Bending of Light by the Sun NEVER ACCURATELY MEASURED.

On Mar 30, 1:49*pm, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
[....]

Nonsense, the Sun shares a barycentre with the photon. Until that is
measured
you can NEVER accurately measure the bending of light.

It was only a suggestion. The Pound Rebka experiment clearly proves that light
accelerates down a gravity well like anything else.

It shows nothing of the sort.


....but I agree that it is almost impossible to accurately measure the bending
of light by the sun.

You say this despite never having even tried to read the articles that
describe how the process works.

As the observer moves in the Earth's orbit, a distant star initially appears to
approach the sun, then stop, then move away again pretty rapidly before
disappearing suddenly and well away from the rim. It soon reappears on the
opposite side, again well away.

Ahh, the "science" of Ralph Rabbidge. Apparently science - in his mind
- is so primitive that it cannot even tell the distance between a star
and the sun.

Do you somehow think it is impossible to photograph the event and
figure out how close things are together? Or is that a daft
impossibility in your mind?


All this time, the moon is blocking the sun, so the latter's edge is not
visible anyway..... and the star's movement near the edge cannot be monitored.

Hey Ralph, the star being observed isn't behind the sun. It is only
slightly displaced - and near the edge of the sun.

Eddington didn't have a hope in hell of making an accurate measurement. *

I'd tell you to go read March's Physics Today where the process and
history of Eddington's measurement are heavily detailed, but
apparently you are too much of an invalid to go to the library and
refuse to ask your caretaker to fetch it for you.


Relativists now claim that the experiment has been repeated many times with
radio telescopes and has verified Einstein. I don't believe them.

Of course you don't want to believe. That would require you to
consider - for a minute - that your precious theories that you have
spent years of putting your huge ego into are wrong.

It isn't as if you found a flaw in the methodology, analysis, or
conclusions. You simply won't look. How pathetic is that?

Oh well...horses to water and all that...


Harry Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm.

.....

On Mar 30, 1:49*pm, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:45:37 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:





"Dr. Henri Wilson" hw@.. wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 05:39:36 -0700 (PDT), "Y.y.Porat"


ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------

I have a theory that says photons possess a unique type of mass that
require a
variation of Newton's equation. *It is: F = 2ma

Nonsense, the Sun shares a barycentre with the photon. Until that is
measured
you can NEVER accurately measure the bending of light.

It was only a suggestion. The Pound Rebka experiment clearly proves that light
accelerates down a gravity well like anything else.

....but I agree that it is almost impossible to accurately measure the bending
of light by the sun.
As the observer moves in the Earth's orbit, a distant star initially appears to
approach the sun, then stop, then move away again pretty rapidly before
disappearing suddenly and well away from the rim. It soon reappears on the
opposite side, again well away.

All this time, the moon is blocking the sun, so the latter's edge is not
visible anyway..... and the star's movement near the edge cannot be monitored.
Eddington didn't have a hope in hell of making an accurate measurement. *

Relativists now claim that the experiment has been repeated many times with
radio telescopes and has verified Einstein. I don't believe them.

Harry Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm.

.....

As I'd said before; too bad it's still technically impossible to
perform science from the physically dark surface of our moon, or even
from its L1.

~ BG

On Mar 30, 5:04*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Mar 30, 1:49*pm, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
[....]

Nonsense, the Sun shares a barycentre with the photon. Until that is
measured
you can NEVER accurately measure the bending of light.

It was only a suggestion. The Pound Rebka experiment clearly proves that light
accelerates down a gravity well like anything else.

It shows nothing of the sort.



....but I agree that it is almost impossible to accurately measure the bending
of light by the sun.

You say this despite never having even tried to read the articles that
describe how the process works.

As the observer moves in the Earth's orbit, a distant star initially appears to
approach the sun, then stop, then move away again pretty rapidly before
disappearing suddenly and well away from the rim. It soon reappears on the
opposite side, again well away.

Ahh, the "science" of Ralph Rabbidge. Apparently science - in his mind
- is so primitive that it cannot even tell the distance between a star
and the sun.

Do you somehow think it is impossible to photograph the event and
figure out how close things are together? Or is that a daft
impossibility in your mind?



All this time, the moon is blocking the sun, so the latter's edge is not
visible anyway..... and the star's movement near the edge cannot be monitored.

Hey Ralph, the star being observed isn't behind the sun. It is only
slightly displaced - and near the edge of the sun.

