn't have changed his theory at all. But keep guessing, even a blind pig finds an acorn every now and then.
AAF: I trust you on this one! For beside the calculations of the bending of starlight and the anomalous advance of Mercury, there is little else to calculate on the basis of Einstein's General Relativity alone. Since all other calculations that have been supposed to be done on the basis of it are in reality just Newtonian approximations and empty games of parameter fitting and ad hoc guessing and nothing more. However, you must know and master all the rules of tensor algebra very well, before you can gain the trust and the respect you deserve from the Relativity Community worldwide; am I right?
Cincirob:That is, if you don't include the GPS calculations. At least try to remember what the discussion is about. I'm not trying to gain "the trust and love from the Relativity Community worldwide." I'm just trying to get you to stop saying dumb things. So far, no luck. And we know there isn't any "Relativity Community worldwide" because you and Pentcho can't tell me how to get a check from them...it's just another of your fantasies.
AAF: Your fellow Relativists won't respect you very much, unless you become very proficient in tensor calculus! In a nutshell, you can't get numerical values from tensors. Standard Newtonian approximations techniques must be used in conjunction with arbitrary assumptions and educated guesses at every turn and at all times to obtain numerical predictions from the hideous tensors of Einstein's General Relativity. That is the main reason why your fellow Relativists won't respect you, unless you're very proficient in tensor gymnastics and games.
Bob S: Cinci, are you trying to imply that Tom Van Flandern is a “kook” he authored the first article I gave you, http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp his was the article you kept trying to rub my nose in and now you tell me “I” should find another expert, You used him as “your” expert when he suited your purpose. Here is his bio tell me if YOUR bio Can match it. Don't imply something Cinci, make a statement as if you have the courage of your conviction.
Cincirob: Actually I used him as your expert when you ignored him. Just because he's a "kook" doesn't mean everything he says is wrong. The part I agree with is backed up by a lot of other authors. And yes, I'll put my bio up against his. I'm just short of a PhD and about half the jet airplanes in the air today, military and commercial, are using technologies I developed and designs I pioneered and they made my company a lot of money. In engineering it isn't what you think that counts or what theory you can reinterpret, it's what you put in the machine and test to see if it works. Anybody can make up a theory that doesn't get tested. Besides, why don't you put his bio up against Einstein's or Bohr's or Heisenberg's. They all pioneered physics ideas that have been thoroughly tested and found to work.
AAF: So, that is your resume or at least the best part of it? Well, you really shouldn't exaggerate that much. Since those inventions of yours, if any, must have gone obsolete by now, and no company can afford or dare to install any of them in its airplanes. It is just too dangerous to use those old artifacts made by Cincirob & Company more than a half a century ago! Also, I doubt very much that you made a lot of money by selling them; otherwise you wouldn't have been here begging me and Pentcho to show you how to get in contact with the zombie cult and to make money by selling Relativity; am I right, Cinici?
cinci: No, you're wrong as usual. The typical life of an aircraft engine program is about 50 years. And even where they aren't using the specific designs they are using the same technology in newer engines. Derivatives of an engine design that I was responsible for that certified in 1979 is still selling more than 1000 engines per year and has at least a 5 year backlog today. Half the F16s still used by the US airforce and other countries around the world is powered by an engine qualified in the early 1980s. So we can add the aircraft industry to the list of things you are willing to make wild claims about even though you don't know anything of the subject.
And I haven't begged you or Pentcho for anything. I challenged you to prove your statements, and you can't, as usual.
***********************************************
Bob S: Those calculations are only about Newton in part Cinci. You were demonstrating that Tsolkas was in error, Tsolkas was giving calculations to demonstrate Einstein’s equivalence was in error, Einstein’s equivalence principal is inherit to GR, therefor you were doing GR maths. I can connect the dots even if you can’t. You should have been more clear and said, “I don’t do GR maths anymore”, you demand clarity but give ambiguity; as a friend once told me “ambiguity is often a cover for a lie”, in your case I would say (always a cover).
Cincirob: Trust me Bob, I have never done a single GR calculation much as I would like to be able to. I can't even write down the basic tensor equation without looking it up. The point of that particular analysis was to this: Tsolkas was saying that GR was different because Einstein didn't work it out in terms of forces as Newton did but in terms of accelerations. My analysis just shows that Newton could have done it in terms of accelerations and it wouldn't have changed his theory at all. But keep guessing, even a blind pig finds an acorn every now and then.
AAF: I trust you on this one! For beside the calculations of the bending of starlight and the anomalous advance of Mercury, there is little else to calculate on the basis of Einstein's General Relativity alone. Since all other calculations that have been supposed to be done on the basis of it are in reality just Newtonian approximations and empty games of parameter fitting and ad hoc guessing and nothing more. However, you must know and master all the rules of tensor algebra very well, before you can gain the trust and the respect you deserve from the Relativity Community worldwide; am I right?
Cincirob: That is, if you don't include the GPS calculations. At least try to remember what the discussion is about. I'm not trying to gain "the trust and love from the Relativity Community worldwide." I'm just trying to get you to stop saying dumb things. So far, no luck. And we know there isn't any "Relativity Community worldwide" because you and Pentcho can't tell me how to get a check from them...it's just another of your fantasies.
AAF: Your fellow Relativists won't respect you very much, unless you become very proficient in tensor calculus! In a nutshell, you can't get numerical values from tensors. Standard Newtonian approximations techniques must be used in conjunction with arbitrary assumptions and educated guesses at every turn and at all times to obtain numerical predictions from the hideous tensors of Einstein's General Relativity. That is the main reason why your fellow Relativists won't respect you, unless you're very proficient in tensor gymnastics and games.
cinci: As I've told you before, I'm reasonably conversant with SR but I never claimed any proficiency with GR. You, on the other hand, claim to know everything. That's why it's such fun to keep proving you wrong over and over and over ........
