FR Bending of Light

On Nov 24, 10:49*am, philippeb8 wrote:
On Nov 24, 6:56*am, PD wrote:



What's subjective about presence of equilibrium and nonequilibrium?
What's subjective about the presence of friction and the absence of
friction?

What's your point?

PD is in an attempt obfuscating clear evidence GR is an art.

Asking you an ordinary question about ordinary, 7th grade physics is
an obfuscation?

On Nov 24, 11:15*am, Phil Bouchard wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:

* Phil, you really know how to fool yourself.

Disprove FR Sam!

Why do you think it is the responsibility of scientists to pay
attention to any crazy idea that pops up and to take the effort to
DISPROVE the crazy idea? Don't you think that would be a monstrous
waste of everyone's time?

Get an experiment funded to test your ideas, Phil.

PD wrote:

Why do you think it is the responsibility of scientists to pay
attention to any crazy idea that pops up and to take the effort to
DISPROVE the crazy idea? Don't you think that would be a monstrous
waste of everyone's time?

Well it should be pretty easy after all:

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single
experiment can prove me wrong." -- Albert Einstein


Also:

"You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull
his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you
understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send
signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there
is no cat." -- Albert Einstein

Get an experiment funded to test your ideas, Phil.

The simulator does that for me.

On Nov 24, 1:48*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
PD wrote:

Why do you think it is the responsibility of scientists to pay
attention to any crazy idea that pops up and to take the effort to
DISPROVE the crazy idea? Don't you think that would be a monstrous
waste of everyone's time?

Well it should be pretty easy after all:

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single
experiment can prove me wrong." -- Albert Einstein

But FR is not an experiment, and it proves nothing wrong.
You claim that FR is more *likeable* than GR. That doesn't prove it
wrong by any stretch. All it demonstrates is that what you like is not
what scientists like.


Also:

"You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull
his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you
understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send
signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there
is no cat." -- Albert Einstein

Are you telling me you don't know how radio works?


Get an experiment funded to test your ideas, Phil.

The simulator does that for me.

Well, as has been pointed out, Phil, a simulation is not an
experiment.
The new movie Avatar is a simulation. So are video games. Neither of
them have any connection with reality.

PD wrote:

Asking you an ordinary question about ordinary, 7th grade physics is
an obfuscation?

Well you see the absence of friction in one experiment does not prevent
you from calculating it.

On Nov 24, 1:59*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
PD wrote:

Asking you an ordinary question about ordinary, 7th grade physics is
an obfuscation?

Well you see the absence of friction in one experiment does not prevent
you from calculating it.

Calculating the friction that is not there?

How about calculating the effect on the trajectory of an object due to
the friction that isn't there?

Please calculate the friction that isn't there, in the orbit of the
Moon, Phil.

Then tell me about what you think relativity can't calculate.

PD wrote:

But FR is not an experiment, and it proves nothing wrong.
You claim that FR is more *likeable* than GR. That doesn't prove it
wrong by any stretch. All it demonstrates is that what you like is not
what scientists like.

What you like doesn't count.

[...]

Well, as has been pointed out, Phil, a simulation is not an
experiment.
The new movie Avatar is a simulation. So are video games. Neither of
them have any connection with reality.

The experiments were made over the last century as Doug clearly pointed
out. The simulator calculates what was observed.

On Nov 24, 12:36*am, philippeb8 wrote:
On Nov 23, 9:52*pm, BradGuth wrote:



Sam is too smart for himself.

Gravity bends the flow of photons. *However, in 3D space, which was
are those photons or quantum string like things moving?

This is 2 photons moving in proximity with each other. *The angles
measured in the bottommost label are the difference between the 2
photons relative to the Sun.

Einstein questioned his photon. He questioned what he won the Nobel
Prize for. He said he couild not reconcile a particle with the wave. I
believe he was right to. It is only a spherical wave.

Mitch Raemsch

PD wrote:

Calculating the friction that is not there?

How about calculating the effect on the trajectory of an object due to
the friction that isn't there?

Please calculate the friction that isn't there, in the orbit of the
Moon, Phil.

Sure, you'll get a coefficient of friction to be 0.

Then tell me about what you think relativity can't calculate.

- GR has a finite precision
- GR cannot predict the faith of the Universe. You see, it depends on a
cosmological constant which is either wrong or right.
- GR disagrees with faster-than-light tunneling effects

On Nov 24, 2:10*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
PD wrote:

But FR is not an experiment, and it proves nothing wrong.
You claim that FR is more *likeable* than GR. That doesn't prove it
wrong by any stretch. All it demonstrates is that what you like is not
what scientists like.

What you like doesn't count.

For whom? You? That's fine.


[...]

Well, as has been pointed out, Phil, a simulation is not an
experiment.
The new movie Avatar is a simulation. So are video games. Neither of
them have any connection with reality.

The experiments were made over the last century as Doug clearly pointed
out.
*The simulator calculates what was observed.

No, it doesn't. You've already said it gets an answer different than
what is actually observed. GR gets the same answer as what is actually
observed. This should be perceived as a problem.