Eddington didn't have a hope in hell of making an accurate measurement. *

I'd tell you to go read March's Physics Today where the process and
history of Eddington's measurement are heavily detailed, but
apparently you are too much of an invalid to go to the library and
refuse to ask your caretaker to fetch it for you.



Relativists now claim that the experiment has been repeated many times with
radio telescopes and has verified Einstein. I don't believe them.

Of course you don't want to believe. That would require you to
consider - for a minute - that your precious theories that you have
spent years of putting your huge ego into are wrong.

It isn't as if you found a flaw in the methodology, analysis, or
conclusions. You simply won't look. How pathetic is that?

Oh well...horses to water and all that...

It seems the only horse water you have is polluted with toxic
mainstream status quo.

~ BG

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:18:30 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth wrote:

On Mar 30, 5:04*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Mar 30, 1:49*pm, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
[....]

Nonsense, the Sun shares a barycentre with the photon. Until that is
measured
you can NEVER accurately measure the bending of light.

It was only a suggestion. The Pound Rebka experiment clearly proves that light
accelerates down a gravity well like anything else.

It shows nothing of the sort.



....but I agree that it is almost impossible to accurately measure the bending
of light by the sun.

You say this despite never having even tried to read the articles that
describe how the process works.

As the observer moves in the Earth's orbit, a distant star initially appears to
approach the sun, then stop, then move away again pretty rapidly before
disappearing suddenly and well away from the rim. It soon reappears on the
opposite side, again well away.

Ahh, the "science" of Ralph Rabbidge. Apparently science - in his mind
- is so primitive that it cannot even tell the distance between a star
and the sun.

Do you somehow think it is impossible to photograph the event and
figure out how close things are together? Or is that a daft
impossibility in your mind?



All this time, the moon is blocking the sun, so the latter's edge is not
visible anyway..... and the star's movement near the edge cannot be monitored.

Hey Ralph, the star being observed isn't behind the sun. It is only
slightly displaced - and near the edge of the sun.

Eddington didn't have a hope in hell of making an accurate measurement. *

I'd tell you to go read March's Physics Today where the process and
history of Eddington's measurement are heavily detailed, but
apparently you are too much of an invalid to go to the library and
refuse to ask your caretaker to fetch it for you.



Relativists now claim that the experiment has been repeated many times with
radio telescopes and has verified Einstein. I don't believe them.

Of course you don't want to believe. That would require you to
consider - for a minute - that your precious theories that you have
spent years of putting your huge ego into are wrong.

It isn't as if you found a flaw in the methodology, analysis, or
conclusions. You simply won't look. How pathetic is that?

Oh well...horses to water and all that...

It seems the only horse water you have is polluted with toxic
mainstream status quo.

Poor little eric would love to be a physicist like me but simply doesn't have
the brains.


~ BG



Harry Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm.

......

"Dr. Henri Wilson" hw@.. wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:18:30 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:

On Mar 30, 5:04 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Mar 30, 1:49 pm, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
[....]

Nonsense, the Sun shares a barycentre with the photon. Until that is
measured
you can NEVER accurately measure the bending of light.

It was only a suggestion. The Pound Rebka experiment clearly proves
that light
accelerates down a gravity well like anything else.

It shows nothing of the sort.



....but I agree that it is almost impossible to accurately measure the
bending
of light by the sun.

You say this despite never having even tried to read the articles that
describe how the process works.

As the observer moves in the Earth's orbit, a distant star initially
appears to
approach the sun, then stop, then move away again pretty rapidly
before
disappearing suddenly and well away from the rim. It soon reappears on
the
opposite side, again well away.

Ahh, the "science" of Ralph Rabbidge. Apparently science - in his mind
- is so primitive that it cannot even tell the distance between a star
and the sun.

Do you somehow think it is impossible to photograph the event and
figure out how close things are together? Or is that a daft
impossibility in your mind?



All this time, the moon is blocking the sun, so the latter's edge is
not
visible anyway..... and the star's movement near the edge cannot be
monitored.

Hey Ralph, the star being observed isn't behind the sun. It is only
slightly displaced - and near the edge of the sun.

Eddington didn't have a hope in hell of making an accurate
measurement.

I'd tell you to go read March's Physics Today where the process and
history of Eddington's measurement are heavily detailed, but
apparently you are too much of an invalid to go to the library and
refuse to ask your caretaker to fetch it for you.



