🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 21, 8:17 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 21, 9:46 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm going to let your usual spouting about original thinking and
> parroting slide by, to focus on one key issue below:
------------------
you focus on just one issue
because you have a real answer for
all the other issues that i raised !!!
that is demagogism
------------

>
> > 3
> > as far as i heard the difference
> > between the 'Newtonian calculation and GR calculation is
> > quantitatively about  2  times magnitude
> > that is not a fantastic difference
>
> This is where you are DEAD wrong. If you have a measurement
> sensitivity of a percent or so, then a factor of 2 is as wide as the
> sea, and it is clearly enough to rule out one completely and accept
------------
the one who have no practical sense of measurement is you not me
yur se;ective senses can see a mice
but no see that at the same time
an Elephant is satnding right before the mice !!
i ddint emphasize the principal argument
that is much bigger than the figures
of 2 here or 3 there
it is the
**mathematial prove that
THE PHOTON HAS MASS BY
 E= hf  !!
that should be enopugh to abolish stupid
curved soace trime for sensible people ahio are real physicists
it seems that you are not a physicist
you are a cleargy man
not only a cleary man but one who have a deeep  personal interrst in
keepinng all he old
aprrotong !
or else** how can you come to morow to your students and  much of all
i tought you until now is nonsense
and i was wasting your time and mioney
and  much worse --*precious time **
and i turned you to little parrots like myself ??
whiloe you are not a brave and honest
enough  person ???
-----------

> the other. This is the *whole point* of quantitative experiment -- to
> make a measurement with sufficient precision to unambiguously discern
> which model is right and which model is wrong.
> ----------------------
you have a wonderful quantitative sense
to see fleas   but not to see
elephants standing right before them !!
----------
> You have the completely incorrect impression that, once you get a
> model within the ballpark, then the rest is just fiddling and fitting.
> That is wrong, wrong, wrong, and it is not how science works, nor how
> it should work.
> -------------
you can say 100 times **wrong**
that is because you are an emotional thru believer in a religion not
in real physics
while you are the wrong  one

if youwould look properly to how GR was built and used
you would find that it could not work at its nnase
unless its basic figures were fiffled in to  the
formulas !!!
a correction of magnitude 2
is much less wrong than the cheating
fiddling in that was done in GR !!
and btw
there is nothing wrong i fitting formula to data
that is actually the only way how pioneering science cam   be don !!
now
since you never in your life did any
pioneering science
how can **you** be presumptuous enough
to  teach *me* how pioneering science is done ??
Keep well
Y.Porat
-----------------------


> PD