🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:01:13 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:

>In sci.physics.relativity, robert j. kolker
><nowhere@nowhere.net>
> wrote
>on Thu, 28 Oct 2004 08:00:41 -0400
><2uc5beF29pepvU1@uni-berlin.de>:
>>
>>
>> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>> Ah, good.  Chalk up another one for the GRians. :-)  Not that
>>> it matters all that much; we've observed gravitational lensing
>>> (or at least what we think is such) as well, which presumably
>>> can also be used to verify GR, although there are some issues
>>> on how one properly determines the mass of the object bending
>>> the light.
>>
>> Later more technically sophisticate experiments have corroberated GTR 
>> predictions on light bending. What more do you require?
>
>Me?  Not much.  But the trools [sic] here seem to think that there's
>something missing, and try to prove Newtonian ideans by rather
>dubious and/or questionable methods -- witness for instance
>the notion that somehow double-star orbits prove the ballistic
>theory of light with variable speed, when supernovae provide much
>stronger evidence of light's constancy of speed.
>
>Nor is it clear that a OWLS is really necessary.  The round-trip
>time of an airliner with a constant head/tailwind is
>d/(v+w) + d/(v-w) = 2vd/(v^2 - w^2) > 2d/v , in Newtonian space.
>The round-trip time of an airliner in a crabwind is
>2d*sqrt(1 + w^2/v^2)/v .  Should be easy to detect that "aether wind"
>using MMX...but no one ever has, except maybe one set of results out
>of a few dozen -- and no one's been able to verify those results.
>(I would forget the name, but he's mentioned in _Fads and Fallacies
>In The Name Of Science_ by Martin Gardner.)
>
>Not that this is proof of GR or SR, mind you.  GR and SR cannot
>be proven -- merely disproven.  But the evidence is ridiculously
>strong; 

I haven't seen any of it. Where is it?

>the best we can do is supplant relativity with something
>that is "upwardly compatible", and I for one have no idea what
>that theory would be, except that it's not Newtonian. :-)
>
>> GTR has not yet 
>> been falsified by a vetted and reproduced experiment. Not once. GTR has 
>> been put to the test many times since 1960 when better methods of 
>> observation became available. That is 45 years and no falsification.
>
>45?  I would have thought it was older than that, but I'd have
>to look.
>
>>
>> Bob Kolker
>>
>>


HW.

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