🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 13, 7:58 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> The experimental support of SR in essentially all non-gravitational
> contexts is solid and unassailable (except in certain ways by experts
> blazing a trail toward quantum gravity -- look up "doubly special
> relativity", but be prepared for advanced math). SR is one of the
> best-tested theories we have, and within its domain of applicability
> there is not a single reliable and reproducible experiment which
> contradicts its predictions. SR and GR are also inflexible
> theoretically: attempting to modify SR and/or GR is like being "a little
> bit pregnant" -- there are no simple modifications possible (the experts
> know this, and take it into account in pursuing QG). Cranks like Baird
> (and many others around here) simply do not have a clue about how to do
> physics, or what physics really is.

Your sycophancy will not work, Honest Roberts. Perimeter Institute is
closed for you forever. The "experts" you worship so desperately are
so silly that they don't even know that both Einstein's and Newton's
theories predict light bending in a gravitational field:

http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca/mediasite/viewer/NoPopupRedirector.aspx?peid=5f32739a-624d-4ec8-9ecc-4d44d3d16fe9&shouldResize=False
Lee Smolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight
lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see
it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...."

As you can see, Lee Smolin does not need you Honest Roberts. He is
much sillier than you and if you go to the Perimeter Institute he will
have to leave....

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com