FR vs. GR and a century of experiments

eric gisse wrote:

Really Phil, do you have any proof that both of those assumptions are wrong
in their relevant domains of applicability?

The fact GR needs an almanac for error corrections for our own Earth is
not a good start. When FR shows to be more precise in all circumstances
it will prove GR to be wrong.

doug wrote:

No, it shows your ignorance of what is being done. That is your problem.

FR does not need daily corrections, this is what you do not understand.

Since it already gives wrong predictions, if is dead.

Doug is right only 6% of the time.

doug wrote:

Yes, it is wrong all the time and cannot be corrected. You also show
your complete ignorance of gps.

Doug threw in the towel last time and still claims to get better answers.

[...]

Phil Bouchard wrote:

PD wrote:


I'm sorry, you said there were approximations involved. I still don't
see the approximations.


"An exact fudge factor is better than Einstein's assumptions [...]"

So phil tries to lie his way out again.

Why is that a bad start for SR? You've got two theories which make
conflicting statements.
Now, how do you suppose that we would go about scientifically
determining which of the two is correct?


By determining which one is more precise. Remember?

Well, FR gives the wrong answer for gps. So FR is dead.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:

[...]

Well, FR gives the wrong answer for gps. So FR is dead.


Doug wouldn't give GR $5 against FR and claims his certitude.

More lies from phil.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

eric gisse wrote:


Really Phil, do you have any proof that both of those assumptions are
wrong in their relevant domains of applicability?


The fact GR needs an almanac for error corrections for our own Earth is
not a good start.

No, it shows your ignorance of what is being done. That is your problem.

When FR shows to be more precise in all circumstances
it will prove GR to be wrong.

Since it already gives wrong predictions, if is dead.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:


No, it shows your ignorance of what is being done. That is your problem.


FR does not need daily corrections, this is what you do not understand.

Yes, it is wrong all the time and cannot be corrected. You also show
your complete ignorance of gps.

Since it already gives wrong predictions, if is dead.


Doug is right only 6% of the time.

Phil thinks that lying is a way of being correct.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:


Yes, it is wrong all the time and cannot be corrected. You also show
your complete ignorance of gps.


Doug threw in the towel last time and still claims to get better answers.

Phil thinks that lying is a way to do science.


[...]

On Oct 5, 12:35*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
PD wrote:

I'm sorry, you said there were approximations involved. I still don't
see the approximations.

"An exact fudge factor is better than Einstein's assumptions [...]"

I'm sorry, we were talking about the approximations you said are in
relativity. Now you have just reiterated the assumptions and said that
FR disagrees with them. Now you say that having a fudge factor is
"better" than those assumptions. Where are the approximations?


Why is that a bad start for SR? You've got two theories which make
conflicting statements.
Now, how do you suppose that we would go about scientifically
determining which of the two is correct?

By determining which one is more precise. *Remember?

Sorry, that's a computer science objective, not a scientific
objective.

Relativity is based on exact equations. Where do you think the
approximations are?

On Oct 5, 1:12*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
doug wrote:

No, it shows your ignorance of what is being done. That is your problem..

FR does not need daily corrections, this is what you do not understand.

The daily corrections don't have anything to do with relativity. They
have to do with mechanical drift in the clocks. Geez what a ditz.


Since it already gives wrong predictions, if is dead.

Doug is right only 6% of the time.