Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #361593 > unrolled thread

PROOFS OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY: EITHER FRAUDULENT OR INCONCLUSIVE

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  PROOFS OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY: EITHER FRAUDULENT OR INCONCLUSIVE Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-22 23:05 -0700
    Re: PROOFS OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY: EITHER FRAUDULENT OR INCONCLUSIVE Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-22 23:42 -0700
      Re: PROOFS OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY: EITHER FRAUDULENT OR INCONCLUSIVE Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-23 11:17 -0700
        Re: PROOFS OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY: EITHER FRAUDULENT OR INCONCLUSIVE Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-23 14:11 -0700
          Re: PROOFS OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY: EITHER FRAUDULENT OR INCONCLUSIVE Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-23 15:01 -0700
            Re: PROOFS OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY: EITHER FRAUDULENT OR INCONCLUSIVE Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-23 16:46 -0700
    Re: PROOFS OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY: EITHER FRAUDULENT OR INCONCLUSIVE Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-08-23 16:59 +1000
      Re: PROOFS OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY: EITHER FRAUDULENT OR INCONCLUSIVE Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-23 09:03 +0200
      Re: PROOFS OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY: EITHER FRAUDULENT OR INCONCLUSIVE Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-23 00:20 -0700
        Re: PROOFS OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY: EITHER FRAUDULENT OR INCONCLUSIVE Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-08-24 11:05 +1000

#361593 — PROOFS OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY: EITHER FRAUDULENT OR INCONCLUSIVE

http://preterism.ning.com/forum/topics/can-we-trust-the-data 
 "Consider the case of astronomer Walter Adams. In 1925 he tested Einstein's theory of relativity by measuring the red shift of the binary companion of Sirius, brightest star in the sky. Einstein's theory predicted a red shift of six parts in a hundred thousand; Adams found just such an effect. A triumph for relativity. However, in 1971, with updated estimates of the mass and radius of Sirius, it was found that the predicted red shift should have been much larger - 28 parts in a hundred thousand. Later observations of the red shift did indeed measure this amount, showing that Adams' observations were flawed. He "saw" what he had expected to see." 

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AAS...21530404H 
 "In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt. Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the "Einstein shift" in Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams' 1925 published results agreed remarkably well with Eddington's estimate. Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of General Relativity (after Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance and the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). It has been known for some time that both Eddington's estimate and Adams' measurement underestimated the true Sirius B gravitational redshift by a factor of four." 

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1980QJRAS..21..246H 
 "...Eddington asked Adams to attempt the measurement. (...) ...Adams reported an average differential redshift of nineteen kilometers per second, very nearly the predicted gravitational redshift. Eddington was delighted with the result... (...) In 1928 Joseph Moore at the Lick Observatory measured differences between the redshifts of Sirius and Sirius B... (...) ...the average was nineteen kilometers per second, precisely what Adams had reported. (...) More seriously damaging to the reputation of Adams and Moore is the measurement in the 1960s at Mount Wilson by Jesse Greenstein, J.Oke, and H.Shipman. They found a differential redshift for Sirius B of roughly eighty kilometers per second." 