Relativists now claim that the experiment has been repeated many times
with
radio telescopes and has verified Einstein. I don't believe them.

Of course you don't want to believe. That would require you to
consider - for a minute - that your precious theories that you have
spent years of putting your huge ego into are wrong.

It isn't as if you found a flaw in the methodology, analysis, or
conclusions. You simply won't look. How pathetic is that?

Oh well...horses to water and all that...

It seems the only horse water you have is polluted with toxic
mainstream status quo.

Poor little eric would love to be a physicist like me but simply doesn't
have
the brains.

Wackypedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof
lists:


1 Direct proof
2 Proof by induction
3 Proof by transposition
4 Proof by contradiction
5 Proof by construction
6 Proof by exhaustion
7 Probabilistic proof
8 Combinatorial proof
9 Nonconstructive proof
10 Elementary proof

Not included:

11 Proof by "everybody knows" (proof by popular opinion).
12 Proof by "because I say so" (proof by assertion).
13 Proof by "it is written" (proof by appeal to authority).
14 Proof by "you prove it isn't!" (proof by simple denial).
15 Proof by "what about the tooth fairy?"(proof by irrelevance).
16 Proof by "I'm smarter than you, so there!" (proof by bluster).
17 Proof by "read a text book" (proof by bluster revision 2).

and ultimate counter proof:

18 Proof by "You'r'n'asshole!" (proof by ad hominem attack).


Proof 18 is my favorite, I use it often. It is very effective when used
against proofs 11-17. Fight fire with fire, I say. Proofs 1-10 have me
defeated, they prevent me from using proofs 11-17 and I have to bite
the bullet and embarrass myself to win the argument (which I must do
at all costs upon pain of death by diarrhea of the verbal kind).

On 29 mar, 23:36, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 05:39:36 -0700 (PDT), "Y.y.Porat"
wrote:





On Mar 29, 6:45*am, "Charles Manoras" wrote:
*Prends un GPS, le plus couteux de preference.

Fais joujou avec et verifie qu'il marche tres bien
et qu'il est tout fait a precis (Einstein).

Mets ton GPS sur une grosse pierre et laisse tomber
une autre grosse pierre dessus (Newton).

C'est une experience tres convaincante qui prouve
que le GPS en depit de ses corrections relativistes
est allergique a la gravitation.

---------------------
in any case
it has nothing to do with
curved space
it is indeed gravitation between
th e *mass of the sun
AND THE *MASS OF THE PHOTON !!

** no mass no real physics **

(pas une *mass pas-- real physique *??? *(:-))

Mr Charles
please say it and write it in French

so that even French people will know it
from now on and ever
and please dont forget who said that first

ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------

I have a theory that says photons possess a unique type of mass that require a
variation of Newton's equation. *It is: F = 2ma

Harry Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm.

I have a theory that l'Univers... est "stereo" (deux forces F1 et F2).

F1 = m * a

F2 = m * a * (v/c)

Pour v=c , F1+ F2 = 2 * m * a

Pour vc, F1 + F2 = m * a * ( 1 + (v/c))

Au revoir.

On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 13:38:07 -0700 (PDT), Xaustein wrote:

On 29 mar, 23:36, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 05:39:36 -0700 (PDT), "Y.y.Porat"
wrote:





On Mar 29, 6:45*am, "Charles Manoras" wrote:
*Prends un GPS, le plus couteux de preference.

Fais joujou avec et verifie qu'il marche tres bien
et qu'il est tout fait a precis (Einstein).

Mets ton GPS sur une grosse pierre et laisse tomber
une autre grosse pierre dessus (Newton).

C'est une experience tres convaincante qui prouve
que le GPS en depit de ses corrections relativistes
est allergique a la gravitation.

---------------------
in any case
it has nothing to do with
curved space
it is indeed gravitation between
th e *mass of the sun
AND THE *MASS OF THE PHOTON !!

** no mass no real physics **

(pas une *mass pas-- real physique *??? *(:-))

Mr Charles
please say it and write it in French

so that even French people will know it
from now on and ever
and please dont forget who said that first

ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------

I have a theory that says photons possess a unique type of mass that require a
variation of Newton's equation. *It is: F = 2ma

Harry Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm.

I have a theory that l'Univers... est "stereo" (deux forces F1 et F2).

F1 = m * a

F2 = m * a * (v/c)

Pour v=c , F1+ F2 = 2 * m * a

Pour vc, F1 + F2 = m * a * ( 1 + (v/c))

Au revoir.

