🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mar 2, 9:55 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 2, 4:24 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 8:20 am, steve O <steve.g.oa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > My first posting to this group - may be my last :-)
> > > Why is there so much anger on this group when the subject is physics ?
> > > If some physics is 'wrong' then it will soon be found out by someone
> > > doing an experiment ?
> > > Swearing at others or getting so emotional is not going to convince
> > > anyone ?
> > > If engineers are compensating for GR and SR time dilation in the GPS
> > > satellite positioning system then relativity must have something going
> > > for it - the reason I say this is because many engineers have been
> > > extremely sceptical about SR over the years but they now embrace it.
> > > For all those people who can't accept the results of relativity - can
> > > they point to some prediction that has been shown to be false by
> > > experiment ?
>
> > Sure, that's easy. The anti-relativists point to any
> > experimental test and say "they're lying, obviously
> > the real result disproved relativity" or "I'll bet they
> > never even performed that experiment".
>
> > Ta-da, relativity disproved!
>
> >          - Randy
>
> Randy Randy things are simpler than that. You consider for instance
> the Pound-Rebka result
>
> f' = f(1+V/c^2)
>
> where f is frequency and V is gravitational potential, and then you
> discover whether it confirms Einstein's 1911 equation

Still struggling with the concept of the scientific
method, I see.

(Hint: the final theory was released in 1915. You
know this.)

              - Randy