FR Bending of Light -- Proof
in [Physics]
|
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
From: Phil Bouchard on 27 Jan 2010 02:22 eric gisse wrote: > > ...because helicopters vibrate enough to ruin the interference. Given that > the Earth is in *ORBIT* around the sun, orbits are not special. Try again. Use a magnetorheological damper. > Sorry phil - not time dilation. Nor do you know enough about how such things > are modeled and what the limitations of the models are. Can somebody tell Eric Gisse time is a component of speed? [...]
From: Androcles on 27 Jan 2010 05:53 "Phil Bouchard" <phil(a)fornux.com> wrote in message news:4b5fe9c0$1(a)news.x-privat.org... > eric gisse wrote: >> >> ...because helicopters vibrate enough to ruin the interference. Given >> that the Earth is in *ORBIT* around the sun, orbits are not special. Try >> again. > > Use a magnetorheological damper. > >> Sorry phil - not time dilation. Nor do you know enough about how such >> things are modeled and what the limitations of the models are. > > Can somebody tell Eric Gisse time is a component of speed? > > [...] Only if you can find an available neuron that will fire long enough to accept it, otherwise hysteresis takes over and it reverts to its normal bigot.
From: Sam Wormley on 27 Jan 2010 08:48 On 1/27/10 1:22 AM, Phil Bouchard wrote: > > Can somebody tell Eric Gisse time is a component of speed? > You are incredibly naive, Phil! Take a freshman physics class.
From: PD on 27 Jan 2010 09:46
On Jan 26, 7:48 pm, Phil Bouchard <p...(a)fornux.com> wrote: > 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... Not at all. It works in thousands of applications. If you think that there are only two -- the MM experiment and experiments with a significant change in gravitational field -- then you are sadly unaware. > > > 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 What makes you say that? > - Many discrepancies in time dilation of incoming probes were observed Name one. > - GR not only doesn't explain the Hubble Sphere but doesn't even know > its own cosmological constant This doesn't have anything to do with the principle of relativity, Phil. We were talking about the principle of relativity. > - 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. None of those are measurements of the speed of light in a vacuum, Phil. What evidence is there that the speed of light in a vacuum is not c, Phil? > > > ? 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. I'm sorry if you were under the impression that physical laws were proven. Perhaps you need a first year course in the scientific method. > > > 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 |