FR vs. GR and a century of experiments

doug wrote:

What we are seeing is that you are wasting your time.
You should spend some time learning how to program. For instance,
you do not even seem to be able to put legends on a graph. I have
to do occasional work with another programmer who is that stupid
as well.

Here's a version you can read:
http://www.fornux.com/personal/phili...ci_physics.pdf

eric gisse wrote:

He's certainly on a streak for only being right 6% of the time.

At least learn to use gnuplot so your graphs aren't nearly as professionally
embarrassing.

Do you know how to read binary files using Gnuplot?

eric gisse wrote:

Which you haven't done, nor have you sketched how it can be done even in
theory.

Do you understand the postulates of FR?

But we already have very accurate predictions that work for any season, any
time of the day.

Well no because you need daily corrections.

Apparently "FR", and I say "FR" because I'm trying to signify sarcastic
finger quotes, isn't nearly as successful as you wish it to be if you have
to launch a probe towards the sun to determine something about the EARTH.

Eric Gisse missed the part where I was talking about the unique fudge
factor of the entire solar system.

On Sep 29, 4:35*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
PD wrote:

Um, you just said FR'd lose. Now you say it will succeed.
You don't seem to know what FR will do.

My version relates to the measurements. *Yours to its inauguration.

Sorry, Phil, but science's relates to measurements, too. Just not to
computational efficiency, which you think should be the standard --
which of course is because you are paid to compute efficiently.
Sometimes.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

eric gisse wrote:


Which you haven't done, nor have you sketched how it can be done even
in theory.


Do you understand the postulates of FR?

But we already have very accurate predictions that work for any
season, any time of the day.


Well no because you need daily corrections.

You have no clue how gps works and you keep demonstrating your
total ignorance of it. That is why we keep laughing at your
feeble attempts to do any science.


Apparently "FR", and I say "FR" because I'm trying to signify
sarcastic finger quotes, isn't nearly as successful as you wish it to
be if you have to launch a probe towards the sun to determine
something about the EARTH.


Eric Gisse missed the part where I was talking about the unique fudge
factor of the entire solar system.

doug wrote:

You have no clue how gps works and you keep demonstrating your
total ignorance of it. That is why we keep laughing at your
feeble attempts to do any science.

This is what happens when you cumulate errors. You don't need to be
Newton to understand that.

PD wrote:

Sorry, Phil, but science's relates to measurements, too. Just not to
computational efficiency, which you think should be the standard --
which of course is because you are paid to compute efficiently.
Sometimes.

PD are you drunk again? You said it yourself, science relates to
ultimate measurements.

Sam Wormley wrote:

Boy, Phil, you have no clue as to how GPS work. Reminds me
of Potter.

So it seems no more tickets are available at the event tomorrow.
Anybody got some extra ticket for sale?

On Sep 30, 12:12*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
PD wrote:

Sorry, Phil, but science's relates to measurements, too. Just not to
computational efficiency, which you think should be the standard --
which of course is because you are paid to compute efficiently.
Sometimes.

PD are you drunk again? *You said it yourself, science relates to
ultimate measurements.

Actually, I didn't say anything about "ultimate measurements" and have
no idea what you mean by the phrase either. But you seem to like to
babble, and I like to poke fun at your compulsion at having the last
word, so this can continue for a while.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

eric gisse wrote:

Which you haven't done, nor have you sketched how it can be done even in
theory.

Do you understand the postulates of FR?

Why yes, Phil, I do. Just like I understand the postulates of Ken Seto's
"theory", etc. But your predictions don't follow from the postulates - you
just throw **** out there and call it a theory.


But we already have very accurate predictions that work for any season,
any time of the day.

Well no because you need daily corrections.

Why yes, Phil. But the corrections are only something on the order of one
nanosecond per day, due to perturbations from small inhomogeneities in the
planet's gravitational field and other **** that nudges orbits.

The uncorrected difference is 50,000 ns/day.

You can't even get close to that accuracy.


Apparently "FR", and I say "FR" because I'm trying to signify sarcastic
finger quotes, isn't nearly as successful as you wish it to be if you
have to launch a probe towards the sun to determine something about the
EARTH.

Eric Gisse missed the part where I was talking about the unique fudge
factor of the entire solar system.

And yet somehow physics has no need for such 'fudge factors'. Isn't that
odd, Phil? Perhaps you should go back to computer programming.