New theories are good for the mind if nothing else.


Harry Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm.

......

On Mar 29, 11:36*pm, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 05:39:36 -0700 (PDT), "Y.y.Porat"
wrote:



On Mar 29, 6:45*am, "Charles Manoras" wrote:
*Prends un GPS, le plus couteux de preference.

Fais joujou avec et verifie qu'il marche tres bien
et qu'il est tout fait a precis (Einstein).

Mets ton GPS sur une grosse pierre et laisse tomber
une autre grosse pierre dessus (Newton).

C'est une experience tres convaincante qui prouve
que le GPS en depit de ses corrections relativistes
est allergique a la gravitation.

---------------------
in any case
it has nothing to do with
curved space
it is indeed gravitation between
th e *mass of the sun
AND THE *MASS OF THE PHOTON !!

** no mass no real physics **

(pas une *mass pas-- real physique *??? *(:-))

Mr Charles
please say it and write it in French

so that even French people will know it
from now on and ever
and please dont forget who said that first

ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------

I have a theory that says photons possess a unique type of mass that require a
variation of Newton's equation. *It is: F = 2ma

Harry Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm.

.....

--------------------
the only thing i agree is
that th e photon is a limit case
in which it **can ** move at c
does it fit your theory ??

ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------------

On Apr 1, 1:23*pm, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 13:38:07 -0700 (PDT), Xaustein wrote:
On 29 mar, 23:36, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 05:39:36 -0700 (PDT), "Y.y.Porat"
wrote:

On Mar 29, 6:45*am, "Charles Manoras" wrote:
*Prends un GPS, le plus couteux de preference.

Fais joujou avec et verifie qu'il marche tres bien
et qu'il est tout fait a precis (Einstein).

Mets ton GPS sur une grosse pierre et laisse tomber
une autre grosse pierre dessus (Newton).

C'est une experience tres convaincante qui prouve
que le GPS en depit de ses corrections relativistes
est allergique a la gravitation.

---------------------
in any case
it has nothing to do with
curved space
it is indeed gravitation between
th e *mass of the sun
AND THE *MASS OF THE PHOTON !!

** no mass no real physics **

(pas une *mass pas-- real physique *??? *(:-))

Mr Charles
please say it and write it in French

so that even French people will know it
from now on and ever
and please dont forget who said that first

ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------

I have a theory that says photons possess a unique type of mass that require a
variation of Newton's equation. *It is: F = 2ma

Harry Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm.

I have a theory that l'Univers... est "stereo" (deux forces F1 et F2).

F1 = m * a

F2 = m * a * (v/c)

Pour v=c , F1+ F2 = 2 * m * a

Pour vc, *F1 + F2 = m * a ** ( 1 + (v/c))

Au revoir.

New theories are good for the mind if nothing else.

Harry Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm.

Except never within Usenet/newsgroups, whereas only the Zionist Nazi
interpretation is what matters, and revisionism is simply taboo no
matters what the consequences.

~ BG

On Apr 2, 7:56*am, "Y.y.Porat" wrote:
On Mar 29, 11:36*pm, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:



On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 05:39:36 -0700 (PDT), "Y.y.Porat"
wrote:

On Mar 29, 6:45*am, "Charles Manoras" wrote:
*Prends un GPS, le plus couteux de preference.

Fais joujou avec et verifie qu'il marche tres bien
et qu'il est tout fait a precis (Einstein).

Mets ton GPS sur une grosse pierre et laisse tomber
une autre grosse pierre dessus (Newton).

C'est une experience tres convaincante qui prouve
que le GPS en depit de ses corrections relativistes
est allergique a la gravitation.

---------------------
in any case
it has nothing to do with
curved space
it is indeed gravitation between
th e *mass of the sun
AND THE *MASS OF THE PHOTON !!

** no mass no real physics **

(pas une *mass pas-- real physique *??? *(:-))

Mr Charles
please say it and write it in French

so that even French people will know it
from now on and ever
and please dont forget who said that first

ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------

I have a theory that says photons possess a unique type of mass that require a
variation of Newton's equation. *It is: F = 2ma

Harry Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm.

.....

--------------------
the only thing i agree is
that the*photon is a limit case
in which it **can ** move at c
does it fit your theory *??

ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------------

2c seems technically doable, and perhaps positrons can manage this
velocity in the form of anti-matter or as gravitons of anti-matter.

~ BG