FR Bending of Light -- Proof
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 22 Jan 2010 10:22 On Jan 21, 9:06 pm, Phil Bouchard <p...(a)fornux.com> wrote: > eric gisse wrote: > > > I don't need to resort to passive aggressive abuses of language to make my > > point known. I have literature references - and actual aggression. > > > Look Phil, it is clear that you either need more attention or forgot that > > people hate you here. Either way, you'll get abused until you once again > > pack up and leave for a few months when you'll start the cycle anew. > > I can't help people who don't want to help themselves so just speak for > yourself in any event. > > This is a physics newsgroups and I am expecting comments from those who > are willing to learn. What you expect is not necessarily what you get. This is an open forum. If what you say is worthy of derision, then that's what you will receive. If what you say is worthy of support, then that's what you'll receive. If you think what you say is worthy of support, but what you receive is derision, then perhaps you should take something away from that mismatch, no?
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. |