FR Bending of Light -- Proof
in [Relativity]
|
From: Phil Bouchard on 25 Jan 2010 16:30 PD wrote: > > What evidence is there that the principle of relativity is wrong, > Phil? If the observer is not in the same gravitational field as the observed photon then c will be different: http://www.fornux.com/personal/philippe/fr/fr-sci_physics.pdf > What evidence is there that the speed of light in a vacuum is not c, > Phil? The Hubble Sphere is enough showing GR is wrong. >> E=mc^2 never really was proven, ... > > Theories are not proven, Phil. Were you expecting it should be? Right, this is why GR will never be a law. You're driving a car propelled by your own feet just like in the Flintstones, because GR is not self-sufficient. [...] > Then you have a few preliminaries to win first, don't you? FR couldn't be disproved for a whole year against the entire world so I think the likelihood of GR being right is pretty much null.
From: eric gisse on 25 Jan 2010 19:51 Phil Bouchard wrote: > PD wrote: >> >> What evidence is there that the principle of relativity is wrong, >> Phil? > > If the observer is not in the same gravitational field as the observed > photon then c will be different: > http://www.fornux.com/personal/philippe/fr/fr-sci_physics.pdf Well Phil, your opinion is not relevant. GR makes testable predictions that are validated by observation. You have numerology. > >> What evidence is there that the speed of light in a vacuum is not c, >> Phil? > > The Hubble Sphere is enough showing GR is wrong. Phil, you don't know what you are talking about when you babble about 'the hubble sphere'. Hell, for some reason you think its' relevant to anomalous dispersion in pulsar signaling. > >>> E=mc^2 never really was proven, ... >> >> Theories are not proven, Phil. Were you expecting it should be? > > Right, this is why GR will never be a law. > > You're driving a car propelled by your own feet just like in the > Flintstones, because GR is not self-sufficient. So you can't answer the question? > > [...] > >> Then you have a few preliminaries to win first, don't you? > > FR couldn't be disproved for a whole year against the entire world so I > think the likelihood of GR being right is pretty much null. a) Your numerology makes no testable predictions. b) Your inability to be convinced your numerology is wrong is is irrelevant to GR.
From: eric gisse on 25 Jan 2010 19:51 Phil Bouchard wrote: > eric gisse wrote: >> >> Have you ever seen a grant application, Phil? > > Yes, you need a biographical sketch for every individual part of the > application. So you have not, and you are lying about it. Don't you have something else to do, Phil?
From: PD on 26 Jan 2010 17:40 On Jan 25, 3:30 pm, Phil Bouchard <p...(a)fornux.com> wrote: > PD wrote: > > > What evidence is there that the principle of relativity is wrong, > > Phil? > > If the observer is not in the same gravitational field as the observed > photon then c will be different:http://www.fornux.com/personal/philippe/fr/fr-sci_physics.pdf The principle of relativity pertains to inertial reference frames, Phil. Observers in non-inertial frames do not expect the principle of relativity to apply. What evidence do you have that the principle of relativity is wrong, Phil? > > > What evidence is there that the speed of light in a vacuum is not c, > > Phil? > > The Hubble Sphere is enough showing GR is wrong. What evidence is there that the speed of light in a vacuum is not c, Phil? That's the other postulate. > > >> E=mc^2 never really was proven, ... > > > Theories are not proven, Phil. Were you expecting it should be? > > Right, this is why GR will never be a law. ? Even physical laws are not proven, Phil. Were you expecting that it should be? > > You're driving a car propelled by your own feet just like in the > Flintstones, because GR is not self-sufficient. > > [...] > > > Then you have a few preliminaries to win first, don't you? > > FR couldn't be disproved for a whole year against the entire world so I > think the likelihood of GR being right is pretty much null. What you think doesn't matter, does it, Phil? GR doesn't prove itself by disproving others. Did you expect it should?
From: Phil Bouchard on 26 Jan 2010 20:48
PD wrote: > > The principle of relativity pertains to inertial reference frames, > Phil. Observers in non-inertial frames do not expect the principle of > relativity to apply. So you're basically saying SR works only as far as the MM experiment is concerned and nothing else. SR is consequently quite useless... > What evidence do you have that the principle of relativity is wrong, > Phil? - If you bring the MM experiment in orbit it won't work - Many discrepancies in time dilation of incoming probes were observed - GR not only doesn't explain the Hubble Sphere but doesn't even know its own cosmological constant - blah blah blah > What evidence is there that the speed of light in a vacuum is not c, > Phil? That's the other postulate. See above. > ? Even physical laws are not proven, Phil. Were you expecting that it > should be? This is quite a pathetic approach to solving problems if you can't even prove your equations and your own sanity. > What you think doesn't matter, does it, Phil? > GR doesn't prove itself by disproving others. Did you expect it > should? "Live and let die." -- Phil |