FR Bending of Light -- Proof
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 22 Jan 2010 10:24 On Jan 21, 6:57 pm, Phil Bouchard <p...(a)fornux.com> wrote: > Uncle Al wrote: > > > 1) 40 years of solar grazing incidence quasar displacement studies. > > 2) 20 years of astronomic Einstein rings and gravitational lensing. > > 3) idiot > > Right, but the only problem is you cannot disprove FR. One doesn't owe a disproving to nonsense. FR has to compete with prevailing theories on the metrics that theories are measured by. If yours doesn't compete, it doesn't. It isn't owed a disproof. One can't disprove God, either. That doesn't make God a viable scientific theory.
From: J. Clarke on 22 Jan 2010 10:23 Phil Bouchard wrote: > Uncle Al wrote: >> >> 1) 40 years of solar grazing incidence quasar displacement >> studies. 2) 20 years of astronomic Einstein rings and >> gravitational lensing. 3) idiot > > Right, but the only problem is you cannot disprove FR. And since it contains no means by which it may be falsified, it is not science. Epic fail. <plonk>
From: Phil Bouchard on 22 Jan 2010 13:36 J. Clarke wrote: > > And since it contains no means by which it may be falsified, it is not > science. > Epic fail. "If it's not broken don't fix it!" -- Relativists
From: Phil Bouchard on 22 Jan 2010 13:46 PD wrote: > > One doesn't owe a disproving to nonsense. FR has to compete with > prevailing theories on the metrics that theories are measured by. If > yours doesn't compete, it doesn't. It isn't owed a disproof. $1,000,000 > One can't disprove God, either. That doesn't make God a viable > scientific theory. Great analogy but I think common sense should be the ultimate decider.
From: Phil Bouchard on 22 Jan 2010 13:51
eric gisse wrote: > > Gosh Phil, have you even read the scholarly literature that your link > references? That is hilarious. The article says it is possible traveling faster-than-light but no information can be transmitted. So if this phenomenon is actually observed then you can call it a clock tick, which is: INFORMATION. |