FR Bending of Light

On Nov 24, 4:52*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
PD wrote:

[...]

Ah, so there is a vast, hidden mound of counterevidence that you are
sure is there but of course can't cite because it's been hidden.

Yup.

Wanna bet?

Yup.

Alright, let's get it on. *Gravitational time dilation and light bending.

Slow time-aether means a slow C metric. The space curve creates
geometry of motion or a parabola for light bending past the Sun in the
sky.

Mitch Raemsch

Phil Bouchard wrote:

PD wrote:

[...]

Ah, so there is a vast, hidden mound of counterevidence that you are
sure is there but of course can't cite because it's been hidden.

Yup.

If it is hidden, how do you know it is there?

Moreover, why have you not performed the observations yourself yet? If you
are actually interested in the subject and truly believe what you are
saying, you should be able to get funding from the numerous people on this
newsgroup who think evidence against relativity is being suppressed.


Wanna bet?

Yup.

Alright, let's get it on. Gravitational time dilation and light bending.

Throw in Shapiro delay, Lense-Thirring precession, geodetic precession, and
the Nordtelvdt effect. Let's see FR's prediction on all that.

eric gisse wrote:

If it is hidden, how do you know it is there?

By induction.

[...]

Throw in Shapiro delay, Lense-Thirring precession, geodetic precession, and
the Nordtelvdt effect. Let's see FR's prediction on all that.

The frame-dragging effects is a nice tab I can add to the simulator, but
the oval shape of the planet might not be present.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

eric gisse wrote:

If it is hidden, how do you know it is there?

By induction.

Try a different word, Phil. Perhaps you might wish to try 'inference'. Then
explain what the hell you are talking about.


[...]

Throw in Shapiro delay, Lense-Thirring precession, geodetic precession,
and the Nordtelvdt effect. Let's see FR's prediction on all that.

The frame-dragging effects is a nice tab I can add to the simulator, but
the oval shape of the planet might not be present.

The shape of the planet has nothing to do with it, Phil. Try to keep up.

eric gisse wrote:

Try a different word, Phil. Perhaps you might wish to try 'inference'. Then
explain what the hell you are talking about.

No because inference is a less accurate explanation.

The shape of the planet has nothing to do with it, Phil. Try to keep up.

To make it even more precise, yes it does.

PD wrote:

[...]

That's part of the input data. It comes from a measurement of dark
energy.

Which is hypothetical and invented by Einstein.

Says who?

Says nature.

Says you.

Wormholes aren't faster-than-light tunneling.

So you officially believe in wormholes.

Sam Wormley wrote:

[...]

observations of time dilation in earth satellite clocks. I cannot
recommend this book to anyone, even as an example of how not to write
about science. -- Sam Wormley, Adj. Prof. Astronomy'

You cannot recommend it because you do not understand it.

On Nov 25, 12:38*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
PD wrote:

[...]

That's part of the input data. It comes from a measurement of dark
energy.

Which is hypothetical and invented by Einstein.

Dark energy wasn't, no.

You're right, we only have the footprints of dark energy and haven't
captured the beast yet.
If you see footprints of a tiger in the woods, do you conclude that
someone has made up a fictional tiger?


Says who?

Says nature.

Says you.

Wormholes aren't faster-than-light tunneling.

So you officially believe in wormholes.

How does telling you that wormholes AREN'T something you claim they
are, imply anything about what I believe or don't believe. If I tell
you that extraterrestrial planets are not cities made of paper and
clay, does that tell you that I believe in extraterrestrial planets?

On Nov 24, 6:52*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
PD wrote:

[...]

Ah, so there is a vast, hidden mound of counterevidence that you are
sure is there but of course can't cite because it's been hidden.

Yup.

Ah, lovely, the foam on the lips of a conspiracy goon. Can't cite it
but you know it's there.


Wanna bet?

Yup.

Alright, let's get it on. *Gravitational time dilation and light bending.

You think that GR can't calculate gravitational time dilation and
light bending? Whatever gave you that idea?

PD

On Nov 25, 2:28*am, Phil Bouchard wrote:
eric gisse wrote:

If it is hidden, how do you know it is there?

By induction.

I think you misspelled "delusion".


[...]

Throw in Shapiro delay, Lense-Thirring precession, geodetic precession, and
the Nordtelvdt effect. Let's see FR's prediction on all that.

The frame-dragging effects is a nice tab I can add to the simulator, but
the oval shape of the planet might not be present.