FR Bending of Light -- Proof
in [Physics]
|
From: oriel36 on 25 Jan 2010 15:14 On Jan 25, 7:01 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> wrote: > "Phil Bouchard" <p...(a)fornux.com> wrote in message > > news:4b5de648$1(a)news.x-privat.org... > > > PD wrote: > > >> Not at all. He's no god. Just a physicist. Happened to get a few > >> things right. > > > Well the 2 postulates of SR are wrong, > > Well the 2 names of Phil Bouhcard are wrong, but the first is correct. > The 3rd postulate of SR is wrong too; "the ``time'' required by light to > travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A" is > complete nonsense if A moves wrt B. > > Phuckwit Duck gets nothing right. > quote/ > I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment. > > I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather > than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for > that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or drifting > to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound > thinking reveals the true interest in the proposal. > > While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the > intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual > "classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a > reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn > from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in > someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it > straight, and then make progress from there. > > I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would > read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was > confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better, > my heart does not. > > [sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to > appear] > PD > /unquote > Be careful not to blast his tail feathers, you might demoralize > the hypocritical bigot again. Did you not announce to everyone that you are a relativist after all - http://www.bartelby.net/173/4.html Keep your mouth shut when I tell you but don't pretend not to be a relativist when Albert is consistent from chapter 4 to chapter 5. Let you state publicaly where you stand and don't you ever try to tangle with me again you foulmouthed nuisance
From: Phil Bouchard on 25 Jan 2010 16:30 PD wrote: > > What evidence is there that the principle of relativity is wrong, > Phil? If the observer is not in the same gravitational field as the observed photon then c will be different: http://www.fornux.com/personal/philippe/fr/fr-sci_physics.pdf > What evidence is there that the speed of light in a vacuum is not c, > Phil? The Hubble Sphere is enough showing GR is wrong. >> E=mc^2 never really was proven, ... > > Theories are not proven, Phil. Were you expecting it should be? Right, this is why GR will never be a law. You're driving a car propelled by your own feet just like in the Flintstones, because GR is not self-sufficient. [...] > Then you have a few preliminaries to win first, don't you? FR couldn't be disproved for a whole year against the entire world so I think the likelihood of GR being right is pretty much null.
From: eric gisse on 25 Jan 2010 19:51 Phil Bouchard wrote: > PD wrote: >> >> What evidence is there that the principle of relativity is wrong, >> Phil? > > If the observer is not in the same gravitational field as the observed > photon then c will be different: > http://www.fornux.com/personal/philippe/fr/fr-sci_physics.pdf Well Phil, your opinion is not relevant. GR makes testable predictions that are validated by observation. You have numerology. > >> What evidence is there that the speed of light in a vacuum is not c, >> Phil? > > The Hubble Sphere is enough showing GR is wrong. Phil, you don't know what you are talking about when you babble about 'the hubble sphere'. Hell, for some reason you think its' relevant to anomalous dispersion in pulsar signaling. > >>> E=mc^2 never really was proven, ... >> >> Theories are not proven, Phil. Were you expecting it should be? > > Right, this is why GR will never be a law. > > You're driving a car propelled by your own feet just like in the > Flintstones, because GR is not self-sufficient. So you can't answer the question? > > [...] > >> Then you have a few preliminaries to win first, don't you? > > FR couldn't be disproved for a whole year against the entire world so I > think the likelihood of GR being right is pretty much null. a) Your numerology makes no testable predictions. b) Your inability to be convinced your numerology is wrong is is irrelevant to GR.
From: eric gisse on 25 Jan 2010 19:51 Phil Bouchard wrote: > eric gisse wrote: >> >> Have you ever seen a grant application, Phil? > > Yes, you need a biographical sketch for every individual part of the > application. So you have not, and you are lying about it. Don't you have something else to do, Phil?
From: PD on 26 Jan 2010 17:40
On Jan 25, 3:30 pm, Phil Bouchard <p...(a)fornux.com> wrote: > PD wrote: > > > What evidence is there that the principle of relativity is wrong, > > Phil? > > If the observer is not in the same gravitational field as the observed > photon then c will be different:http://www.fornux.com/personal/philippe/fr/fr-sci_physics.pdf The principle of relativity pertains to inertial reference frames, Phil. Observers in non-inertial frames do not expect the principle of relativity to apply. What evidence do you have that the principle of relativity is wrong, Phil? > > > What evidence is there that the speed of light in a vacuum is not c, > > Phil? > > The Hubble Sphere is enough showing GR is wrong. What evidence is there that the speed of light in a vacuum is not c, Phil? That's the other postulate. > > >> E=mc^2 never really was proven, ... > > > Theories are not proven, Phil. Were you expecting it should be? > > Right, this is why GR will never be a law. ? Even physical laws are not proven, Phil. Were you expecting that it should be? > > You're driving a car propelled by your own feet just like in the > Flintstones, because GR is not self-sufficient. > > [...] > > > Then you have a few preliminaries to win first, don't you? > > FR couldn't be disproved for a whole year against the entire world so I > think the likelihood of GR being right is pretty much null. What you think doesn't matter, does it, Phil? GR doesn't prove itself by disproving others. Did you expect it should? |