*********************************
Cincirob:Actually I used him as your expert when you ignored him. Just because he's a "kook" doesn't mean everything he says is wrong. The part I agree with is backed up by a lot of other authors. And yes, I'll put my bio up against his. I'm just short of a PhD and about half the jet airplanes in the air today, military and commercial, are using technologies I developed and designs I pioneered and they made my company a lot of money. In engineering it isn't what you think that counts or what theory you can reinterpret, it's what you put in the machine and test to see if it works. Anybody can make up a theory that doesn't get tested. Besides, why don't you put his bio up against Einstein's or Bohr's or Heisenberg's. They all pioneered physics ideas that have been thoroughly tested and found to work.
AAF: So, that is your resume or at least the best part of it? Well, you really shouldn't exaggerate that much. Since those inventions of yours, if any, must have gone obsolete by now, and no company can afford or dare to install any of them in its air planes. It is just too dangerous to use those old artifacts made by Cincirob & Company more than a half a century ago! Also, I doubt very much that you made a lot of money by selling them; otherwise you wouldn't have been here beginning me and Pentcho to show you how to get in contact with the zombie cult and to make money by selling Relativity; am I right, Cinici?
Cincirob: No, you're wrong as usual. The typical life of an aircraft engine program is about 50 years. And even where they aren't using the specific designs they are using the same technology in newer engines. Derivatives of an engine design that I was responsible for that certified in 1979 is still selling more than 1000 engines per year and has at least a 5 year backlog today. Half the F16s still used by the US airforce and other countries around the world is powered by an engine qualified in the early 1980s. So we can add the aircraft industry to the list of things you are willing to make wild claims about even though you don't know anything of the subject. And I haven't begged you or Pentcho for anything. I challenged you to prove your statements, and you can't as usual.
AAF: Well, this safety report says the average age is far less than that:
Today the average U.S. jetliner is more than twelve years old, some 20% older than in 1980. Among individual carriers, the average age ranges from 8.4 years in Delta's fleet to 13.8 years in Eastern's, but many planes are more than two decades old. Some 220 of Boeing's mid-range 727s delivered in 1964-66 were still flying for U.S. carriers at the end of 1987, as were 272 of McDonnell Douglas' DC-9 models from 1966-68. Since deregulation, most U.S. airlines have been cautious about buying new planes, especially if the carriers are losing money. Says a former U.S. pilot: "Stand at the ramp at ((London's)) Heathrow and you will see all those new Boeings with foreign airline markings, and then in comes old Pan Am chugging along in an ancient machine." The average age of British Airways' fleet is 8 years; Air France's, 8.5; Swissair's, 5.5. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,967406-3,00.html
Bob S:One more thing Cinci, before I batten down the hatches for, what might become, a hurricane. I am going to venture a guess and it is only a guess. I suspect that your PHD will be in the Humanities, the study of human nature. I am not sure why I say that but that is just an impression I get .
Cincirob:So you think the companies that build aircraft engines hire students of the humanities to design them. In fact, my company paid for all my post-graduate work, teaching the bulk of the courses themselves. Humanities didn't enter into it. But I have studied human nature to an extent because I managed as many as 200 engineers. You and AAF wouldn't have made the cut.
AAF: If you were so smart in getting along with 200 engineers, then why you couldn't get along with the engineer JR? that just doesn't add up at all! But why can't get along with the maverick astronomer Tom?
Cincirob:Actually I used him as your expert when you ignored him. Just because he's a "kook" doesn't mean everything he says is wrong. The part I agree with is backed up by a lot of other authors. And yes, I'll put my bio up against his. I'm just short of a PhD and about half the jet airplanes in the air today, military and commercial, are using technologies I developed and designs I pioneered and they made my company a lot of money. In engineering it isn't what you think that counts or what theory you can reinterpret, it's what you put in the machine and test to see if it works. Anybody can make up a theory that doesn't get tested. Besides, why don't you put his bio up against Einstein's or Bohr's or Heisenberg's. They all pioneered physics ideas that have been thoroughly tested and found to work.
AAF: So, that is your resume or at least the best part of it? Well, you really shouldn't exaggerate that much. Since those inventions of yours, if any, must have gone obsolete by now, and no company can afford or dare to install any of them in its air planes. It is just too dangerous to use those old artifacts made by Cincirob & Company more than a half a century ago! Also, I doubt very much that you made a lot of money by selling them; otherwise you wouldn't have been here beginning me and Pentcho to show you how to get in contact with the zombie cult and to make money by selling Relativity; am I right, Cinici?
Cincirob: No, you're wrong as usual. The typical life of an aircraft engine program is about 50 years. And even where they aren't using the specific designs they are using the same technology in newer engines. Derivatives of an engine design that I was responsible for that certified in 1979 is still selling more than 1000 engines per year and has at least a 5 year backlog today. Half the F16s still used by the US airforce and other countries around the world is powered by an engine qualified in the early 1980s. So we can add the aircraft industry to the list of things you are willing to make wild claims about even though you don't know anything of the subject. And I haven't begged you or Pentcho for anything. I challenged you to prove your statements, and you can't as usual.
AAF: You did beg for it; and I can prove it! This is what you said just yesterday,”we know there isn't any "Relativity Community worldwide" because you and Pentcho can't tell me how to get a check from them...”. As for the aircraft engines of the 1980s are indeed obsolete; and their obsoleteness has caused major aviation catastrophes around the world: http://www.eitb24.com/new/en/B24_108499/life/TRAGEDY-IN-MADRID-Type-plane-in-Madrid-crash-nearly/
Current Topic - Science news update, breaking story...Relativists deny....