http://irfu.cea.fr/Phocea/file.php?file=Ast/2774/RELATIVITE-052-456.pdf 
 Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud: "Le monde entier a cru pendant plus de cinquante ans à une théorie non vérifiée. Car, nous le savons aujourd'hui, les premières preuves, issues notamment d'une célèbre éclipse de 1919, n'en étaient pas. Elles reposaient en partie sur des manipulations peu avouables visant à obtenir un résultat connu à l'avance, et sur des mesures entachées d'incertitudes, quand il ne s'agissait pas de fraudes caractérisées. (...) Autour de l'étoile brillante Sirius, on découvre une petite étoile, Sirius B, à la fois très chaude et très faiblement lumineuse. Pour expliquer ces deux particularités, il faut supposer que l'étoile est aussi massive que le Soleil et aussi petite qu'une planète comme la Terre. C'est Eddington lui-même qui aboutit à cette conclusion dont il voit vite l'intérêt : avec de telles caractéristiques, ces naines blanches sont extrêmement denses et leur gravité très puissante. Le décalage vers le rouge de la gravitation est donc 100 fois plus élevé que sur le Soleil. Une occasion inespérée pour mesurer enfin quelque chose d'appréciable. Eddington s'adresse aussitôt à Walter Adams, directeur de l'observatoire du mont Wilson, en Californie, afin que le télescope de 2,5 m de diamètre Hooker entreprenne les vérifications. Selon ses estimations, basées sur une température de 8 000 degrés de Sirius B, mesurée par Adams lui-même, le décalage vers le rouge prédit par la relativité, en s'élevant à 20 km/s, devrait être facilement mesurable. Adams mobilise d'urgence le grand télescope et expose 28 plaques photographiques pour réaliser la mesure. Son rapport, publié le 18 mai 1925, est très confus car il mesure des vitesses allant de 2 à 33 km/s. Mais, par le jeu de corrections arbitraires dont personne ne comprendra jamais la logique, le décalage passe finalement à 21 km/s, plus tard corrigé à 19 km/s, et Eddington de conclure : "Les résultats peuvent être considérés comme fournissant une preuve directe de la validité du troisième test de la théorie de la relativité générale." Adams et Eddington se congratulent, ils viennent encore de "prouver" Einstein. Ce résultat, pourtant faux, ne sera pas remis en cause avant 1971. Manque de chance effectivement, la première mesure de température de Sirius B était largement inexacte : au lieu des 8 000 degrés envisagés par Eddington, l'étoile fait en réalité près de 30 000 degrés. Elle est donc beaucoup plus petite, sa gravité est plus intense et le décalage vers le rouge mesurable est de 89 km/s. C'est ce qu'aurait dû trouver Adams sur ses plaques s'il n'avait pas été "influencé" par le calcul erroné d'Eddington. L'écart est tellement flagrant que la suspicion de fraude a bien été envisagée." 

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#361594

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar/20-things-you-didn.t-know-about-relativity 
 "The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919. Eminent British physicist Arthur Eddington declared general relativity a success, catapulting Einstein into fame and onto coffee mugs. In retrospect, it seems that Eddington fudged the results, throwing out photos that showed the wrong outcome. No wonder nobody noticed: At the time of Einstein's death in 1955, scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in action."

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-wonderful-100th-anniversary-gift-for.html 
 Sabine Hossenfelder: "As light carries energy and is thus subject of gravitational attraction, a ray of light passing by a massive body should be slightly bent towards it. This is so both in Newton's theory of gravity and in Einstein's, but Einstein's deflection is by a factor two larger than Newton's. (...) As history has it, Eddington's original data actually wasn't good enough to make that claim with certainty. His measurements had huge error bars due to bad weather and he also might have cherry-picked his data because he liked Einstein's theory a little too much. Shame on him." 

http://www.reformation.edu/scripture-science-stott/aarch/pages/10-soddy-to-nobel-prizewinners.htm 
 Frederick Soddy: "Incidentally the attempt to verify this during a recent solar eclipse, provided the world with the most disgusting spectacle perhaps ever witnessed of the lengths to which a preconceived notion can bias what was supposed to be an impartial scientific inquiry. For Eddington, who was one of the party, and ought to have been excluded as an ardent supporter of the theory that was under examination, in his description spoke of the feeling of dismay which ran through the expedition when it appeared at one time that Einstein might be wrong! Remembering that in this particular astronomical investigation, the corrections for the normal errors of observation - due to diffraction, temperature changes, and the like - exceeded by many times the magnitude of the predicted deflection of the star's ray being looked for, one wonders exactly what this sort of "science" is really worth." 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16321935.300-ode-to-albert.html 
 New Scientist: Ode to Albert: "Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light-bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned at that time. Had Eddington not been so receptive to Einstein's theory, he might not have reached such strong conclusions so soon, and the world would have had to wait for more accurate eclipse measurements to confirm general relativity." 

