Prev: Magnetism\Gravity
Next: The North American Nanohertz Observatory for Gravitational Waves
From: Phil Bouchard on 6 Jan 2010 14:46
Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>> Sam basically says General Relativity is wrong by getting 1.75 arc-sec!
>
> Nope... I (Sam) says you haven't the foggiest understanding of
> general relativity and that what you pst in these newsgroups is
> utter nonsense.

Getting the right answers has nothing to do with General Relativity.
From: Phil Bouchard on 6 Jan 2010 14:56
eric gisse wrote:
>
> Let's see the calculations, Phil.
>
> It only took you the better part of what, two years?

Exactly one year in my spare time.

I am willing paying anybody reviewing it and helping me submitting it
hopefully this month. It should be fairly easy since all the required
calculations including the bending of light are done.
From: PD on 6 Jan 2010 15:03
On Jan 6, 1:46 pm, Phil Bouchard <p...(a)fornux.com> wrote:
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> >> Sam basically says General Relativity is wrong by getting 1.75 arc-sec!
>
> >   Nope... I (Sam) says you haven't the foggiest understanding of
> >   general relativity and that what you pst in these newsgroups is
> >   utter nonsense.
>
> Getting the right answers has nothing to do with General Relativity.

And empirically fitting a function to data by twiddling parameters has
nothing to do with a physical theory, Phil.

But I see you're lonely again and need some more abuse to fill your
love bucket.
From: PD on 6 Jan 2010 15:05
On Jan 6, 1:56 pm, Phil Bouchard <p...(a)fornux.com> wrote:
> eric gisse wrote:
>
> > Let's see the calculations, Phil.
>
> > It only took you the better part of what, two years?
>
> Exactly one year in my spare time.
>
> I am willing paying anybody reviewing it and helping me submitting it
> hopefully this month.  It should be fairly easy since all the required
> calculations including the bending of light are done.

You'll pay me to review it? Sure, send me an email. We'll discuss
rates in that avenue.
Note a review does not mean doing revisions necessary to make it
publishable. You'd have to do that work, as is required by anyone in
the same shoes.
From: Phil Bouchard on 6 Jan 2010 15:13
PD wrote:
>
> You'll pay me to review it? Sure, send me an email. We'll discuss
> rates in that avenue.
> Note a review does not mean doing revisions necessary to make it
> publishable. You'd have to do that work, as is required by anyone in
> the same shoes.

To make it publishable we need having enough evidence and I think I went
through everything, including LSB galaxy rotation curves.

But thanks PD, I appreciate. I will send you an email tonight.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Magnetism\Gravity
Next: The North American Nanohertz Observatory for Gravitational Waves