Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!nntp.TheWorld.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass?
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 18:06:37 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: The World : www.TheWorld.com : Since 1989
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <o7kvfd$624$2@pcls7.std.com>
References: <o7c2ul$scu$1@gioia.aioe.org> <o7fvor$rsg$1@news.albasani.net>  <o7hb5p$6fm$1@gioia.aioe.org> <o7hlpp$rvu$1@news.albasani.net> <o7jnm7$1v8m$1@gioia.aioe.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: pcls7.std.com 1486749997 6212 192.74.137.71 (10 Feb 2017 18:06:37 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 18:06:37 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: nn/6.6.5
Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:408737

"HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> writes:

>On 09/02/17 23:03, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> On 09.02.2017 10:01, HGW... DSc. wrote:

>>>> Which we now know is the correct prediction.
>>>
>>> Who knows that? Nobody has verified it. In fact not one aspect of
>>> Einstein's theories has been verified.
>>
>> Newtonian gravitation predicts that
>> the PPN parameter gamma is zero,
>> while GR predicts it is 1.
>>
>> Measurements show:
>>
>> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
>>   gamma = 0.997 ± 0.003
>>
>> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
>>   gamma - 1 = (-1.3 ± 5.2) x 10^-5
>>
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
>>   gamma = 0.9998 ± 0.0004
>>
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf
>>   gamma = 0.9998 ± 0.0003
>>
>> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf
>>   gamma - 1 = (-4.8 ± 5.7) x 10^-5
>>
>> 'nuff said!
>>
>These worthless experiments reveal the lengths to which desperate 
>Einstein supporters will go to try to prove just one aspect of his silly 
>theories correct. They all knew the answer they wanted and incorporated 
>enough approximations and estimates to get close to it.
>Good try, Paul! We know how the Einstein conspirators work.

>There are plenty of simple experiments that show light speed varies. 
>That's all we need to know.

Ralph, tell us why you believe experiments that are so simple that they
don't have the accuracy to tell the difference between c and c±v, yet
you poo-poo the more sophisticated experiments Paul lists that really
can tell the difference, and show that light from a moving source really
does move at c relative to the destination.