http://www.epubsbook.com/books/2203_7.html 
 Stephen Hawking: "Einsteins prediction of light deflection could not be tested immediately in 1915, because the First World War was in progress, and it was not until 1919 that a British expedition, observing an eclipse from West Africa, showed that light was indeed deflected by the sun, just as predicted by the theory. This proof of a German theory by British scientists was hailed as a great act of reconciliation between the two countries after the war. It is ionic, therefore, that later examination of the photographs taken on that expedition showed the errors were as great as the effect they were trying to measure. Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science."

http://irfu.cea.fr/Phocea/file.php?file=Ast/2774/RELATIVITE-052-456.pdf 
 Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud: "L'expédition britannique envoie deux équipes indépendantes sur le trajet de l'éclipse : l'une dirigée par Andrew Crommelin dans la ville de Sobral, dans le nord du Brésil, l'autre conduite par Eddington lui-même sur l'île de Principe, en face de Libreville, au Gabon. Le matériel embarqué est des plus sommaires au regard des moyens actuels : une lunette astronomique de seulement 20 cm de diamètre en chaque lieu, avec un instrument de secours de 10 cm à Sobral. Pour éviter l'emploi d'une monture mécanique trop lourde à transporter, la lumière est dirigée vers les lunettes par de simples miroirs mobiles, ce qui se révélera être une bien mauvaise idée. La stratégie est assez complexe. Il s'agit d'exposer des plaques photographiques durant l'éclipse pour enregistrer la position d'un maximum d'étoiles autour du Soleil, puis de comparer avec des plaques témoins de la même région du ciel obtenues de nuit, quelques mois plus tard. La différence des positions entre les deux séries de plaques, avec et sans le Soleil, serait la preuve de l'effet de la relativité et le résultat est bien sûr connu à l'avance. Problème non négligeable : la différence attendue est minuscule. Au maximum, au bord même du Soleil, l'écart prévu est seulement de un demi dix-millième de degré, soit très précisément 1,75 seconde d'arc (1,75"), correspondant à l'écart entre les deux bords d'une pièce de monnaie observée à 3 km de distance ! Or, quantités d'effets parasites peuvent contaminer les mesures, la qualité de l'émulsion photographique, les variations dans l'atmosphère terrestre, la dilatation des miroirs... Le jour J, l'équipe brésilienne voit le ciel se dégager au dernier moment mais Eddington n'aperçoit l'éclipse qu'à travers les nuages ! Sa quête est très maigre, tout juste deux plaques sur lesquelles on distingue à peine cinq étoiles. Pressé de rentrer en Angleterre, Eddington ne prend même pas la précaution d'attendre les plaques témoins. Les choses vont beaucoup mieux à Sobral : 19 plaques avec plus d'une dizaine d'étoiles et huit plaques prises avec la lunette de secours. L'équipe reste sur place deux mois pour réaliser les fameuses plaques témoins et, le 25 août, tout le monde est en Angleterre. Eddington se lance dans des calculs qu'il est le seul à contrôler, décidant de corriger ses propres mesures avec des plaques obtenues avec un autre instrument, dans une autre région du ciel, autour d'Arcturus. Il conclut finalement à une déviation comprise entre 1,31" et 1,91" : le triomphe d'Einstein est assuré ! Très peu sûr de sa méthode, Eddington attend anxieusement les résultats de l'autre expédition qui arrivent en octobre, comme une douche froide : suivant une méthode d'analyse rigoureuse, l'instrument principal de Sobral a mesuré une déviation de seulement 0,93". La catastrophe est en vue. S'ensuivent de longues tractations entre Eddington et Dyson, directeurs respectifs des observatoires de Cambridge et de Greenwich. On repêche alors les données de la lunette de secours de Sobral, qui a le bon goût de produire comme résultat un confortable 1,98", et le tour de passe-passe est joué. Dans la publication historique de la Royal Society, on lit comme justification une simple note : "Il reste les plaques astrographiques de Sobral qui donnent une déviation de 0,93", discordantes par une quantité au-delà des limites des erreurs accidentelles. Pour les raisons déjà longuement exposées, peu de poids est accordé à cette détermination." Plus loin, apparaît la conclusion catégorique: "Les résultats de Sobral et Principe laissent peu de doute qu'une déviation de la lumière existe au voisinage du Soleil et qu'elle est d'une amplitude exigée par la théorie de la relativité généralisée d'Einstein." Les données gênantes ont donc tout simplement été escamotées." 

