FR Per. Prec. + Light Bending

I have implemented light bending into the FR simulator and we can
already see different result from standard Newtonian arithmetics and
Finite Relativism in the second tab:
http://www.fornux.com/personal/philippe/fr/fr.exe

The time dilation factor in direction to the Sun has been canceled.
Only the orthogonal time dilation factor to the planet - Sun vector is
considered. This doesn't change much the perihelion precession of
Mercury (from 2.5e-7 to 8e-7) but does impact light bending.


-Phil

Phil Bouchard wrote:

I have implemented light bending into the FR simulator and we can
already see different result from standard Newtonian arithmetics and
Finite Relativism in the second tab:
http://www.fornux.com/personal/philippe/fr/fr.exe

Nobody is stupid enough to run an executable.


The time dilation factor in direction to the Sun has been canceled.
Only the orthogonal time dilation factor to the planet - Sun vector is
considered. This doesn't change much the perihelion precession of
Mercury (from 2.5e-7 to 8e-7) but does impact light bending.

So FR is wrong. Again.

Why even post?



-Phil

eric gisse wrote:

Nobody is stupid enough to run an executable.

Once again my name is on it, there is no virus. If you don't trust me
run it on Doug's machine.

So FR is wrong. Again.

Why even post?

I'm currently adjusting it; when I reduce the time tick of the light
bending calculation I get a more important difference.

This is an update.

On Nov 13, 12:14*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
eric gisse wrote:

Nobody is stupid enough to run an executable.

Once again my name is on it, there is no virus.

Phil, pardon me, but this assurance of nothing.

*If you don't trust me
run it on Doug's machine.

So FR is wrong. Again.

Why even post?

I'm currently adjusting it; when I reduce the time tick of the light
bending calculation I get a more important difference.

This is an update.

PD wrote:

Phil, pardon me, but this assurance of nothing.

I haven't spent a year to get flagged as a hacker, how about that?

Phil Bouchard wrote:

PD wrote:

Phil, pardon me, but this assurance of nothing.

I haven't spent a year to get flagged as a hacker, how about that?

Phil, you really don't get the objection do you?

Post the source code and I'll consider running it.

On Nov 13, 2:05*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
PD wrote:

Phil, pardon me, but this assurance of nothing.

I haven't spent a year to get flagged as a hacker, how about that?

Sorry, Phil, but your avowals of personal integrity just don't cut it.
What hacker doesn't say "Trust me"?

Phil Bouchard wrote:

eric gisse wrote:

Nobody is stupid enough to run an executable.

Once again my name is on it, there is no virus. If you don't trust me
run it on Doug's machine.

Oh, so I should run an executable from you just because you say there isn't
a virus?

I run linux. How am I supposed to run your windows program that depends on
windows binaries?


So FR is wrong. Again.

Why even post?

I'm currently adjusting it; when I reduce the time tick of the light
bending calculation I get a more important difference.

This is an update.

Why not post to a blog then?

"11/13, still wrong. Check back tomorrow".

eric gisse wrote:

I run linux. How am I supposed to run your windows program that depends on
windows binaries?

Use a Windows emulator.

[...]

Phil Bouchard wrote:

eric gisse wrote:

I run linux. How am I supposed to run your windows program that depends
on windows binaries?

Use a Windows emulator.

[...]

So you expect me to install a windows emulator just to run an untrusted
binary to see something which doesn't even make correct predictions?

I think my afternoon plans of NCIS and the development of a command/control
suite for a botnet is a better plan.