FR Bending of Light -- Proof
in [Relativity]
|
From: eric gisse on 22 Jan 2010 14:55 Phil Bouchard wrote: > 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. Gosh, Phil. It looks like you did not even read the linked arXiv article that explains that nothing is actually traveling faster than light. In fact, no relativity is even invoked. It is nothing more than classical electrodynamics.
From: Phil Bouchard on 22 Jan 2010 15:45 eric gisse wrote: > > Gosh, Phil. It looks like you did not even read the linked arXiv article > that explains that nothing is actually traveling faster than light. > > In fact, no relativity is even invoked. It is nothing more than classical > electrodynamics. Oh yeah: "Hence, these pulses appear to travel faster than light. This phenomenon is caused by an interplay between the time scales present in the pulse and the time scales present in the medium.". This is not serious, seriously. So we fall back to that spacetime warp deadlocked logic.
From: J. Clarke on 22 Jan 2010 15:36 Phil Bouchard wrote: > 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 I thought I <plonk>ed you. Well, <plonk> you, your posting host, and the domain you rode in on.
From: eric gisse on 22 Jan 2010 16:19 Phil Bouchard wrote: > eric gisse wrote: >> >> Gosh, Phil. It looks like you did not even read the linked arXiv article >> that explains that nothing is actually traveling faster than light. >> >> In fact, no relativity is even invoked. It is nothing more than classical >> electrodynamics. > > Oh yeah: > > "Hence, these pulses appear to travel faster than light. This phenomenon > is caused by an interplay between the time scales present in the pulse > and the time scales present in the medium.". > > > This is not serious, seriously. So we fall back to that spacetime warp > deadlocked logic. So Phil, do you even have enough knowledge of electromagnetic theory to understand the paper you just dismissed out of hand? Relativity did not have to be invoked once to explain the phenomena. If not, why are you talking about articles you do not understand?
From: PD on 22 Jan 2010 16:32
On Jan 22, 12:46 pm, Phil Bouchard <p...(a)fornux.com> wrote: > 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 You don't have $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. And that's your mistake. A lot of cranks and goofballs here think that relativity and quantum mechanics MUST be wrong because they are in conflict with their common sense. Common sense does not decide, never has, never should. You do know how models ARE tested in science, don't you? |