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#361621

http://www.martinezwritings.com/m/Relativity.html 
 Alberto Martinez: "Does the speed of light depend on the speed of its source? Before formulating his theory of special relativity, Albert Einstein spent a few years trying to formulate a theory in which the speed of light depends on its source, just like all material projectiles. Likewise, Walter Ritz outlined such a theory, where none of the peculiar effects of Einstein's relativity would hold. By 1913 most physicists abandoned such efforts, accepting the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light. Yet five decades later all the evidence that had been said to prove that the speed of light is independent of its source had been found to be defective." 

Two examples of defective (more precisely, fraudulent) but glorious confirmation of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_double_star_experiment 
 "The de Sitter effect was described by de Sitter in 1913 and used to support the special theory of relativity against a competing 1908 emission theory by Walter Ritz that postulated a variable speed of light. De Sitter showed that Ritz's theory predicted that the orbits of binary stars would appear more eccentric than consistent with experiment and with the laws of mechanics, however, the experimental result was negative. This was confirmed by Brecher in 1977 by observing the x-rays spectrum." 

Here is Brecher's paper: 

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/Brecher-K-1977.pdf 
 K. Brecher, "Is the Speed of Light Independent of the Velocity of the Source?" 

Brecher (originally de Sitter) applies the emission theory to a system with unknown parameters and informs the gullible world that, if the emission theory was correct, the system would produce "peculiar effects". So Brecher has no idea how the gravitational field of the system affects the emitted light, and accordingly calculates the "peculiar effects" by implicitly assuming that the gravitational field can be ignored. 

Needless to say, the system does not produce the strawman "peculiar effects". Conclusion: Ritz's emission theory (more precisely, the assumption that the speed of light depends on the speed of the emitter) is unequivocally refuted, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. 

A refutation of this kind can only be valid in Einstein's schizophrenic world. Note that it cannot be criticized - the fact that the parameters of the double star system are unknown prevents critics from showing why exactly the "peculiar effects" are absent. 

Michael Fowler teaches that, although the double-star tests "have been criticized", Alväger experiment "is unambiguous", Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity: 

http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/michelson.html 
 Michael Fowler, University of Virginia: "There is another obvious possibility, which is called the emitter theory: the light travels at 186,300 miles per second relative to the source of the light. The analogy here is between light emitted by a source and bullets emitted by a machine gun. The bullets come out at a definite speed (called the muzzle velocity) relative to the barrel of the gun. If the gun is mounted on the front of a tank, which is moving forward, and the gun is pointing forward, then relative to the ground the bullets are moving faster than they would if shot from a tank at rest. The simplest way to test the emitter theory of light, then, is to measure the speed of light emitted in the forward direction by a flashlight moving in the forward direction, and see if it exceeds the known speed of light by an amount equal to the speed of the flashlight. Actually, this kind of direct test of the emitter theory only became experimentally feasible in the nineteen-sixties. It is now possible to produce particles, called neutral pions, which decay each one in a little explosion, emitting a flash of light. It is also possible to have these pions moving forward at 185,000 miles per second when they self destruct, and to catch the light emitted in the forward direction, and clock its speed. It is found that, despite the expected boost from being emitted by a very fast source, the light from the little explosions is going forward at the usual speed of 186,300 miles per second. In the last century, the emitter theory was rejected because it was thought the appearance of certain astronomical phenomena, such as double stars, where two stars rotate around each other, would be affected. Those arguments have since been criticized, but the pion test is unambiguous. The definitive experiment was carried out by Alvager et al., Physics Letters 12, 260 (1964)." 

Here is Alväger's paper: 

https://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/ciencias/jcuevas/Teaching/Alvaeger-PL1964.pdf 
 Test of the second postulate of special relativity in the GeV region, Alväger, T.; Farley, F. J. M.; Kjellman, J.; Wallin, L., 1964, Physics Letters, vol. 12, Issue 3, pp.260-262 

High energy particles bump into a beryllium target and as a result gamma photons leave the target and travel at c relative to the target. Antirelativists do not see how this can refute the emission theory but Einsteinians do. They teach that initially a pion is generated inside the beryllium target, and this pion travels at 0.9999c inside the target, and decays into two gamma photons inside the target, and therefore this pion is a moving source of light. And since the source travels at c inside the target, the gamma photons must travel at 2c if the emission theory is correct but they don't - they travel at c as gloriously predicted by Divine Albert's Divine Theory! 

Just imagine: An object travels at some speed, then disintegrates into two fragments, and the emission theory, according to Einsteinians, predicts that the fragments should travel at twice the initial speed! What an idiotic straw man! 

If the emission theory had predicted that the products of the disintegration of the pion should travel at 2c, it would be the silliest theory in the history of science. The straw man built by Alväger & Co is more than idiotic, and yet the experiment is often cited as providing the most convincing evidence in support of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate.

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#361627

On Sunday, August 23, 2015 at 12:17:33 PM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Just imagine: An object travels at some speed, then disintegrates into two
> fragments, and the emission theory, according to Einsteinians, predicts
> that the fragments should travel at twice the initial speed! What an
> idiotic straw man! 
> 
> If the emission theory had predicted that the products of the disintegration
> of the pion should travel at 2c, it would be the silliest theory in the
> history of science.

And the emission theory does indeed predict that.  The pion was the source
of the photons and the pion was traveling at 99%+ the speed of light.  The
emission theory claims that light particles travel at c wrt the source
(which is an abysmally-stupid assertion anyway), thus the photon going in
the same direction as the pion should be traveling at 1.99c and the photon
going in the opposite direction should be moving at only 0.01c.  This
was roundly refuted by Alvager's experiment.

Prevaricating Pentcho's stupidity is even worse than the stupidity of the
emission theory itself.

Gary

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#361630

On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 12:11:40 AM UTC+3, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> The
> emission theory claims that light particles travel at c wrt the source
> (which is an abysmally-stupid assertion anyway)

https://www.vs.ch/NavigData/DS_313/M31213/fr/communique%20de%20presse%20Ritz.pdf 
 "Un seul fait donnera une idée de la grandeur de Walther Ritz. Lorsque, en 1909, l'Université de Zurich met au concours le poste de professeur de physique théorique, il y a douze candidats. Parmi eux Einstein et Ritz. C'est Ritz qui est choisi sur la base du rapport du professeur Kleiner, qui a été le directeur de thèse ... d'Einstein et qui écrit de Ritz qu'il possède « un don extraordinaire, se manifestant aux limites de la génialité. » Hélas, Ritz devait décéder quelques mois plus tard des suites de sa tuberculose."

http://ritz-btr.narod.ru/martinez2004pip6.pdf 
 Alberto Martinez: "In sum, Einstein rejected the emission hypothesis prior to 1905 not because of any direct empirical evidence against it, but because it seemed to involve too many theoretical and mathematical complications. By contrast, Ritz was impressed by the lack of empirical evidence against the emission hypothesis, and he was not deterred by the mathematical difficulties it involved. It seemed to Ritz far more reasonable to assume, in the interest of the "economy" of scientific concepts, that the speed of light depends on the speed of its source, like any other projectile, rather than to assume or believe, with Einstein, that its speed is independent of the motion of its source even though it is not a wave in a medium; that nothing can go faster than light; that the length and mass of any body varies with its velocity; that there exist no rigid bodies; that duration and simultaneity are relative concepts; that the basic parallelogram law for the addition of velocities is not exactly valid; and so forth. Ritz commented that "it is a curious thing, worthy of remark, that only a few years ago one would have thought it sufficient to refute a theory to show that it entails even one or another of these consequences...."

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#361639

On Sunday, August 23, 2015 at 4:01:26 PM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 12:11:40 AM UTC+3, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > The emission theory claims that light particles travel at c wrt the
> > source (which is an abysmally-stupid assertion anyway)
> 
> https://www.vs.ch/NavigData/DS_313/M31213/fr/communique%20de%20presse%20Ritz.pdf 
>  "Un seul fait donnera une idée de la grandeur de Walther Ritz. Lorsque,
> en 1909, l'Université de Zurich met au concours le poste de professeur
> de physique théorique, il y a douze candidats. Parmi eux Einstein et Ritz.
> C'est Ritz qui est choisi sur la base du rapport du professeur Kleiner,
> qui a été le directeur de thèse ... d'Einstein et qui écrit de Ritz qu'il
> possède « un don extraordinaire, se manifestant aux limites de la
> génialité. » Hélas, Ritz devait décéder quelques mois plus tard des
> suites de sa tuberculose."

This is 2015, not 1909.  We know much more now than they did then, but
even then it should have been suspected that the emission theory was
highly suspect because of what was known for half a century about energy,
namely, that kinetic energy = 0.5*m*v^2 and what Einstein showed about
the photoelectric effect earlier in 1905, namely E = h*f.  And Milliken
demonstrated experimentally that E = h*f in 1914, so that definitely made
emission theory a dead quacker.  The proof follows:

Let's say that red photons, with a frequency of 5x10^14 Hz, has energy
of 2.07 eV (3.3x10^-19 Joule), travels at c wrt the source.  Thus it
must have a mass of m = 2*E/c^2 = 7.36x10^-36 kg.

A blue photon has a frequency of 7.5x10^14 Hz and, therefore, has an energy
of 3.1 ev (4.97x10^-19 Joule).  If it has the same mass as the red photon,
then its velocity will be v = sqrt(2*E/m) = 1.225*c.

Consequently, if a white light is flashed for one second, an observer
at rest wrt the source will see a blue flash FIRST and then a red flash
LAST.  So if a moon of Jupiter is eclipsed by the planet, when it comes
out of the eclipse, an observer on earth will see a blue moon fully five
minutes before the red light reaches him and the moon then appears white.

If the blue photon has an INCREASED mass relative to the red photon such
that its speed is still c, then relativity has been confirmed in the form
of relativistic mass, which refutes Newton's laws of motion.  Thus emission
theory is refuted by astronomical observation or the basis of classical
physics (upon which emission theory is based) is refuted.

Emission theory has been dead for a century, but there are still people
around today who are EXTREMELY logic-challenged and/or are disgustingly
dishonest.

Gary

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#361595

It's a physical theory. There are no proofs of physical theories. 
Science does not pretend otherwise.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#361597

Użytkownik "Sylvia Else"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:d3t9b0Fn5itU1@mid.individual.net...

|It's a physical theory. There are no proofs of physical theories.

Yes, there are NO.

|Science does not pretend otherwise.

Of course science does. Why do You pretend it's otherwise?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#361599

On Sunday, August 23, 2015 at 9:59:47 AM UTC+3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> It's a physical theory. There are no proofs of physical theories. 
> Science does not pretend otherwise.
> 
> Sylvia.

A silly red herring, Clever Sylvia.

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#361641

On 23/08/2015 5:20 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> On Sunday, August 23, 2015 at 9:59:47 AM UTC+3, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> It's a physical theory. There are no proofs of physical theories.
>> Science does not pretend otherwise.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> A silly red herring, Clever Sylvia.
>
> Pentcho Valev
>

You could use the correct terminology.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web